Another Russian Rewrite of History

[jimmy olsen]

Large parts of France's army were close to mutiny, and without US support the German blockade of Britain would have likely been more severe.  If the Entente were teetering so close to collapse themselves, Germany rejecting peace terms wouldn't have gone over well.

Well that would have worked out for the Entente because we wanted to fight on to total victory than accept a negotiated settlement.  Why would they suddenly be "without US support" if they had rejected the peace settlement we didn't want?

Wasn't VonMoltke talking about a scenario where the US didn't enter the war?

[Razgovory]

Well that would have worked out for the Entente because we wanted to fight on to total victory than accept a negotiated settlement.  Why would they suddenly be "without US support" if they had rejected the peace settlement we didn't want?

You do realize that your use of pronouns without antecedents makes this completely incomprehensible, don't you?  Who is "we?"  Is the "they" that would be "without US support" the same as the "they" that "had rejected the peace settlement?"

This is one of those teacher pet peeves things isn't it?

[Ed Anger]

Pronoun trouble

[Valmy]

Wasn't VonMoltke talking about a scenario where the US didn't enter the war?

Oh well then...who the hell can say?  The US entered the war with nearly two years to go.  The strategy on both sides would have been completely different.

[Valmy]

You do realize that your use of pronouns without antecedents makes this completely incomprehensible, don't you?  Who is "we?"  Is the "they" that would be "without US support" the same as the "they" that "had rejected the peace settlement?"

Tim understood it!

[jimmy olsen]

You do realize that your use of pronouns without antecedents makes this completely incomprehensible, don't you?  Who is "we?"  Is the "they" that would be "without US support" the same as the "they" that "had rejected the peace settlement?"

Tim understood it!

I understood you had no idea what we were talking about. 

[Valmy]

I understood you had no idea what we were talking about. 

[grumbler]

This is one of those teacher pet peeves things isn't it?

Probably, but I don't think that non-teachers can make any more out of it than teachers.

[Habbaku]

Wasn't VonMoltke talking about a scenario where the US didn't enter the war?

Paths of Glory taught me that the USA was irrelevant so long as Turkey fell.   

[Neil]

I used 'to some degree' because the treatment of the territories varied.

But you used "colonies to some degree" because you knew your point was invalid and wanted to spin your way out of it.

I think I've made a good argument and have certainly convinced some Languishites.

Guam was a coaling station where the naval commander served as governor, and didn't become an unincorporated organized territory until 1950.

Guam was essentially self-governing.  The US-appointed governor seldom exercised any real authority, the one exception being the reorganization of the legal status of marriage to conform to US law.

None of which changes the fact that the supreme legal authority on Guam was a US Navy officer.  The fact that they generally ruled with a light hand doesn't change the fact that they ruled them.  The natives didn't seem to appreciate it, which led to the Guam Organic Act in 1950.

Puerto Rico, after a military occupation, had an American-esque governmental structure built for it (albeit one that was subordinate to the US government) and offered US citizenship, but the also put down all talk of independence with violence. 

The US never put down talk of independence with violence.

It was a felony to display the Puerto Rican flag in public prior to 1952.  And then there was the Ponce Massacre and general persecution of the nationalist movement.

Cuba was moderately self-governing, but it's foreign and financial policy were constitutionally slaved to Washington.

Cuba was not constitutionally permitted to sign some kinds of treaties with foreign powers until 1934, nor could it acquire certain kinds of foreign debts until that date.  Not a "kind of colony" at all, any more than Portugal was a "kind of " British colony in the mid-19th century.

Portugal wasn't conquered or ceded to Britain, nor did British subjects become Portuguese kings.  Britain, Spain and France did provide assistance to the legitimist forces in the Portuguese Civil War, but they didn't write their supremacy into the constitution that resulted.

The Philippines declared independence from Spain, but by god, the Americans were ceded those islands and sent in the army to reconquer them and liquidate the Philippine Republic, in the process slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population.

The US put down the Philippine insurrection, for sure, but this didn't make the PI a "kind of" colony.  The Teller Amendment (and every budget or law for the PI passed by Congress) ensured that the occupation would be temporary.  I am not sure what "slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population" is supposed to mean, other than demagoguery.  that there were brutal acts during the war, and tens of thousands of civilian deaths, is not contested.  There was no organized attempts to merely "slaughter" segments of the population, though.

The Teller Amendment had nothing to do with the Philippines.

At any rate, it wasn't really an insurrection.  The US conquered and dispersed the First Philippine Republic.  And while their forty-year occupation was 'temporary' (just as Britain's two-hundred year occupation of India was), the place was run in such a way as to ensure continued domination of American interests.  Take, for example, the expropriation of the vast properties of the Catholic Church, most of which went into the hands of American business interests.

