Another Russian Rewrite of History

[grumbler]

In regards to U.S. steel production and rail capacity, I think there's a difference between being the biggest producer and being acknowledged as a legit player.

Not sure what you mean here.  A "legit player" of what game?  The European power politics game?  The US had no interest in that.  The colonial race?  The US had no interest in that. 

The facts of the United States' industrial and infrastructural might and capacity was known, but I think they were still treated as a kid trying to sit at the adult table prior to World War I.

This sounds like revisionism.  The US was treated as any other Great Power at, say, the Berlin Conference in 1884, invited like all of the other Great Powers (but none of the smaller ones) to introduce measures for discussion.  The US sent a representative, but after it became clear that the US's only two issues, free trade and the recognition of the US interest in Liberia, were going to be passed unanimously, the US opted not to take a formal part or introduce any resolutions. 

The US had as much influence in the decisions made at the Hague Conference in 1899 as any other power.  Ditto for the decisions made about how to respond to the Boxer Rebellion in 1899 - and in fact the US contributed more troops to the relief expedition than anyone but the Japanese (over half the total) and the British (one-quarter the total).

It was the Allies need to include them for their money, their industry, and their manpower that allowed the United States to truly earn a spot in Global Diplomacy on par more or less with the traditional European Great Powers.

Disagree completely.  The US already had that position.  WW1 allowed the US to have a spot in purely European diplomacy, but the US didn't want it and soon was rid of it.

[Neil]

The colonial race?  The US had no interest in that.

The war against Spain seemed to indicate otherwise.

[grumbler]

The colonial race?  The US had no interest in that.

The war against Spain seemed to indicate otherwise.

The war against Spain demonstrated the US lack of interest in colonies.  Indeed, it was the failure of the US to acquire colonies after that war that prompted the scorn in Kipling's The White Man's Burden, which was addressed to the people of the US.  It is fascinating to see how history gets distorted over time.

[Neil]

The colonial race?  The US had no interest in that.

The war against Spain seemed to indicate otherwise.

The war against Spain demonstrated the US lack of interest in colonies.  Indeed, it was the failure of the US to acquire colonies after that war that prompted the scorn in Kipling's The White Man's Burden, which was addressed to the people of the US.  It is fascinating to see how history gets distorted over time.

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.

[PDH]

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.

Grumbler's time with Dewey was a time of bonding.

[Neil]

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.

Grumbler's time with Dewey was a time of bonding.

They were never really that close, as grumbler didn't approve of that whippersnapper's newfangled tactics.

[grumbler]

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.

No, they were unincorporated territories, and the US administration of them was temporary by law.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too ignorant of the issue.

[grumbler]

Grumbler's time with Dewey was a time of bonding.

The Dewey I was with did nothing more exciting than invent a decimal system. 

Great guy, though.

[Neil]

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.

No, they were unincorporated territories, and the US administration of them was temporary by law.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too ignorant of the issue.

Keep spinning, baby.

[Razgovory]

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.

No, they were unincorporated territories, and the US administration of them was temporary by law.  Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too ignorant of the issue.

Still can't get rid of Guam or Puerto Rico.  Bastards won't leave!

[grumbler]

Still can't get rid of Guam or Puerto Rico.  Bastards won't leave!

That was the point of the unincorporated territories.  And it is what distinguishes them from colonies.

[grumbler]

Keep spinning, baby.

I am afraid that you don't come close to garnering the point, old boy.  You claim that the Spanish-American War showed that the US was interested in the "colonial game," I point out (uncontested because uncontestable) that the actual facts were different, and then you try to spin this " all colonies to some degree" bullshit.  Once one gets to the point that one has to argue the "to some degree" weasel, one has started spinning desperately to avoid a concession.

You know I don't demand that you concede.  I don't think you have it in you, and I am so amused by your schtick that I would never threaten it.  But every one sees the weasel, just like you do, and that is sufficient for me.

Now, if you want to make the argument that the US enjoyed having client states, you will get no argument from me.  That's a far cry from the colonial game, though.

[Sophie Scholl]

What's the difference between a "client state" and a "colony", other than the ability to make your point that the United States wasn't interested in the Colonial game?  Also, you really think that the United States wasn't treated like an upstart little brother at best on the global political scene prior to World War I?  You don't think that they were invited as to the various conferences and interventions as more of a junior partner as compared to the elite elders of Europe?  Revisionism is certainly being used, but I'm not so sure I'm the one using it.

[Barrister]

Still can't get rid of Guam or Puerto Rico.  Bastards won't leave!

That was the point of the unincorporated territories.  And it is what distinguishes them from colonies.

The US treatment of those territories at present doesn't extinguish their treatment in the early 20th century.  Cuba and Phillipines were US colonies in all but name.

And I'm not convinced by the reference to "client state".  The US has had plenty of client states (Panama comes to mind).  That is distinct from in particular Philippines, which was not a sovereign nation until post WWII.

[Alatriste]

I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?

The Brits and French ignored Wilson and imposed their own conditions (in violation of the Armistace arrangements, but we are not talking about the most virtuous of men).

I think that's going too far

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/armisticeterms.htm

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/President_Wilson's_Fourteen_Points

The Allies, as far as I know (and perhaps I'm wrong) assumed no obligations of any kind in the Armistice text. Even the "fourteen points" themselves aren't so terribly favorable to Germany... altough certainly Wilson's speech included portions like

"We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace- loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination."