The Philippines Remains Part Of The USA..

[Kenichiro Harada]

..after World War 2. Yes or no? Is this really possible? The question was brought up recently in a conversation with a friend of mine who is Philippine. He told me that the whole condition of the country would have been in better shape if the Southeast islands would have remained part of the USA. Like the country would have had more development,security and peace.

I want this to be as realistic as possible,could the Philippines have remained with the USA as a state like Hawaii or a territory like Guam? Throw out scenarios with the Philippines not possibly wanting their independence,and staying with the USA. On a final note,I remember reading that the Philippines could have had a earlier independence..but the USA decided against it and made it a "Commonwealth" nation. Could this have happened again?

[DuQuense]

Philippine independence was one of the Conditions agreed to to stop the Philippine Insurrection in 1904, in the 1920's the date for independence was finally set for 1945,
Any POD for the Philippines becoming part of the US would have to be pre 1920's

[Markus]

The Philippines Remains Part Of The USA....after World War 2. Yes or no? Is this really possible?

The Philippines were never a part od the USA in the first place, just a colony of the US.


The question was brought up recently in a conversation with a friend of mine who is Philippine. He told me that the whole condition of the country would have been in better shape if the Southeast islands would have remained part of the USA. Like the country would have had more development,security and peace.And what´s in it for the USA? A piss-poor bunch of catholics who are not even white? No way they will allow that into the USA in any form, hence the decision to get rid of them in the 1930s. Speaking of which, that was the time of the great depression, could the cost of occupation have hastened the US desire for decolonisation?

[Sigma7]

Whether or not it would be a better place if it were a commonwealth (like Puerto Rico is) depends on the perspective of the Philippinos themselves.

The Philippines are independent because a majority of their population wanted independence. In the post WW2 world, especially after fighting a bloody 4 year war against imperialism and facist expansionism (I really can't think of a better term for it) and in a world where the Soviets had just annexed three formerly independent nations in the Baltic region and were busy installing client regimes that answered directly to Moscow in the countries they occupied (imperialism by any other name...) it would have been a repudiation by the U.S. of everything we had just fought against during the war and everything we condemned the Soviets for after the war.

If the Philippinos wanted to stay, I'm sure they'd have been welcome to stay as a commonwealth so long as a majority wanted to.

Sometimes I think we should have done something similar with Cuba and Panama in the early 20th century, that is, establish them as commonwealth protectorates, nurtured a stable democratic process for the election of their own representitive assemblies, ensured their protection against possible strongarm measures by the old colonial powers and help them develop their own stable and prosperous ecconomies, through a mix of limited private investment by comercial interests from the U.S. and other nations and direct financial assitance from the U.S. federal government in the form of loans for indigenous commercial interests and financial institutions, with trade agreements, during their period of commonwealth status that would have afforded them a sort of "favored trading partner status" that would be somewhere between a U.S. state or territory and a foreign country for terms of duties, tarriffs, etc... with agreement that after a mutually agreed upon period of time, the locals would hold a referendum vote to determine weather or not they wished to retain commonwealth status or become independent nations.

Now, if they desired to retain commonwealth status, they could do so and at any time thereafter, they could hold an referendum on independence for however long they retained commonwealth status, but once they vote for independence, it's time for them to fly on their own, because there's no comming back in once you leave, but then, if the objective of helping to build strong, independent and prosperous nations is achieved, it's doubtful they're going to want back in. That and, unless we created a unifying currency that these nations retained the use of, even after seperation, it would be an ecconomic mess to bring them back in.

Basically, the Philippines went the way most Philippinos wanted to go and the U.S. was right to honor their wishes and the agreements that were in place that created the system by which they achieved that independence.

[The Kiat]

The Philippines might be better off today if they remained American territory, preferably as a state. However, they would have problems unique to them. Can you name some of the problems?

[Francisco Cojuanco]

The Philippines might be better off today if they remained American territory, preferably as a state. However, they would have problems unique to them. Can you name some of the problems?

If the PI was a state, it would be the most-populated state in the Union. The PI has about, what, ninety million residents (I'm not counting the diaspora, either). Now compare that with California's 38 million people. Letting that big of a liability in prior to the 60's is impossible, and afterwards it's still pretty much ASB.

But let's handwave that for the moment. If it were a state, it would effectively be the deciding factor in Presidential and House elections - controlling about one quarter of seats and one quarter of electoral votes.

[Grand_Panjandrum]

If the PI was a state, it would be the most-populated state in the Union. The PI has about, what, ninety million residents (I'm not counting the diaspora, either). Now compare that with California's 38 million people. Letting that big of a liability in prior to the 60's is impossible, and afterwards it's still pretty much ASB.

But let's handwave that for the moment. If it were a state, it would effectively be the deciding factor in Presidential and House elections - controlling about one quarter of seats and one quarter of electoral votes.

