Another Russian Rewrite of History

[Tamas]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

Oh, we're to blame for that now?

I'd say the cause of decolonization was that colonization no longer made sense, what with Indians refusing to work and Jews bombing British soldiers and all. The British people(as well as French, Germans, Americans etc) weren't willing to go along with the measures that would be needed to continue exploiting the colonies.

And the first victim takes the bait...

And despite your *unique* recognition of the trap, you spend 10 times as much time arguing over the issue as that "victim" did. 

[grumbler]

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? 

The difference is that a "client state" isn't ruled by the patron state.  The US had many of them in Latin America, and set up Cuba as one when it freed it after the Spanish-American War.

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?

No, not after the ACW or so.

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?

No, it was invited because it was a very powerful country whose interests were seen as important.

Revisionism is certainly being used, but I'm not so sure I'm the one using it.

Revisionism includes the assertion of opinion that contradicts facts.  I have given the reasons for my conclusions, and you have countered with more opinion-based assertions.  Now, if you can find some facts to support your opinions, then by all means we can debate the issue, but all you have given so far is naked assertions.

[grumbler]

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.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  The Phillipines was administered by the US much as the European colonies were adminstered by them, but only in a very distinctly temporary fashion (much like the British rule in Egypt, except for a shorter period of time).  Cuba was granted independence within three years of the end of the war (and the interim was a transition period from the start).  Cuba was as much an Ameircan colony "in all but name" as northern Germany was a British colony "in all but name" after WW2. 

And I'm not convinced by the reference to "client state".

I have no idea what this means.  What is it about the term "client state" that is unconvincing to you?

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.

You cannot have my point.

[grumbler]

And despite your *unique* recognition of the trap, you spend 10 times as much time arguing over the issue as that "victim" did. 

Nope.  I am not arguing over that issue at all.  If you read slowly, you will see that what I am debating is whether or not the US ever sought colonies, not whether "all the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization."

I guess that comment of mine must have left a mark, eh? 

[grumbler]

I think that's going too far
(snip)
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
(snip)

The Germans proposed the armistace as a precondition to peace negotiations in accordance with the Fourteen Points.  The Allies agreed to that.  The armistace conditions quoted were those of the armistace, not the subsequent negotiations (though the Allies were wise enough to exploit their own superior military position to ensure that the Germans could not threaten a return to warfare as a negotiating tactic).

In the event, there were no negotiations with Germany.  The Allies maintained the blockade on Germany, and then presented the Germans with a treaty (sans any negotiations) with the ultimatum of either signing it or face destruction of their nation at the hands of the Allies.  This was not at all what the Germans had negotiated in the leadup to the armistace, and was a direct contributing factor to WW2.

[Neil]

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.

I used 'to some degree' because the treatment of the territories varied.  Guam was a coaling station where the naval commander served as governor, and didn't become an unincorporated organized territory until 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.  Cuba was moderately self-governing, but it's foreign and financial policy were constitutionally slaved to Washington.  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.

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.

[Neil]

The Phillipines was administered by the US much as the European colonies were adminstered by them, but only in a very distinctly temporary fashion

It's actually pretty common for a colonial power to claim that their rule is temporary and they are educating the native people for eventual self-government.  Most governments did that in Africa, and the British certainly did in India.  In the meantime, the ruling people brutally suppress nationalist movements and hand economic control in the colony and land ownership over to their own business interests.

[grumbler]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Valmy]

Hitler's demands on Poland were as follow:

1. Return to Germany of the Free City of Danzig (which, btw, was a majority German independent city-state overseen by the League of Nations and not part of Poland in any way or form).

2. The right to build a road and railway line that would link Germany by land to East Prussia. That line would have extraterritorial rights, not being subject to Polish inspections.

(secretly, Germany also proposed Poland an alliance against the Soviet Union).

Hitler never asked Poland for an inch of ground. The common perception that he did, however, is indeed a nice rewrite of History.

[Ed Anger]

 

[Valmy]

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?

[PDH]

I think that just looking at the difference between the colonial governing systems of post-Berlin Conference Africa with the US system shows the difference between Grumbler's assertion of "client states" vs "colonies."  While there is obviously a similar net effect, in tying the resources of the territory to the home state, tying the populace to the home state, the goals and views underlying this seem far different to me...

If anything, some of the coaling stations in the Pacific were US colonies, but places like the Philippines and Cuba were tightly (or not so tightly) controlled satellites whose purpose was to extend influence without the ties of direct control.

[grumbler]

It's actually pretty common for a colonial power to claim that their rule is temporary and they are educating the native people for eventual self-government.  Most governments did that in Africa, and the British certainly did in India. 

If it is so common, I am sure you can come up with a half-dozen legislative acts like the Teller Amendment, say, from Britain (maybe two or three), France (one or two), Italy, Spain, or any other colonial power of the 19th century.

I would be very interested to see these cites.  No weaseling, though. You need to cite such claims that are as clear as the teller Amendment:

That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people. 

and they have to provide for the participation of the locals in the legislative process at least somewhat close to the Philippine Organic Act:

That two years after the completion and publication of the census... the President upon being satisfied thereof shall direct Commission to call, and the Commission shall call, a general election for the choice of delegates to a popular assembly of the people of said territory in the Philippine Islands, which shall be known as the Philippine Assembly. After said Assembly shall have convened and organised, all the legislative power heretofore conferred on the Philippine Commission in all that part of said Islands... shall be vested in a Legislature consisting of two Houses - the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly. Said Assembly shall consist of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred members to be apportioned by said Commission among the provinces as nearly as practicable according to population:

[grumbler]

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?"