Cold War with a pro-Empire US policy.

[kojak]

What would the Cold War be like or have turned out like if post-WW2 US foreign policy wasn't vehemently for the decolonisation of European empires and specifically, the empires of its allies?

How would the world be different if the US didn't insist or realised (and I use that term loosely, I'm not implying anything) that it's better for a country to be under an allied and European sphere of influence and control, rather than Soviet sphere of influence or control?

Could the US have intervened in any European colonial wars? The most famous example we have of this in OTL, is Vietnam. What would happen in Suez? Algeria? Etc? How would this change the foreign policies of the respective European and allied nations?

Finally, how would the Soviet Union react to a pro-Empire US?

Enjoy!

[Bear Flag Oligarch]

Vietnam was not a colonial war, it was the result of a colonial war.

[kojak]

Vietnam was not a colonial war, it was the result of a colonial war.OK, it started off as a colonial war, but the US didn't intervene to save France's colony, rather to reduce the spread of Communism, but you're drifting off point.

[Nicomacheus]

Well, Vietnam is acutally a good example of the detriments of a pro-Empire policy.

Firstly, I would say the US didn't enforce its anti-colonial beleifs on the European powers, except in a few cases. Suez springs to mind. They didn't, for example, force Britain and France to concede that their colonies were UN mandates until they could attain independence. And for good reason: Britain and France would have gone ape-sh*t if forced to do so. Rather the US enforced a tepid anti-colonial agenda, while the colonial powers sought at first to hold their empires until the mid '50s (the lash of Suez). This turn of events opened the way to nationalist movements taking on Communist backing. Either the US supporting the allies in holding their possessions or promoting full independence with aid would have better kept the Soviets from getting (more) sympathetic ears in the 3rd World.

That being said, full on support of military campaigns against the nationalist movements that were pretty much rife (and in many cases already pro-communist) is likely to invite trouble. Neither the France nor Great Britain have the resources and the USA doesn't have the will. In some way, the most pro-imperial policy is for the USA to propose some kind of UN mandate system on steroids. (And later exculde the USSR from it). Essentially the USA, Britain, and France pool their colonies and create timelines for independence, followed by full UN membership: colonialism is preseved in the sense of the European powers having all sorts of economic leverage, they just can't color whole swathes of the map blue or pink. The hard part here is that the UN quickly ceased to be the kind of organization that could pull off such an effort, because of the Cold War itself. And of course the pride of the individual allies.

If you simply want to see the results of the US supporting imperial movements in the slip-shod manner in which it didn't do so in OTL, then IMO the US is likely to precipitate some very nasty nationalist movements moving much, much closer to Moscow. However, a lot will depend on circumstances. If Suez is the first instance of such policy, then the intial surge of support doesn't do much (aside from tie Britain and France into support for Israel's control of the Sinai). And then Nasser starts making goo-goo eyes at Kruschev and fomenting pan-Arabism, which gets an uptick in support since in TTL there really would be an Imperialist-Capitalist-Zionist bloc.

[flaja]

The best thing that can ever happen to nation is to be colonized by the British.

The second best thing that can ever happen to a nation is to lose a war to the U.S. as did Germany and Japan.

Instead of India, Pakistan and Burma being part of a peaceful British Empire the world has 2 third-world countries that are military dictatorships and 2 third-world countries that are nuclear powers that are rampant with religious strife and mutually hostile to each other.

Instead of 2 countries that caused the worst war in human history and thereby should have been relegated to agrarian peasantry we have 2 industrialized competitor nations that think they can dictate policy to the countries to whom they had given their unconditional surrender.

[wolfstar]

It would be pretty hard talk America into this after WW2. Americans generally have a view that people should be free to make their own choices (Yes the US Government often does not act the same way in this regard, but you need a people behind you for a long war) and loosing US lives to help Britain or France repress a people would be a very hard sell.


The experience of the Philippians pretty much killed general American support for running other people’s nations.


Now assuming that America would be for colonialism:
Most of the people who wanted out of colonialism had become technologically strong enough to make it rather expense to keep them under control. Americans can’t stand long wars and we would give up long before we could put these groups down.

Net result? More case of soviet propaganda against the US and more small nations enslaved by communism and the colonies still go free.

[wolfstar]

Instead of 2 countries that caused the worst war in human history and thereby should have been relegated to agrarian peasantry we have 2 industrialized competitor nations that think they can dictate policy to the countries to whom they had given their unconditional surrender.