If it were admitted into the Union, it would no doubt be split into separate states. Possibly Luzon and Mindanao as separate states, possible even more divisions.

[Francisco Cojuanco]

If it were admitted into the Union, it would no doubt be split into separate states. Possibly Luzon and Mindanao as separate states, possible even more divisions.

Even so, that's giving a really large share to people many mainlanders would consider "foreign." Even splitting it, collectively they make for a huge share of the vote.

[Grand_Panjandrum]

Even so, that's giving a really large share to people many mainlanders would consider "foreign." Even splitting it, collectively they make for a huge share of the vote.

Oh, there would most likely be problems, I agree.

[glenn67]

Can you say Governor Ferdinand Marcos?

[MNP]

If the PI was a state, it would be the most-populated state in the Union. The PI has about, what, ninety million residents (I'm not counting the diaspora, either). Now compare that with California's 38 million people. Letting that big of a liability in prior to the 60's is impossible, and afterwards it's still pretty much ASB.

But let's handwave that for the moment. If it were a state, it would effectively be the deciding factor in Presidential and House elections - controlling about one quarter of seats and one quarter of electoral votes.
Would they be as populated? Say there is a higher standard of living. That generally correlates with a lower birthrate. Some citizens will also be moving to the mainland in other opportunities and abortion would not be banned and birth control a lot more socially acceptable no matter what the Church says. So I don't think there would be that many in however many states (I'd say 2-3) are created out of them.

[Dilvish]

Kenichiro,

What islands are included in the Southeast islands that your friend is talking about? Is he suggesting that just one part of the Philippines stay with the USA, or the entire present country?

Either way, that would have dramatic changes in post-war history.

..after World War 2. Yes or no? Is this really possible? The question was brought up recently in a conversation with a friend of mine who is Philippine. He told me that the whole condition of the country would have been in better shape if the Southeast islands would have remained part of the USA. Like the country would have had more development,security and peace.

I want this to be as realistic as possible,could the Philippines have remained with the USA as a state like Hawaii or a territory like Guam? Throw out scenarios with the Philippines not possibly wanting their independence,and staying with the USA. On a final note,I remember reading that the Philippines could have had a earlier independence..but the USA decided against it and made it a "Commonwealth" nation. Could this have happened again?

[Atreus]

Would they be as populated? Say there is a higher standard of living. That generally correlates with a lower birthrate. Some citizens will also be moving to the mainland in other opportunities and abortion would not be banned and birth control a lot more socially acceptable no matter what the Church says. So I don't think there would be that many in however many states (I'd say 2-3) are created out of them.

The population of the Philippines was about 16 million come WWII. by comparison, at the same time, New York, at the time the largest state, had about 13.5 million residents. the new york delegation to the house of representatives elected in 1940 (after the census whose figure I cited) had 43 representatives (out of 435), which works out to about one representative per 313,500 constituents. Using this same ratio, the Philippines would have 51 representatives, easily making it the largest state, which would control over ten percent of the house of representatives and 9% of the electoral vote. However, since 1911, the size of the house has been fixed at 435. So what share of the house does the philippines represent? well, it contains about 10.7% of the national population, which works out to 47 seats in the house (note that, in order to accomidate this, many states will lose several seats), and again holds 9% of the electoral vote.

I'm not going to discuss the long-term effects of adding the Philippines to the united states here, either in terms of domestic politics or the philippine standard of living. But note what this represents. the philippines is, in this scenario, instantly the most powerful state in the nation, bar none. many other states will lose out, either directly (weaker house delegations) or indirectly (reduced influence) in this deal. And a few other points. the philippines population has increased since world war two by a factor of 5.75, while the population of America as a whole has multiplied about 2.3 times in the same period. That sort of growth may slow, but it will at least match and probably outstrip the growth of the continental United states for a certain period (although this may be balanced out by emigration). Another factor is that this adds a large population of people who are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically distinct from the rest of America. Finally, all of this will have to be dealt with in advance, since the US had been promising independence for decades and the philippinos werent exactly eager for america to stay (having fought a war to that effect).

In short, all of these issues have to be dealt with at some point, and probably decades before WWII (whether this would impact Japanese strategic planning is an interesting question). personally, I dont know if it would be feasible to introduce the Philippines as less than two of three states (say, Leyte, Mindanao, and a collection of central islands (Samar, leyte, Negros, Panay, palawan)).

[jacobus]

Mindanao would have been problematic. Those Moros never even wanted to be part of the Philippines, let alone the United States.

[Chris S]

Whether or not it would be a better place if it were a commonwealth (like Puerto Rico is) depends on the perspective of the Philippinos themselves.

The Philippines are independent because a majority of their population wanted independence. In the post WW2 world, especially after fighting a bloody 4 year war against imperialism and facist expansionism (I really can't think of a better term for it) and in a world where the Soviets had just annexed three formerly independent nations in the Baltic region and were busy installing client regimes that answered directly to Moscow in the countries they occupied (imperialism by any other name...) it would have been a repudiation by the U.S. of everything we had just fought against during the war and everything we condemned the Soviets for after the war.

If the Philippinos wanted to stay, I'm sure they'd have been welcome to stay as a commonwealth so long as a majority wanted to.

Sometimes I think we should have done something similar with Cuba and Panama in the early 20th century, that is, establish them as commonwealth protectorates, nurtured a stable democratic process for the election of their own representitive assemblies, ensured their protection against possible strongarm measures by the old colonial powers and help them develop their own stable and prosperous ecconomies, through a mix of limited private investment by comercial interests from the U.S. and other nations and direct financial assitance from the U.S. federal government in the form of loans for indigenous commercial interests and financial institutions, with trade agreements, during their period of commonwealth status that would have afforded them a sort of "favored trading partner status" that would be somewhere between a U.S. state or territory and a foreign country for terms of duties, tarriffs, etc... with agreement that after a mutually agreed upon period of time, the locals would hold a referendum vote to determine weather or not they wished to retain commonwealth status or become independent nations.

Now, if they desired to retain commonwealth status, they could do so and at any time thereafter, they could hold an referendum on independence for however long they retained commonwealth status, but once they vote for independence, it's time for them to fly on their own, because there's no comming back in once you leave, but then, if the objective of helping to build strong, independent and prosperous nations is achieved, it's doubtful they're going to want back in. That and, unless we created a unifying currency that these nations retained the use of, even after seperation, it would be an ecconomic mess to bring them back in.

Basically, the Philippines went the way most Philippinos wanted to go and the U.S. was right to honor their wishes and the agreements that were in place that created the system by which they achieved that independence.


I doubt having Cuba and Panama go through any period of Territorial Commonwealth would guaranteed that they became stable democratic nations. The Philippines had a commonwealth government for 6 years (if you exclude the period of Japanese occupation) and still ended up with Ferdinand Marcos only 20 years after independence. The longer Cuba or Panama remained as territorial commonwealths the less likely they would probably want independence since after a while the populations would kind of enjoy the best of both worlds as Puerto Rico does today: entering some international competitions and being considered as distinct from Americans while being American citizens and using the US dollar.

[Chris S]

If the PI was a state, it would be the most-populated state in the Union. The PI has about, what, ninety million residents (I'm not counting the diaspora, either). Now compare that with California's 38 million people. Letting that big of a liability in prior to the 60's is impossible, and afterwards it's still pretty much ASB.

But let's handwave that for the moment. If it were a state, it would effectively be the deciding factor in Presidential and House elections - controlling about one quarter of seats and one quarter of electoral votes.

That's right. Campaigning would probably just be done in California and the Philippines...and maybe Texas and a few other states. Win those and a the White House is yours.


If it were admitted into the Union, it would no doubt be split into separate states. Possibly Luzon and Mindanao as separate states, possible even more divisions.

Even if it were split the problem would be that effectively it would be one state. It wouldn't be like splitting the Dakotas where the population of the territory was basically found in two distinct areas that would become North and South Dakota and where the population was generally similar to the rest of the US so that there wasn't any strong sense of being Dakotan first and foremost. Here if the US Congress split the Philippines into a number of states for admission these states would still have a lot more in common with each other than with the the rest of the states:
1. They would be mainly Catholic (although Mindanao would be mainly Muslim....) in a country which is mainly Protestant.
2. They would speak/understand Tagalog/Filipino and Spanish mainly and English is unlikely to ever become the first-language of the majority of the population without a radical shift in society either through immigration from the mainland states or a major shift in schooling.
3. They would be clustered together and all of them (however many are created) would be thousands of miles away from the contiguous US (the lower 48) and the continental US (lower 48 and Alaska).

Splitting them might actually give them more weight in the Electoral College since the EC assigns the number of electors per state based on the number of representatives and senators that each state has.

So let's say that the House and Senate in any TL where the PI were one state had 568 members and 102 members respectively. Then the PI would have 133 reps and 2 senators and 135 electors out of 673 (assuming DC still gets 3 electors) or 20% of the vote. If the PI were split into 2 states then presidential candidates could take an extended vacation in the Pacific to campaign among the 2 states (basically campaigning as though it were 1 state since they would probably have a number of issues in common) and aim to get 137 electors out of 675 or 20.2%. Split them into 3 states and combined they would give 20.5% of the vote and so on. In instances where elections are close then these "extra" electoral votes garnered from having extra senators could help a candidate clinch the election.

Edit: Also, couldn't the Philippine states, once split on entry to the Union be able to reunite as states? I think one of the sections of the US constitution allows for 2 states to unite provide they both agree and congress assents. If such a re-union were see to reduce the electoral significance of the Philippines (by reducing the senators) then it might well get the approval of the other states and their reps in Congress.

[redman]

For the love of God, it's Filipino, not Philippino! Even the dictionary underlined the latter red. :rolleyes:

..after World War 2. Yes or no? Is this really possible? The question was brought up recently in a conversation with a friend of mine who is Philippine. He told me that the whole condition of the country would have been in better shape if the Southeast islands would have remained part of the USA. Like the country would have had more development,security and peace.

I want this to be as realistic as possible,could the Philippines have remained with the USA as a state like Hawaii or a territory like Guam? Throw out scenarios with the Philippines not possibly wanting their independence,and staying with the USA. On a final note,I remember reading that the Philippines could have had a earlier independence..but the USA decided against it and made it a "Commonwealth" nation. Could this have happened again?

It would have been possible, but like the above have already said, by only a very thin margin. For one thing, we weren't really fond of not having our own country back then (though like Kenichiro Harada's friend's opinions, a lot of current Filipinos would beg to differ). Besides, we are crazy many, and I don't think the U.S. is going to take too kindly having to rely on non-whites for elections.

Financially, the US would probably take it as a burden if it were to keep the Philippines. A lot of rebellions here and there... Even now a lot of people here are upset and protesting about the U.S. keeping around six-hundred troops in Mindanao to supervise our army, what more with this scenario?

Personally, I would have preferred if we had stayed with the United States for a longer time, like Sigma7 mentioned. They could have helped us develop more, not unlike the utopian gradual decolonization process we see in practically every CP-victory timeline :D Marcos would definitely (hopefully) be butterflied away, among other things, and hopefully, this country wouldn't have had to put up with corrupt nepotists. :rolleyes: Then again, in a negative outcome, the rebellions against US imperialism would just grow, and the US would have to resolve to putting a more authoritarian person in charge of the Philippines directly answerable to Washington. So, we still end up with Marcos. :(

They would speak/understand Tagalog/Filipino and Spanish mainly and English is unlikely to ever become the first-language of the majority of the population without a radical shift in society either through immigration from the mainland states or a major shift in schooling.

I have to disagree. Have you ever been to the Philippines, or talked to a Filipino? The Philippines is one of the most, if not the most, fluently English-speaking countries in Asia.; what more if America decided to hang around a little longer? Hell, that's why a lot of South Koreans come to study here, not only because of proximity, but the cheap costs we offer yet still for good English. Most official and public events here are done in English anyway even though both English and Tagalog are and the only official languages.

Yes, even after nearly four centuries of Spanish rule, we are more "Americanized", so to speak, than Hispanicized, though admittedly, cultural influences from Spain can still be seen in cuisine, religion, conservatism, and vocabulary. But in language, you rarely see someone here talking in colloquial Spanish. Come to think of it, I've never come across such a situation.

A piss-poor bunch of catholics who are not even white

I sincerely do hope that you did not mean that personally and insultingly.

[Sigma7]

I doubt having Cuba and Panama go through any period of Territorial Commonwealth would guaranteed that they became stable democratic nations. The Philippines had a commonwealth government for 6 years (if you exclude the period of Japanese occupation) and still ended up with Ferdinand Marcos only 20 years after independence. The longer Cuba or Panama remained as territorial commonwealths the less likely they would probably want independence since after a while the populations would kind of enjoy the best of both worlds as Puerto Rico does today: entering some international competitions and being considered as distinct from Americans while being American citizens and using the US dollar.

Never said it guarenteed they'd end up stable and prosperous, but as commonwealths under those terms and conditions, but they'd have a better chance of doing so than they did under the circumstances of OTL.

As to the longer they remain a commonwealth, the less likely they'd be to leave, you're probably right. They'd have the dollar, the U.S. military to protect them, their own local sovereign institutions etc...with none of the complications of being a fully independent state.

Best of both worlds indeed.

[Paul V McNutt]

Philippine independence was one of the Conditions agreed to to stop the Philippine Insurrection in 1904, in the 1920's the date for independence was finally set for 1945,
Any POD for the Philippines becoming part of the US would have to be pre 1920's

Actually the date was set in the Tydings McDuffy Act of 1935. I remember reading that bill promising Phillipine independence was passed in the 1920s but Cooldge vetoed it.

[Paul V McNutt]

The thing about the Philippines population ITTL is that as part of the United States there would be unlimited migration to the mainland U.S. and Hawaii. So I think while the Philippines is still the largest state. What is also true is that Filipinos are the largest ethnic group in the U.S.


The population of the Philippines was about 16 million come WWII. by comparison, at the same time, New York, at the time the largest state, had about 13.5 million residents. the new york delegation to the house of representatives elected in 1940 (after the census whose figure I cited) had 43 representatives (out of 435), which works out to about one representative per 313,500 constituents. Using this same ratio, the Philippines would have 51 representatives, easily making it the largest state, which would control over ten percent of the house of representatives and 9% of the electoral vote. However, since 1911, the size of the house has been fixed at 435. So what share of the house does the philippines represent? well, it contains about 10.7% of the national population, which works out to 47 seats in the house (note that, in order to accomidate this, many states will lose several seats), and again holds 9% of the electoral vote.

I'm not going to discuss the long-term effects of adding the Philippines to the united states here, either in terms of domestic politics or the philippine standard of living. But note what this represents. the philippines is, in this scenario, instantly the most powerful state in the nation, bar none. many other states will lose out, either directly (weaker house delegations) or indirectly (reduced influence) in this deal. And a few other points. the philippines population has increased since world war two by a factor of 5.75, while the population of America as a whole has multiplied about 2.3 times in the same period. That sort of growth may slow, but it will at least match and probably outstrip the growth of the continental United states for a certain period (although this may be balanced out by emigration). Another factor is that this adds a large population of people who are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically distinct from the rest of America. Finally, all of this will have to be dealt with in advance, since the US had been promising independence for decades and the philippinos werent exactly eager for america to stay (having fought a war to that effect).

In short, all of these issues have to be dealt with at some point, and probably decades before WWII (whether this would impact Japanese strategic planning is an interesting question). personally, I dont know if it would be feasible to introduce the Philippines as less than two of three states (say, Leyte, Mindanao, and a collection of central islands (Samar, leyte, Negros, Panay, palawan)).

[Paul V McNutt]

The thing about the Philippines population ITTL is that as part of the United States there would be unlimited migration to the mainland U.S. and Hawaii. So I think while the Philippines is still the largest state. What is also true is that Filipinos are the largest ethnic group in the U.S.


The population of the Philippines was about 16 million come WWII. by comparison, at the same time, New York, at the time the largest state, had about 13.5 million residents. the new york delegation to the house of representatives elected in 1940 (after the census whose figure I cited) had 43 representatives (out of 435), which works out to about one representative per 313,500 constituents. Using this same ratio, the Philippines would have 51 representatives, easily making it the largest state, which would control over ten percent of the house of representatives and 9% of the electoral vote. However, since 1911, the size of the house has been fixed at 435. So what share of the house does the philippines represent? well, it contains about 10.7% of the national population, which works out to 47 seats in the house (note that, in order to accomidate this, many states will lose several seats), and again holds 9% of the electoral vote.

I'm not going to discuss the long-term effects of adding the Philippines to the united states here, either in terms of domestic politics or the philippine standard of living. But note what this represents. the philippines is, in this scenario, instantly the most powerful state in the nation, bar none. many other states will lose out, either directly (weaker house delegations) or indirectly (reduced influence) in this deal. And a few other points. the philippines population has increased since world war two by a factor of 5.75, while the population of America as a whole has multiplied about 2.3 times in the same period. That sort of growth may slow, but it will at least match and probably outstrip the growth of the continental United states for a certain period (although this may be balanced out by emigration). Another factor is that this adds a large population of people who are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically distinct from the rest of America. Finally, all of this will have to be dealt with in advance, since the US had been promising independence for decades and the philippinos werent exactly eager for america to stay (having fought a war to that effect).

In short, all of these issues have to be dealt with at some point, and probably decades before WWII (whether this would impact Japanese strategic planning is an interesting question). personally, I dont know if it would be feasible to introduce the Philippines as less than two of three states (say, Leyte, Mindanao, and a collection of central islands (Samar, leyte, Negros, Panay, palawan)).

[Markus]

Originally Posted by Markus
A piss-poor bunch of catholics who are not even white


I sincerely do hope that you did not mean that personally and insultingly.


Not at all, I bluntly expressed the way Americans felt about non-whites at the time.

By the way, do you know any good websites about the Filipino military in WW2? I need some info for the upcomming parts of my TL.

[Faeelin]

Not at all, I bluntly expressed the way Americans felt about non-whites at the time.


American-Filipino relations are very interesting in this period, actually. The First American bill that gave the Philippines independence was rejected by the Filippino legislature because it pushed them out of the American tariff wall and only allowed for something like fifty immigrants a year from the Philippines.

[CanadianGoose]

I rememebr reading that Philipino Independence bill magically coincided with raise of American sugarbeet-based sugar industry. Philipino independence law ended tariff-free export of the Philipino sugar to the mainland...

[Chris S]

I have to disagree. Have you ever been to the Philippines, or talked to a Filipino? The Philippines is one of the most, if not the most, fluently English-speaking countries in Asia.; what more if America decided to hang around a little longer? Hell, that's why a lot of South Koreans come to study here, not only because of proximity, but the cheap costs we offer yet still for good English. Most official and public events here are done in English anyway even though both English and Tagalog are and the only official languages.

Yes, even after nearly four centuries of Spanish rule, we are more "Americanized", so to speak, than Hispanicized, though admittedly, cultural influences from Spain can still be seen in cuisine, religion, conservatism, and vocabulary. But in language, you rarely see someone here talking in colloquial Spanish. Come to think of it, I've never come across such a situation.

Nope never been to the Philippines (would love to go though). I know English is widely spoken as a second language (with some using it as a first language). Whether or not it is fluently spoken wouldn't alter the fact that the majority of people don't speak it as a first language though (unless everything I've been reading about Filipino languages is out of date). This would still make the Philippines as a state or states unique in that upon it's entry into the Union, English would not be the first language. I could be wrong, but I don't think that has ever happened before in US history. Even Texas had a lot of American settlers first and likewise California I believe.

Nowadays I wouldn't expect anyone to be talking in colloquial Spanish since it's been over 100 years since Spain last ruled the Philippines and a lot happened inbetween. But at the time period we are basically talking about (i.e. at least a few decades before present) what would the situation have been? What was it like in the Philippines, linguistically, between 1898 and 1920? And doesn't Tagalog have a fair amount of Spanish influence? Not saying that it is a Spanish derived language, but doesn't Spanish have the most influence on it out of all the Indo-European languages?

I would imagine that in 1898 the most widely spoken languages would have been the local languages, Tagalog or it's predecessor and Spanish (whether the normal or creole form). If a POD has to occur in the 1920s or earlier for the Philippines to become a state what are the chances that Spanish (regular or localized) would die out as quickly as it did? What are the chances that everything remains the same as in OTL education-wise?

I would hazard to guess that Tagalog and English would still become dominant but any changes in the education system as a result of the POD or any chance that the Philippines become responsible for themselves as a start earlier than the 1940s (very unlikely though) could mean that Spanish lasts a bit longer than in OTL.

Personally though I can't see how the Philippines would become a state or states before the late 1950s or between the 1960s and 1970s.

[Chris S]

The population of the Philippines was about 16 million come WWII. by comparison, at the same time, New York, at the time the largest state, had about 13.5 million residents. the new york delegation to the house of representatives elected in 1940 (after the census whose figure I cited) had 43 representatives (out of 435), which works out to about one representative per 313,500 constituents. Using this same ratio, the Philippines would have 51 representatives, easily making it the largest state, which would control over ten percent of the house of representatives and 9% of the electoral vote. However, since 1911, the size of the house has been fixed at 435. So what share of the house does the philippines represent? well, it contains about 10.7% of the national population, which works out to 47 seats in the house (note that, in order to accomidate this, many states will lose several seats), and again holds 9% of the electoral vote.

I'm not going to discuss the long-term effects of adding the Philippines to the united states here, either in terms of domestic politics or the philippine standard of living. But note what this represents. the philippines is, in this scenario, instantly the most powerful state in the nation, bar none. many other states will lose out, either directly (weaker house delegations) or indirectly (reduced influence) in this deal. And a few other points. the philippines population has increased since world war two by a factor of 5.75, while the population of America as a whole has multiplied about 2.3 times in the same period. That sort of growth may slow, but it will at least match and probably outstrip the growth of the continental United states for a certain period (although this may be balanced out by emigration). Another factor is that this adds a large population of people who are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically distinct from the rest of America. Finally, all of this will have to be dealt with in advance, since the US had been promising independence for decades and the philippinos werent exactly eager for america to stay (having fought a war to that effect).

In short, all of these issues have to be dealt with at some point, and probably decades before WWII (whether this would impact Japanese strategic planning is an interesting question). personally, I dont know if it would be feasible to introduce the Philippines as less than two of three states (say, Leyte, Mindanao, and a collection of central islands (Samar, leyte, Negros, Panay, palawan)).

The thing about the Philippines population ITTL is that as part of the United States there would be unlimited migration to the mainland U.S. and Hawaii. So I think while the Philippines is still the largest state. What is also true is that Filipinos are the largest ethnic group in the U.S.

But what effect would political attention have on migration to and from the Philippines?

The Philippine population growth rate may not be as high as in OTL, but then for a rough idea perhaps one would need to look at the population growth rates of Puerto Rico before and after 1898 and see if there was any slowing down at all. Even so I would guess that today the Philippines might have 65-80 million and still be the most the populous state (or region if it had been divided into 2 states or more).

However with such a large population, once it became a state or states then both the Republicans and Democrats would spend a lot of time and money campaigning there and they might well push through a number of pork-barrel projects in the Philippines to win votes. With money pouring in, might that encourage some to stay that might otherwise have emigrated to the mainland?

[RogueBeaver]

A perfectly predictable consequence of that...

"The American has lost his soul, and some would say, his dignity."

- First Inaugural of President Ferdinand E. Marcos (R-PI) , 1965

Ferdinand E. Marcos Wiki entry

U.S. Representative, PI-4: Jan. 1, 1945- Jan. 3, 1949
U.S. Senator from the Philippines (C3): Jan. 3, 1949- Dec. 17, 1960
Governor of the Philippines: Jan. 3, 1961- Nov. 30, 1964
President of the United States: Jan. 20, 1965- Jan. 20, 1973 Succeeded by Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY)

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Susmariosep, that would be something I would not wish upon my worst enemy...Marcos as President... that's like taking high quality sansrival and then shitting on it...

[RogueBeaver]

The Presidents from 1957 on...

Richard M. Nixon (R-CA): Sept. 15, 1955- Jan. 20, 1965
Ferdinand E. Marcos (R-PI) Jan. 20, 1965- Jan. 20, 1973
Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) Jan. 20, 1973-Jan. 20, 1981
Ronald W. Reagan (R-CA) Jan. 20, 1981- Mar. 30, 1981
George H.W. Bush (R-TX) Mar. 30, 1981- Jan. 20, 1989
Mario Cuomo (D-NY) Jan. 20, 1989- Jan. 20, 1997
Bill Clinton (D-AR) Jan. 20, 1997-Jan. 20, 2005
Gloria Macapagal (R-PI) Jan. 20, 2005-present

[Kenichiro Harada]

Philippine independence was one of the Conditions agreed to to stop the Philippine Insurrection in 1904, in the 1920's the date for independence was finally set for 1945,
Any POD for the Philippines becoming part of the US would have to be pre 1920's

That's right,I remember reading something like that..a proposed independence..but no one would have expected 2 World Wars to happen in the future. I would think that if the Philippines would be part of the USA,it would happen a little bit after the USA gained control of the islands from Spain. Much like you said..1900-1920's.

The Philippines were never a part of the USA in the first place, just a colony of the US.

I would guess that would make it part of the USA. It would be classified as a colony,or territory.

The Philippines might be better off today if they remained American territory, preferably as a state. However, they would have problems unique to them. Can you name some of the problems?

Well,I would guess that if the Philippines would become a state..it would have been next to poorly developed Southeast Asian neighbors,like Vietnam and Indonesia. A bit of tension there I think,another aspect would be the Philippines not really considered part of Asia..due to American control.

Kenichiro,

What islands are included in the Southeast islands that your friend is talking about? Is he suggesting that just one part of the Philippines stay with the USA, or the entire present country?

Either way, that would have dramatic changes in post-war history.

I'm not a real expert on the Philippines,it was just brought up in a conversation I had with a friend. I thought it was interesting,due to the fact that the Philippines was the only "real" American possession in Asia.

[jacobus]

As we all probably know, the Filipinos never wanted annexation; they didn't even want our troops there at all. The Philippines Insurrection (a misnomer, it wasn't an uprising against a legitimate authority but a failed war for independence) was regarded by many Americans at the time as a kind of continuation of our country's recently concluded wars against the American Indians of the West, and as such was waged with considerable cruelty and savagery by both sides.
My dad served in the Army in the Philippines during WW2, and he told me we treated the Filipinos poorly, with airs of patronage, as sepoys rather than allies, and that it was fortunate for us that the Japanese occupiers behaved even worse, otherwise they might have collaborated more readily.
Clearly, the Filipinos weren't strong enough to defend themselves after the Spanish-American War; had US forces left, the islands would probably have been occupied by Japan or a European power. But we could have recognized Philippines independence, and negotiated with them for the use of military bases, which would have served our strategic interests and guarded the Filipinos until they were able to defend themselves.

[redman]

Not at all, I bluntly expressed the way Americans felt about non-whites at the time.

By the way, do you know any good websites about the Filipino military in WW2? I need some info for the upcomming parts of my TL.

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/philip42.htm

ehh, you sure you need them? our "military" at the time, frankly, was anything but a military. I daresay you could say so even for our current Army :rolleyes:

and, as always, wikipedia is your friend, albeit not a very reliable one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Philippines_during_World_W ar_II

Nope never been to the Philippines (would love to go though). I know English is widely spoken as a second language (with some using it as a first language). Whether or not it is fluently spoken wouldn't alter the fact that the majority of people don't speak it as a first language though (unless everything I've been reading about Filipino languages is out of date). This would still make the Philippines as a state or states unique in that upon it's entry into the Union, English would not be the first language. I could be wrong, but I don't think that has ever happened before in US history. Even Texas had a lot of American settlers first and likewise California I believe.

Nowadays I wouldn't expect anyone to be talking in colloquial Spanish since it's been over 100 years since Spain last ruled the Philippines and a lot happened inbetween. But at the time period we are basically talking about (i.e. at least a few decades before present) what would the situation have been? What was it like in the Philippines, linguistically, between 1898 and 1920? And doesn't Tagalog have a fair amount of Spanish influence? Not saying that it is a Spanish derived language, but doesn't Spanish have the most influence on it out of all the Indo-European languages?

I would imagine that in 1898 the most widely spoken languages would have been the local languages, Tagalog or it's predecessor and Spanish (whether the normal or creole form). If a POD has to occur in the 1920s or earlier for the Philippines to become a state what are the chances that Spanish (regular or localized) would die out as quickly as it did? What are the chances that everything remains the same as in OTL education-wise?

I would hazard to guess that Tagalog and English would still become dominant but any changes in the education system as a result of the POD or any chance that the Philippines become responsible for themselves as a start earlier than the 1940s (very unlikely though) could mean that Spanish lasts a bit longer than in OTL.

Personally though I can't see how the Philippines would become a state or states before the late 1950s or between the 1960s and 1970s.

Ahh, I see what you mean, point taken. Though I think that even if the Americans stayed, we'd still never get State status, even by 2000. We are even more geographically farther from the mainland US than Guam and Hawaii are. Maybe we get the same status as Guam as an unincorporated Territory? Though I see this is harder to do considering we have a much larger population.

Susmariosep, that would be something I would not wish upon my worst enemy...Marcos as President... that's like taking high quality sansrival and then shitting on it...

Might I ask, are you a Filipino as well? Don't see much of our folk over here :cool:

[RogueBeaver]

With American checks and balances, FM won't turn out worse than RN did IOTL. But do expect an alliance with Cardinal Spellman on social issues as he did with Sin IOTL.

[Chris S]

I would guess that would make it part of the USA. It would be classified as a colony,or territory..

Technically Markus is correct. The Philippines were never part of the USA, they were possessions of the USA. The term "United States" can have 3 senses:

1. The States - the 50 states only and not D.C. or any territories.

2. The incorporated territory (i.e. where the full US constitution applies) - so the 50 states, D.C. and any incorporate territories such as Palmyra.

3. The US and all of its possessions - so the states and all territory that is collective possession of the states and is governed by the federal government, including territory where not all of the US constitution applies (such as was the case with the Philippines and all unincorporated territories today).

The Philippines would only be a part of the USA under the 3rd definition and even so just barely considering that Filipinos were never US citizens (they were US nationals, but one can be a national and not a citizen, just as in American Samoa today). After 1935 they ceased even being US nationals and got their own nationality and citizenship.

[Chris S]

Ahh, I see what you mean, point taken. Though I think that even if the Americans stayed, we'd still never get State status, even by 2000. We are even more geographically farther from the mainland US than Guam and Hawaii are. Maybe we get the same status as Guam as an unincorporated Territory? Though I see this is harder to do considering we have a much larger population.


Yeah it is hard to see the Philippines becoming a state in OTL without a major POD early on. It would take a different attitude by the majority of politicians in America towards the Philippines and a difference in attitude by the majority of Filipinos. It would probably also take a major shift in outlook by many Americans at the time since views on race then were not like what they are now. That's why I figured the Philippines could only become a state after the civil rights movement. It would also need both major parties to desparately want the votes that a Filipino state could offer.

[mkdlsystem]

What if the Philippines becomes one of the states of the U.S.?



If Alaska and Hawaii became states, then the U.S. would have a 51-star flag as of 1960. (assuming that the Philippines was admitted to the U.S. prior to the 1950s)
There would be also a guerrilla independence movement much similar to those of Macario Sakay's Tagalog Republic. There would be another Philippine-American War.
There would also be a Moro secessionist movement just like the MNLF and the MILF.

[Markus]

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/philip42.htm

ehh, you sure you need them? our "military" at the time, frankly, was anything but a military. I daresay you could say so even for our current Army :rolleyes:

and, as always, wikipedia is your friend, albeit not a very reliable one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Philippines_during_World_W ar_II


I know, your army broke the record for unpreparedness. Thus thousands of soldiers retired themselves from the PI Army when Japan attacked but most didn´t and in spite of mind boggling problems stopped the Japanese for almost half a year.
In my TL the Philippines never fell and I still have not figured out the exact role of the Second Philippine Expeditionary Force.

[daniel_g]

A bigger challenge is that the in the Atlantic Charter, the USA pretty much mandated British de-colonialisation. Retaining the Philippines was contrary to this stance, so a would a world with the Phillipines as part of the USA entail a decent sized British Empire too?

[redman]

I know, your army broke the record for unpreparedness. Thus thousands of soldiers retired themselves from the PI Army when Japan attacked but most didn´t and in spite of mind boggling problems stopped the Japanese for almost half a year.
In my TL the Philippines never fell and I still have not figured out the exact role of the Second Philippine Expeditionary Force.


Well, sometimes i do fancy myself as being brave :cool:

but anyway, you could look and research on the Philippines' roles/contributions in the Korean and Vietnam Wars for an idea of how the PEF might work. If i recall correctly, we were more in those for more of a civic/medicinal role than anything else. I could be wrong though