Another Russian Rewrite of History

[Neil]

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.

All sorts of colonies had legislatures.  India and both Canadas come right to mind.

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

Got a cite for this?

The best I can find online is wikipedia (no habla espanol).  Look up 'Law 53' or 'Ley de la Mordaza'.

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.

Perhaps 'all' was overstrong.  However, there is no doubt that the US used force against nationalist movements.

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).

No it didn't.  It showed that they had every intention of bringing their colonies along the road to independence.  Then again, actions speak louder than words.

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."

Doesn't much matter.  It was just as legitimate as the Continental Congress.

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. 

Taxation designed is such a way as to expropriate is no better than expropriation itself.  Except, of course, that it was done in just such a way as to help 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.

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!   

I concede nothing.  Every single American is murderous scum, and there were plenty of stories in the American newspapers of the time about how American soldiers were being ordered to shoot prisoners, civilians, and generally misbehave.

That said, the Boer War had the advantage of being moral.

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.

I'm not particularily interested in doing so.  Some study I've been doing recently of Lord Curzon's letters as Viceroy shows an expressed desire to prepare India for self-governance, but that's as much work as I'll do.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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...

likely, though colonialism as a whole is a giant phonomenon with different nations going about it in different ways.
I seem to remember that even when colonised Morocco had it's native 'rulers' and such. Likewise for many other places where there was a game of keeping up appearances while everyone knew where the real power lay and who really ruled.

[grumbler]

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

There was no Indian legislature until 1909, and that one was still dominated by Brits (being a legislative council, and so part of the executive).  In 1918, this changed and a true legislature (with limited powers, but nonetheless a legislature) was established with elected representatives.

I am certainly not arguing that the imperial powers did not change their tune over time, simply that the US, in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, overtly eschewed colonies and was not interested in the various "scrambles" for empire... and yet that it still was treated as a heavyweight power by 1900.

[grumbler]

All sorts of colonies had legislatures.  India and both Canadas come right to mind.

Neither of them were truly colonies by the end of WW1 (and in the case of Canada, by 1840).

The best I can find online is wikipedia (no habla espanol).

Well, that's a pretty damning confession, isn't it?

Look up 'Law 53' or 'Ley de la Mordaza'.

That law was passed in 1948!    It had nothing to do with the United States.

Perhaps 'all' was overstrong.  However, there is no doubt that the US used force against nationalist movements.

But not as a matter of policy.  In fact, Governor Winship was roundly criticized by US officials and congressmen, though he was not indicted by the grand jury that met on the matter because of dobts about who started the violence.

No it didn't.  It showed that they had every intention of bringing their colonies along the road to independence.  Then again, actions speak louder than words.

This is mere weasel-wording.  The US announced that it would create no colonies, and only rule Cuba, PI, and OR long enough to establish effective local governments, and did so.  Those are the words, and the actions that backed them up.  Total US rule in Cuba was three years, the Philippines 46 years (though legislative power was granted after 10 years) and PR 49 years (though legislative power was transferred after 4 years).

Compare that to Britain's "temporary" rule over the nominally independent Egypt of 40 years or its rule over nominally not-independent India of 198 years, or France's rule over nominally-not-independent Indochina, which lasted 90 years (and was only ended by war).

Taxation designed is such a way as to expropriate is no better than expropriation itself.  Except, of course, that it was done in just such a way as to help American business interests.

This is, again, mere argument by assertion and weasel-wording (first it was "expropriation" and when that proved a lie, it became "taxation designed [in] such a way as to expropriate."  The fact of the matter is that the power which sold the land was the Pope himself, after he sent 5 cardinals to negotiate the matter directly with the US government.

I concede nothing.  Every single American is murderous scum, and there were plenty of stories in the American newspapers of the time about how American soldiers were being ordered to shoot prisoners, civilians, and generally misbehave.

  The purple prose again.  This doesn't help your argumentum ad popularum, you know!

I'm not particularily interested in doing so.  Some study I've been doing recently of Lord Curzon's letters as Viceroy shows an expressed desire to prepare India for self-governance, but that's as much work as I'll do.

I didn't think you would stick to that particular made-up argument after it was challenged! 

So, we are left with what for your arguments?  Legislatures established after our time period (and long after the US ones), laws that the US had nothing to do with, the Pope conniving at his own expropriation-equivalent, and a bunch of purple prose.  Oh, and a logical fallacy.

[Alatriste]

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.

Again, that's going too far in my opinion...

1. In truth there was no 'Allies'. The Germans sent their notes to Wilson because they knew French and British would be less... understanding. And certainly Wilson believed France and Britain would demand too much, but he couldn't speak for the Alliance.

2. Of course the Germans wanted a peace based on the 14 points, but they were never granted such a thing (and the rest of the Allies had never suscribed Wilson's 14 points either)

3. The Germans didn't sign the armistice because they received any guarantee, explicit or implicit. They signed because they were finished, the Revolution raging, the mutineers in Berlin, the Empire was no more, Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria were gone... In other words, they didn't surrender their capacity to continue the war because they were promised anything; they did because they had no such capacity anyway...

In retrospect it's clearly evident the Germans should have thrown in the towel months before, when they still could have negotiated reasonably good terms. Equally, even if that's not so evident, the Allies should have agreed amongst themselves at least what kind of peace they wanted to get, and what terms were they going to impose on Germany. But they didn't and the whole business of negotiating the armistice was shoddy and improvised.

In short, Wilhelm II, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Maximilian von Baden and the Germans in general can't have been so gullible as to believe they were going to get a peace based in the 14 points (in January 1918, perhaps, but that was 10 months before and a world apart) and can't have been so stupid as to have signed the armistice without understanding the implications. It was a barely disguised unconditional surrender and nothing else.

[grumbler]

Again, that's going too far in my opinion...

1. In truth there was no 'Allies'. The Germans sent their notes to Wilson because they knew French and British would be less... understanding. And certainly Wilson believed France and Britain would demand too much, but he couldn't speak for the Alliance.

Actually, he could speak for the Allies because he conducted negotiations with the British and French before he returned his reply to von Baden (and, in fact, gave in to the French demand for German payment of damages, which is why those provisions were in the armistice note).  It is true that there were no "Allies."  The correspondence all reads "The Allied Powers and the United States."

2. Of course the Germans wanted a peace based on the 14 points, but they were never granted such a thing (and the rest of the Allies had never suscribed Wilson's 14 points either)

The rest of the Allies did not fully accept them, but agreed to use them as the basis for negotiations.

3. The Germans didn't sign the armistice because they received any guarantee, explicit or implicit. They signed because they were finished, the Revolution raging, the mutineers in Berlin, the Empire was no more, Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria were gone... In other words, they didn't surrender their capacity to continue the war because they were promised anything; they did because they had no such capacity anyway...

Again, I think that this is going too far.  Had the German Army known what the Allied Powers had in mind for a peace settlement, I daresay they would have fought on to final defeat.

In retrospect it's clearly evident the Germans should have thrown in the towel months before, when they still could have negotiated reasonably good terms. Equally, even if that's not so evident, the Allies should have agreed amongst themselves at least what kind of peace they wanted to get, and what terms were they going to impose on Germany. But they didn't and the whole business of negotiating the armistice was shoddy and improvised.

Agree with the second point, but not so sure about the first.  The Allied Powers were not interested in negotiations by the time the German Spring Offensive had been beaten.

In short, Wilhelm II, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Maximilian von Baden and the Germans in general can't have been so gullible as to believe they were going to get a peace based in the 14 points (in January 1918, perhaps, but that was 10 months before and a world apart) and can't have been so stupid as to have signed the armistice without understanding the implications. It was a barely disguised unconditional surrender and nothing else.

To be fair, the kaiser was out of the picture.  I think it not unreasonable for the Germans to believe that they would end up in a kind of Congress of Vienna situation.  It was, of course, the bitterness when that didn't happen that led to the Second Great Unpleasantness.

[Valmy]

It was, of course, the bitterness when that didn't happen that led to the Second Great Unpleasantness.

Well...it was mostly French and British weakness combined with American isolationism that opened the power vacuum that any defeated Germany would have been hard pressed to ignore.  Japan and Italy were, after all, on the winning side and they had a pretty significant role in driving the events of the Second Great Unpleasantness.

[Eddie Teach]

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

Indeed. Your trolling skills are magnificent, almost as good as you believe your debating skills to be.

[grumbler]

Indeed. Your trolling skills are magnificent, almost as good as you believe your debating skills to be.

  Weak.  Oh, troll, where is thy sting?

[Eddie Teach]

Indeed. Your trolling skills are magnificent, almost as good as you believe your debating skills to be.

  Weak.  Oh, troll, where is thy sting?

Your comprehension is lacking though.

That backhanded compliment was dead serious.

[Tonitrus]

That last map of Tim's pretty much looks like Versailles; with the exception of Germany trading Alsace-Lorraine for forgiveness.

Well, that and Baby Marshal Tito bringing Yugoslavia into fruition a bit too early for primetime.

[grumbler]

Your comprehension is lacking though.

That backhanded compliment was dead serious.

Wow. I am crushed.

[Warspite]

That last map of Tim's pretty much looks like Versailles; with the exception of Germany trading Alsace-Lorraine for forgiveness.

Well, that and Baby Marshal Tito bringing Yugoslavia into fruition a bit too early for primetime.

Not quite sure what Italy would do with all that Dalmatian hinterland, but I presume the "Yugoslavia" on the map is meant to represent a non-Versailles universe coming together of the southern Slavs into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Without the Slovenes. Peculiar.

[jimmy olsen]

That last map of Tim's pretty much looks like Versailles; with the exception of Germany trading Alsace-Lorraine for forgiveness.

Well, that and Baby Marshal Tito bringing Yugoslavia into fruition a bit too early for primetime.

The eastern borders are much more favorable to Germany as well.

Maps not mine though, I just had it saved on my hard drive.

[Valmy]

Not quite sure what Italy would do with all that Dalmatian hinterland, but I presume the "Yugoslavia" on the map is meant to represent a non-Versailles universe coming together of the southern Slavs into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Without the Slovenes. Peculiar.

Ethnically cleanse it and resettle it with Italians?