It's actually better to be beaten by America in war. Defeated people have an easier time adopting their conquerors ways of doing things. This leads to a lot of fast growth due to adopting the better parts of the conquers culture.

Colonies on the hand tend are usally freed by nationalist movements. nationalist movements tend think that almost everything the people who ruled us did was wrong, and our group/culture must be right. This lead to 60 years of silliness with India and Pakistan. India should have been in the top 5 economic powers by 1980 but they insisted on doing it the Indian way and screwed themselves over badly.

[Dean_the_Young]

The best thing that can ever happen to nation is to be colonized by the British.Unless, of course, you live in North America, Africa, Australia, India, the Middle East, or Asia. And by "live" I mean "are part of an indegenous people who were already there before the white men arrived to massacre and subjugate you."

The second best thing that can ever happen to a nation is to lose a war to the U.S. as did Germany and Japan.Unless you lived anywhere near something worth being bombed. Or need to eat on a regular basis.

Instead of India, Pakistan and Burma being part of a peaceful British Empire:rolleyes:
The British Empire was about as peaceful as any other, and has a suitably bad history of dealing with its native peoples. Just because it was "better" than others doesn't make it anywhere close to good.

the world has 2 third-world countries that are military dictatorships and 2 third-world countries that are nuclear powers that are rampant with religious strife and mutually hostile to each other.Because, you know, it's not like Britain ever had any religious or ethnic problems with its neighbor/vassal in the previous 50 years, or was under MAD with another nation. No not at all. And of course, all those other British colonies in Africa and Asia were just perfect until the British left, at which point all those ethnic and religious conflicts came out of nowhere, really.

:rolleyes:

Instead of 2 countries that caused the worst war in human history and thereby should have been relegated to agrarian peasantry we have 2 industrialized competitor nations that think they can dictate policy to the countries to whom they had given their unconditional surrender.If you're going to simply ignore the roles that Britain, France, and the US all had in setting up both World War One and World War Two, then congratulations. You've proven your need to relearn history from an unbiased source. As it is, you already need to stop drinking the coolaid, stop reading your uber-British Imperialism propaganda fan-wank, and learn some more from unbiased sources.

[flaja]

It would be pretty hard talk America into this after WW2. Americans generally have a view that people should be free to make their own choices (Yes the US Government often does not act the same way in this regard, but you need a people behind you for a long war)

What do you for war and repression by proxy? The U.S. routinely supported dictators like the Shah and Pinochet and Saddam Hussein because they weren’t Red.

[qutoe]The experience of the Philippians pretty much killed general American support for running other people’s nations.[/quote]

The Philippines had been pretty much stabilized since before WWII. By the time we gave the Philippines their independence they were pretty much off the American public’s radar screen. And notice that we still have Guam and Puerto Rico and we still maintain a sizeable military presence on Okinawa even though the Japanese don’t want us there (and some Hawaians don’t want us in Hawaii either and a bunch of Indians wish we’d all go back to wherever we’ve come from since 1607).

[qutoe]Now assuming that America would be for colonialism:
Most of the people who wanted out of colonialism had become technologically strong enough to make it rather expense to keep them under control.[/quote]

I didn’t know that Vietnam was hotbed of technology in the 1950s, India either for that matter.

[flaja]

It's actually better to be beaten by America in war. Defeated people have an easier time adopting their conquerors ways of doing things. This leads to a lot of fast growth due to adopting the better parts of the conquers culture.

No, it has everything to do with the U.S. footing the bill to rebuild a country after we’ve bombed it into submission only to see that country once again become a threat to our existence.

[flaja]

Unless, of course, you live in North America, Africa, Australia, India, the Middle East, or Asia. And by "live" I mean "are part of an indegenous people who were already there before the white men arrived to massacre and subjugate you."

Surely you cannot believe that the natives of someplace like India are not better off than they would have been because they were colonized by the British.

[Dean_the_Young]

What do you for war and repression by proxy? The U.S. routinely supported dictators like the Shah and Pinochet and Saddam Hussein because they weren’t Red.

Well, two out of three isn't too bad.

Now, there's a big difference between the Shah and Pinochet, and supporting a European empire.

The Shah and Pinochet weren't European, and had a larger domestic support base.


The Philippines had been pretty much stabilized since before WWII. By the time we gave the Philippines their independence they were pretty much off the American public’s radar screen.Thanks in no small part because the US had already agreed to mostly move out. How long does a resistance movement tend to last after they already get their demands? While the US had militarily defeated most of the rebels beforehand, the American interest faded once the government had determined to leave the islands and the fighting came to a close.


And notice that we still have Guam and Puerto RicoAnd also notice that, when given multiple referndums for independence, Puerto Rico voted heavily against it, choosing Commonwealth. Statehood also greatly increased its percentages over the referendums.

Also notice that there isn't a major or viable Guam independence movement either.


and we still maintain a sizeable military presence on Okinawa even though the Japanese don’t want us thereNews flash for you: just because some citizens oppose something doesn't mean that others do, or that the government opposes it as well. The US Japanese alliance is called an alliance because it is mutually beneficial for both sides. The US provides many securities to Japan that Japan is incapable of providing for itself at this time, such as naval and trade security. The US is also the provider of the ballistic missile defense shield, which alone is a great attraction for many countries.

(and some Hawaians don’t want us in Hawaii either and a bunch of Indians wish we’d all go back to wherever we’ve come from since 1607).And here's an update: they are insignificant minorities now. Harsh, but true. Native hawaiins barely exist now for all the Asian and American settlers that came in, and Native Americans don't have the numbers to matter. Either group would have a hard time even trying to run an insurgency in the country (or island), even if they were handwaved into monolithic blocks.

[qutoe]Now assuming that America would be for colonialism:
Most of the people who wanted out of colonialism had become technologically strong enough to make it rather expense to keep them under control.[/quote]That's not really correct. Vietnam, for example, was fought with ancient booby traps, bicycles, and aid from the Soviets. Most insurgencies were like that: they had less to do with native industry and sciences and much, much more to do with foreign aid. Afghanistan and the Stinger, Vietnam and the SAM batteries, North Korea and the tanks made in Russia.

[Dean_the_Young]

No, it has everything to do with the U.S. footing the bill to rebuild a country after we’ve bombed it into submission only to see that country once again become a threat to our existence.:rolleyes:

Now now dear, the doctor said to not let your paronoia get the best of you.

Really, this is epic. Japan, which can't even feed itself without the shipping that the USS guarantees it, which has had a nuclear mad man on the peninsula shoot ballistic missiles close by? Germany, which is entirely dependent on American aircraft to move, feed, and supply troops from the mountains of Afghanistan to the near by Caucuses? These are your threats to our existence?

Surely you cannot believe that the natives of someplace like India are not better off than they would have been because they were colonized by the British.Yes I can, and easily.

Any and all advances that Britain brought to the table (which were really only technology: British adminstration was far from enlightened and progressive) could have been introduced through trade and commerce. You don't need to colonize India to spread vaccines, you don't need to subjugate a people to allow missionaries access, you don't need to close off a sub-continent to most all foreign trade to introduce new technological devices, and you don't need to erase native languages to teach people sciences.

As one rather thoughtful German once put it, there is no lack of what ifs and focus in and of a larger British Empire, but there is a distinct shortage of interest in a better run British India or Africa.

[what?]

[quote=Dean_the_Young;1694588]
Well, two out of three isn't too bad.

And also notice that, when given multiple referndums for independence, Puerto Rico voted heavily against it, choosing Commonwealth. Statehood also greatly increased its percentages over the referendums.

Also notice that there isn't a major or viable Guam independence movement either.
News flash for you: just because some citizens oppose something doesn't mean that others do, or that the government opposes it as well. The US Japanese alliance is called an alliance because it is mutually beneficial for both sides. The US provides many securities to Japan that Japan is incapable of providing for itself at this time, such as naval and trade security. The US is also the provider of the ballistic missile defense shield, which alone is a great attraction for many countries.
And here's an update: they are insignificant minorities now. Harsh, but true. Native hawaiins barely exist now for all the Asian and American settlers that came in, and Native Americans don't have the numbers to matter. Either group would have a hard time even trying to run an insurgency in the country (or island), even if they were handwaved into monolithic blocks.

Dean , Puerto Rica has a large independence movement, look it up. Also the United States has supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq War.

[wolfstar]

Surely you cannot believe that the natives of someplace like India are not better off than they would have been because they were colonized by the British.


They are better off by. West medicine, food production, and educations saved millions of lives in India. It also united the people India for the first time. Lost of shitty things where done to the Indians. But a lot good things come along with the crap.

Hell if you want the best example of all time:
Spanish destroy the Inca civilization killing god knows how many people. They then import the sweet potato to Europe and china. Populations quadruple is both places over the next 75 years due to it. Less people starve to death. Is that not a good thing resulting from an evil act?

[Edit]On second thought I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Sorry if I read you wrong.

[Susano]

The best thing that can ever happen to nation is to be colonized by the British.

The second best thing that can ever happen to a nation is to lose a war to the U.S. as did Germany and Japan.

Instead of India, Pakistan and Burma being part of a peaceful British Empire the world has 2 third-world countries that are military dictatorships and 2 third-world countries that are nuclear powers that are rampant with religious strife and mutually hostile to each other.

Instead of 2 countries that caused the worst war in human history and thereby should have been relegated to agrarian peasantry we have 2 industrialized competitor nations that think they can dictate policy to the countries to whom they had given their unconditional surrender.

Yes, because Germany wasnt the second strongest economical power with the largest industrial outout before WW1 already... oh, wait it was. :rolleyes: And for all economical troubles caused by outside forces (reperations, RUhr occupation), interwar Germany was an ecomoical power, too. Certainly enough of one for Hitler to use it as base for quite an military-industrial output. And after WW2, W.Germany was given the same aid as France and GB, but it was in a far worse position overall - yet it exceeded those countries economically in a breathtakingly short time. Whereas E.Germany got no aid at all and still managed to become the #2 economcial power in COMECON behind the USSR itself. But yes, thats all just because Germany was defeated by the USA.:rolleyes: WHat a load of BS.

And the "Peaceful British" Empire that used atrocities in the Mau-Mau uprising? Yeah, right. And as Abdul mentions in the other thread, it would have been an Indian Empire by now, considering India's electorate is as large as all other former territories of teh British Empire put togteher.

And that isnt even going into your disgusting racist remarks about how nations should be supressed into agrarian status. Collective punishment to fulfill your sick revenge fantasies? Well, at least we can be somewhat secure you wont last long here.

/E: Deans right. EVen though its unfortunately too indirect to merit reporting.

[wolfstar]

(and some Hawaians don’t want us in Hawaii either and a bunch of Indians wish we’d all go back to wherever we’ve come from since 1607).


I really wish the Danes and not invaded and butchered my Irish and English ancestors. But we where conquered, raped and killed. Hell for all I know the Romans butchered my whole family back in 200AD.

Not like I change the past and it might not even be in my best interest to do so.

I really wish people would get off their high horses about getting taken over more advanced powers 100 of years in the past. Not like it hasn’t happened to all of us at some point in our history. You either roll with it or you get rolled over. You can do things to change future events but for gods sake, stop pity parties about the injustices of the past.

Oh and the Clovis (first people who lived in America and where likely butchered by the "Native Americans") just called and they want the Indians to all go back to Mongolia.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean , Puerto Rica has a large independence movement, look it up.
You're right. They do have a large independence movement. Massive, in fact. Why, just nine years ago they got a whopping 3% (rounded up) of the vote in that referendum on island status!

Excuse me while I tremble in my boots at the might of the Puerto Rico independence movement when the 1998 referendum shows that 46.5% chose independence, 50.3% chose "none of the above" which was advertised as the commonwealth option, and 2.5% chose independence.




Also the United States has supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq War.
And we also have made deals with Iran on various deals here and there. That doesn't make them our allies, or mean that aid was much more than "we don't want either of you to win." 'Support' for Saddam was neither continuous or a regular state of affairs, unlike Pinochet and the nastier American allies.

[wolfstar]

That's not really correct. Vietnam, for example, was fought with ancient booby traps, bicycles, and aid from the Soviets. Most insurgencies were like that: they had less to do with native industry and sciences and much, much more to do with foreign aid. Afghanistan and the Stinger, Vietnam and the SAM batteries, North Korea and the tanks made in Russia.

Modern colonial nations where catching up in war fighting tactics / strategy and they where not longer hundreds of years behind the power who had taken them over. These 2 factors meant keeping these nations subjugated became increasingly expensive.

Honestly I would not count the cold war's wars (that sounds a bit funny) as part of the colonial model. This was a case of 2 superpowers duking it out by proxy. Tech wise it was not to far below the actual super powers level.

The majority of the fighting and killing in Vietnam was actually done by mainline super power equipped combatants (Or the super power itself in the case of the US air war). The Viet Kong did use old gear (and old ideas) but it was the modern application of insurgency that made it effective.

[Dean_the_Young]

Susano, I can understand your frustration, but do you really want to be kicked for insulting him like that? Just report him and edit your comment: no need to be punished alongside him.



Now, What?, I found you a Congressional report on the Puerto Rico situation. Please note the consistent outstanding presentation of the Independence Vote amoung the island's population.
http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf


CRS-11
Table 1. Puerto Rico Status Votes in Plebiscites and
Referendum, 1967 - 1998
Date/ballot options Number of votesa Results by percentb

Dec. 13, 1998c
None of the above [option five] 787,900 50.3%
Statehood [option three] 127,157 46.5%
Sovereignty [option four] 39,838 2.5%
Free association [option two] 4,536 0.1%
Limited self-government [option one] 993 0.1%
[Total votes] 1,561,424 71.3% turnout

Nov. 14, 1993d
Commonwealth 826,326 48.6%
Statehood 788,296 46.3%
Independence 75,620 4.4%
[Total votes] 1,700,000 73.5% turnout

Dec. 8, 1991e
In favor of the reclamation
of democratic rights (Yes) 559,163 45.4%
Against the reclamation of
democratic rights (No) 660,267 53.61%
[Total votes] 1,231,522 60.0% turnout

July 23, 1967f
Commonwealth 425,079 60.5%
Statehood 273,315 38.9%
Independence 0.6%
[Total votes] 702,512 65.8% turnout




a. Table excludes blank or null and void ballots.
b. Total vote percent indicates the percent turnout among all registered voters, as follows: 1967 -
1,067,000; 1991 - 2,052,690.
c. Results taken from U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, The Results of the 1998 Puerto
Rico Plebiscite, committee print, 106th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 10.
d. Results taken from Ivonne Garcia, “Final Status Plebiscite Results Released,” The San Juan Star,
Dec. 10, 1993, p. 12.
CRS-12
40 Indications that Puerto Rico is envisioned to have sovereignty separate from the United
States include the presence of a Puerto Rican National Olympic Committee distinct from the
United States (see [http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/noc/index_uk.asp?id_assoc=9] (http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/noc/index_uk.asp?id_assoc=9%5D),
visited Apr. 1, 2005), and the tax treatment of corporations and individuals in Puerto Rico.
For information on the latter, see CRS Report RL32708, Federal Taxes and the U.S.
Territories: An Overview, by David L. Brumbaugh. Also, some officials, including
Governor Anibal Acevedo Vilá, reportedly refer to Puerto Rico as a “country.” See, for
example, Rosario Fajardo, “AAV, Fortuño Agree on Need to Move Status Issue,” The San
Juan Star, Feb. 15, 2005, p. 4. “`I believe the moment has come for the country to have the
opportunity of choosing between different alternatives,’ Acevedo Vilá said.”
41 The report by the President’s Task Force, expected in 2005, may be an important element
in the resolution of the debate over the definitions of the status options and assessments of
the extent to which the options are non-territorial, non-colonial, and constitutional.
e. Results taken from Representative Robert J. Lagomarsino, “Certification of Puerto Rico
Referendum Results,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 138, Feb. 7, 1992, p. 2141.
A “yes” vote, generally urged by commonwealth and independence supporters, expressed support for
legislation that would have amended the Constitution to support the right of Puerto Ricans to
determine a political status not subordinated to Congress and respective of the unique culture and
identity of Puerto Rico. A “no” vote, generally urged by statehood supporters, rejected the proposed
constitutional amendment.



f. Arturo Morales Carrion, Puerto Rico: A Political and Cultural History, (New York: W.W. Norton
& Co., Inc., 1983), p. 306. [Total number of registered voters was 1,067,000, according to Surendra
Bhana, The United States and the Development of the Puerto Rican Status Question, 1936-1968,
(Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas, 1975), p. 185.

[wolfstar]

And we also have made deals with Iran on various deals here and there. That doesn't make them our allies, or mean that aid was much more than "we don't want either of you to win." 'Support' for Saddam was neither continuous or a regular state of affairs, unlike Pinochet and the nastier American allies.


I have always thought this was one of dumber things we have done. We should have been trying to end that war, not prolong it.
<--- not a fan realpolitic. I don't like seeing millions die and us help to keep it going.