As for 'slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population', that simply means that large numbers of Philippines (certainly thousands, although I saw a number on wikipedia claiming a somewhat unbelievable 1.7 million) were killed, either through direct action (shot, stabbed, burned alive, etc.) or by neglect in the concentration camps.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, you might try and weasel away by defining 'the colonial game' in such a way as to exclude the US.  However, their actions and attitudes were colonial, and it'd be interesting to hear someone make an argument otherwise.

You can try to weasel your way into implying that the US had the intention of gaining a global emire and colonies, but the fact that you ignore the Teller Amendment and resort to purple prose rather shows how wak your hand is.

Given that the Teller Amendment applied only to Cuba and was superceded by the Platt Amendment, I don't think it's particularily important.  YMMV.

[jimmy olsen]

I agree with Grumbler.  The Central Powers and Entente were both on the brink of a meltdown, although The CP's was far, far worse.  But with so much of the French army on the verge of a general mutiny and both of them exhausted whatever peace emerged might have been much easier for Germany to deal with.  It was the hundreds of thousands of fresh American troops landing that allowed them to force a total surrender. 

On the other hand, the situation in Germany might have led to a total collapse anyway, and the Reds might have made a serious move to take over.  If the Germans avoided Versailles, what condition would Central and Eastern Europe have been in to function as cohesive nations? 

I think we need Tim to make some maps.

You ask and you shall receive... secondhand scraps anyways.
I downloaded this off of alternatehistory.com ages ago.

[grumbler]

I think I've made a good argument and have certainly convinced some Languishites.

Argumentum ad popularum is a logical fallacy.

None of which changes the fact that the supreme legal authority on Guam was a US Navy officer.  The fact that they generally ruled with a light hand doesn't change the fact that they ruled them.  The natives didn't seem to appreciate it, which led to the Guam Organic Act in 1950.

What led to the Guam Organic Act was the boycott of further government by the Guamanian legislature.  Colonies don't have their own legislatures.

It was a felony to display the Puerto Rican flag in public prior to 1952.

Got a cite for this?

And then there was the Ponce Massacre and general persecution of the nationalist movement.

That does not equate to the argument that the US "also put down all talk of independence with violence."  That purple prose bites you in the ass every time, doesn't it?   

There was much talk of Puerto Rican independence that was not put down by violence.  It included congressional testimony.

The Teller Amendment had nothing to do with the Philippines.

It nevertheless demonstarted that the US congress was opposed to gaining colonies (because the case for Cuba as a colony was certainly stronger than that of the PI).

At any rate, it wasn't really an insurrection.  The US conquered and dispersed the First Philippine Republic.

The "First Philippine Republic" was a handful of people declaring themselves a government (and executing one another).  It was as much a "Philippino Republic" as North Korea is a "Democratic Republic."

And while their forty-year occupation was 'temporary' (just as Britain's two-hundred year occupation of India was), the place was run in such a way as to ensure continued domination of American interests.  Take, for example, the expropriation of the vast properties of the Catholic Church, most of which went into the hands of American business interests.

All things are temporary, but that is a feeble argument.  The US occupation of the PI was intended to be temporary from the start (and all US legislation regarding the PI referred to itself as a "temporary measure").  Argentina and Chile in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were run in such a way as to ensure the continued dominance of British interests, and yet no one calls them British colonies.  The "expropriation" of catholic lands you refer to was not expropriation at all, it was sales.  the Church had to pay taxes on non-religious properties and had to sell a lot of land to do so. 

As for 'slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population', that simply means that large numbers of Philippines (certainly thousands, although I saw a number on wikipedia claiming a somewhat unbelievable 1.7 million) were killed, either through direct action (shot, stabbed, burned alive, etc.) or by neglect in the concentration camps.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So you concede that the purple-prose "slaughter" was, in fact, merely the typical deaths one expects in a guerilla war?  Did the British "slaughter whole segments" of the Boer population in the Boer War?  Purple prose bites you again!   

Given that the Teller Amendment applied only to Cuba and was superceded by the Platt Amendment, I don't think it's particularily important.  YMMV.

The Teller Amendment was modified by the Platt Amendment, but in no fashion that changes the argument here.

Still waiting for the evidence that it was "pretty common" for nineteenth century imperial powers to explicitly state that they did not intend to permanently rule their overseas empires.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

None of which changes the fact that the supreme legal authority on Guam was a US Navy officer.  The fact that they generally ruled with a light hand doesn't change the fact that they ruled them.  The natives didn't seem to appreciate it, which led to the Guam Organic Act in 1950.

What led to the Guam Organic Act was the boycott of further government by the Guamanian legislature.  Colonies don't have their own legislatures.

what about the Raj?
iirc they had their 'own' institutions, though I'm unsure as to what extent they took orders from london?

[garbon]

Probably, but I don't think that non-teachers can make any more out of it than teachers.

That's hardly the case.

[PDH]

what about the Raj?
iirc they had their 'own' institutions, though I'm unsure as to what extent they took orders from london?

I also think that the Raj is not a great comparison to make when comparing late 19th century imperialism/colonialism.  Africa is the real test case after Belgium's adventure and the Conference of Berlin for comparing such things...