[Dean_the_Young]

Modern colonial nations where catching up in war fighting tactics / strategy and they where not longer hundreds of years behind the power who had taken them over. These 2 factors meant keeping these nations subjugated became increasingly expensive.

Honestly I would not count the cold war's wars (that sounds a bit funny) as part of the colonial model. This was a case of 2 superpowers duking it out by proxy. Tech wise it was not to far below the actual super powers level.Colonial insurgencies work much the same as, well, neo-colonial insurgencies. Funding an insurgency in the Cold War was the same regardless of whether it was against a colonial power or not. The various Maoist insurgencies were often put in place against non-colonial areas, whereas the Vietcong and Afghan insurgencies were started against colonial powers/powers acting colonially. Technology had little to do with it.

The majority of the fighting and killing in Vietnam was actually done by mainline super power equipped combatants (Or the super power itself in the case of the US air war). The Viet Kong did use old gear (and old ideas) but it was the modern application of insurgency that made it effective.Not really. As the saying goes, the Viet Kong never won a battle, and by the end of the conflict the Viet Kong forces had been wiped out by Tet, leading to North Vietnamese regulars taking up the fight. The war was ended in the elections of the US, not in the jungles of Vietnam, and the elections in the US were as much of domestic opinions at how the military ran and mismanaged the war and the rising anti-government sentiment as it was about the hardship of the war itself. The Vietnam War was won politically, not militarily.

[Dean_the_Young]

I have always thought this was one of dumber things we have done. We should have been trying to end that war, not prolong it.
<--- not a fan realpolitic. I don't like seeing millions die and us help to keep it going.How would we have ended it? By not sending the weapons? We gave Saddam weapons and intelligence so that Iran wouldn't win, not so that he wouldn't lose, and we didn't have the pull on Iran.

[wolfstar]

How would we have ended it? By not sending the weapons? We gave Saddam weapons and intelligence so that Iran wouldn't win, not so that he wouldn't lose, and we didn't have the pull on Iran.

I know the reasons for it and I don't know of a way we could have been ended beyond threating to invade both nations unless they stopped. WTB a real UN with a real army to handle wars like this.

[Dean_the_Young]

I know the reasons for it and I don't know of a way we could have been ended beyond threating to invade both nations unless they stopped. WTB a real UN with a real army to handle wars like this.A UN army fails for the reasons it always fails. Who's troops, who's money, what mandate, and the UN security council. No country puts up the men and material for an Army unless they have a good deal of control over it.

[flaja]

Now, there's a big difference between the Shah and Pinochet, and supporting a European empire.

Why does the location make any difference? An empire is an empire regardless of where it is located. Places like Chile and Iran were little better than vassal states for the U.S.

The Shah and Pinochet weren't European, and had a larger domestic support base.

Hitler wasn’t German but that didn’t stop the Germans from supporting him.

Thanks in no small part because the US had already agreed to mostly move out. How long does a resistance movement tend to last after they already get their demands? While the US had militarily defeated most of the rebels beforehand, the American interest faded once the government had determined to leave the islands and the fighting came to a close.

Huh? The U.S. defeated the Spanish fleet in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. The Phillipines then declared itself to be a republic but the U.S. used military force to dissolve it. This lead to the Philippine-Amrican War. This war officially ended in 1901, but fighting continued until 1913 by which time a million Philipinos were dead. The U.S. did not give the Philippines any great amount of home rule until commonwealth status was granted in 1935. The U.S. did not grant the Phillipines full independence until 1946. The U.S. had more than just a passing interest in the Philippines.

And also notice that, when given multiple referndums for independence, Puerto Rico voted heavily against it, choosing Commonwealth.

Mainly because of federal welfare programs that Puerto Ricans don’t have to pay for because they don’t pay federal taxes.

In the 1993 referendum only 48.4% of the Puerto Rican electorate wanted to keep their commonwealth status while 46.2% wanted statehood.

http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/food-manufacturing-food-coffee-tea/430167-1.html

Also notice that there isn't a major or viable Guam independence movement either.

Again welfare without taxation.

News flash for you: just because some citizens oppose something doesn't mean that others do, or that the government opposes it as well. The US Japanese alliance is called an alliance because it is mutually beneficial for both sides.

The U.S. – Japanese alliance exists because Japan gave its unconditional surrender to the U.S. in 1945 and Douglas MacArthur wrote the Japanese constitution whereby Japan renounces war. After World War II Japan should have been treated as a U.S. vassal; it should never have been allowed to become the economic competitor it became.

The US provides many securities to Japan that Japan is incapable of providing for itself at this time, such as naval and trade security.

Japan cannot provide for its own national security because of how Douglas MacArthur wrote the Japanese constitution following Japan’s unconditional surrender to the U.S.Japan has long had the economic wherewithal to maintain a first rate army and navy, but legally Japan cannot have either.

The US is also the provider of the ballistic missile defense shield, which alone is a great attraction for many countries.

What ballistic missile defense shield? We don’t have anything that can repel an ICBM attack and we have only a very limited ability to repel any tactical missile attack.

And here's an update: they are insignificant minorities now. Harsh, but true. Native hawaiins barely exist now for all the Asian and American settlers that came in, and Native Americans don't have the numbers to matter. Either group would have a hard time even trying to run an insurgency in the country (or island), even if they were handwaved into monolithic blocks.

If these natives were to start shooting people or throwing around bombs, they’d matter. Remember what a few dozen thugs did on 9-11.

[flaja]

Now now dear, the doctor said to not let your paronoia get the best of you.

Really, this is epic. Japan, which can't even feed itself without the shipping that the USS guarantees it, which has had a nuclear mad man on the peninsula shoot ballistic missiles close by? Germany, which is entirely dependent on American aircraft to move, feed, and supply troops from the mountains of Afghanistan to the near by Caucuses? These are your threats to our existence?

You obviously have no clue as to how World War II began or how it ended.

Any and all advances that Britain brought to the table (which were really only technology: British adminstration was far from enlightened and progressive) could have been introduced through trade and commerce.

So places like India haven’t benefited from a legal system based on British common law? India isn’t better off with parliamentary democracy than it would have been under a bunch of sultans and petty potentates?

[Susano]

Hitler wasn’t German but that didn’t stop the Germans from supporting him.
Hitler was German by virtue of being Austrian. The Austrians bakc then certainly did not think themselves as a nationality removed from the Germans.


Mainly because of federal welfare programs that Puerto Ricans don’t have to pay for because they don’t pay federal taxes.
Does it matter? Bottom line is they dont want independance.

In the 1993 referendum only 48.4% of the Puerto Rican electorate wanted to keep their commonwealth status while 46.2% wanted statehood.
Which leaves 5.4% for your "large" independance movement. Hah!

After World War II Japan should have been treated as a U.S. vassal; it should never have been allowed to become the economic competitor it became.
So you advocate:
1. The USA having vasalls
2. The USA artifically keeping nations down economiycally.
3. The USA artificially keeping is vasalls down economically.
That says a lot about you:rolleyes:

Japancannot provide for its own national security because of how Douglas MacArthur wrote the Japanese constitution following Japan’s unconditional surrender to the U.S.
Japan has long had the economic wherewithal to maintain a first rate army and navy, but legally Japan cannot have either.
Actually they just changed that constitutional clause lats year. Not that it matters greatly: The socalled "Selfdefense Forces" are for all practical purposes a military. Who do you think has the second strongest navy in the Pacific? Japan. Japan is very well capable of defending its own national security - Dean was merely saying that Japan as a net importer of about every raw material and foodstuff is very vulnerable in any case of war, and hence hardly a threat to the United States!

If these natives were to start shooting people or throwing around bombs, they’d matter. Remember what a few dozen thugs did on 9-11.
So, what would you do with native minorities?

[flaja]

[quote=Dean_the_Young;1694588]
Well, two out of three isn't too bad.

And also notice that, when given multiple referndums for independence, Puerto Rico voted heavily against it, choosing Commonwealth. Statehood also greatly increased its percentages over the referendums.

Also notice that there isn't a major or viable Guam independence movement either.
News flash for you: just because some citizens oppose something doesn't mean that others do, or that the government opposes it as well. The US Japanese alliance is called an alliance because it is mutually beneficial for both sides. The US provides many securities to Japan that Japan is incapable of providing for itself at this time, such as naval and trade security. The US is also the provider of the ballistic missile defense shield, which alone is a great attraction for many countries.
And here's an update: they are insignificant minorities now. Harsh, but true. Native hawaiins barely exist now for all the Asian and American settlers that came in, and Native Americans don't have the numbers to matter. Either group would have a hard time even trying to run an insurgency in the country (or island), even if they were handwaved into monolithic blocks.

Dean , Puerto Rica has a large independence movement, look it up. Also the United States has supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq War.

DTY must be about 2. I’ve never before seen so much ignorance about the last 70 years of world history concentrated in just one person.

[Susano]

So places like India haven’t benefited from a legal system based on British common law? India isn’t better off with parliamentary democracy than it would have been under a bunch of sultans and petty potentates?

Yepp, because for those states it wouldve been absolutely impossible to reach democracy! Because, after all only Europe could possible hope to develop from a bunch of petty principalities to democratic nations!:rolleyes:

[Roberto]

[quote=what?;1694613]
I’ve never before seen so much ignorance about the last 70 years of world history concentrated in just one person.

I almost said that about you. Where are you getting your facts? Are you related to Eleven11 or Bard32?

[flaja]

Yes, because Germany wasnt the second strongest economical power with the largest industrial outout before WW1 already... oh, wait it was.

World War I or World War II? If WWI you are likely wrong. Germany in the decades leading to World War I may have had the fastest rate of industrial growth, but it is highly doubtful that its overall economy was larger than either the U.S. or Great Britain.

If you are talking about World War II, Germany’s economic growth leading up to that war was due to Germany’s illegal rearmament.

[flaja]

I really wish the Danes and not invaded and butchered my Irish and English ancestors. But we where conquered, raped and killed. Hell for all I know the Romans butchered my whole family back in 200AD.

Do you pay any attention to what you type? If the Romans butchered your entire family in 200 AD, how can you be here today?

[Susano]

World War I or World War II? If WWI you are likely wrong. Germany in the decades leading to World War I may have had the fastest rate of industrial growth, but it is highly doubtful that its overall economy was larger than either the U.S. or Great Britain.


No, Germany had let GB behind before WW1. Ive seen contradicting soruces about wether the USA or Germany was in the lead - after all, the USA was nowhere yet near the status it has today. I find the formulation I posted the most realistic: Germany was second economically behind the USA, but led in industrial output. Germany WAS the economical superpower of pre-WW1. And after every defeat it became it again, for a short time even being #1 AFTER WW2. So, Id say that has nothing to do with being defeated by America, but more to do with it being Germany.

If you are talking about World War II, Germany’s economic growth leading up to that war was due to Germany’s illegal rearmament.
I see you have a sound understanding of historical economcis... not. Why am I not surpised?:rolleyes:

[Roberto]

If you are talking about World War II, Germany’s economic growth leading up to that war was due to Germany’s illegal rearmament.


What? Economic growth does not come from building unrelated infrastructure and programs. In order to construct said infrastructure and programs, you must possess a strong economic base to start with. Obviously, Germany did. Ever since Germany was formed it pretty much had an excellent economic base to jump off of, even after horrible defeats and setbacks like WW1 and WW2. Being defeated by America has nothing to do with Germany's success.

[flaja]

[quote=flaja;1695176]

I almost said that about you. Where are you getting your facts? Are you related to Eleven11 or Bard32?

Document that my facts are wrong, if you can.

[Dean_the_Young]

An understanding of pan-German nationalism mid-20th century, the meaning of a "large" independence movement on an island where it has yet to break into double digits at any referendum, the scope of insignificance of Hawaii nativist movements, and a startling lack of understanding of what an existence-threatening to a country actually is. (Hint: strong allies are not considered threats to your existence, hence in part why they are called allies.)

You've already demonstrated a wide degree of conceptual dissonance on a variety of issues, and more facts, right or wrong, won't change that.

[Roberto]

Document that my facts are wrong, if you can.

Well, to start with, Germany's rearmament didn't cause its rise in economic power, it was caused by Germany's existing economic and industrial ability.

Secondly, India was most definitely not bettered by Britain's colonization.

And Puerto Rico and Guam are not being horribly suppress. And Hawaiian natives and Amerindians are mostly content with being part of the US, seeing as they are solely American minorities.

[flaja]

No, Germany had let GB behind before WW1.

Your documentation for this is what?

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/america-military-power.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/america-military-power.htm)

“America’s population of 90 million gave the military the potential to have a very large army. America's industrial might was unparalled in the world. In steel production alone, America produced three times as much as Germany and Austria did.” And this was without having the U.S. economy on a war footing. Germany was producing all the steel it could and its production was still dwarfed by the U.S.A.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/2000/eight/html/Slouching2_8preWWI.html (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/2000/eight/html/Slouching2_8preWWI.html)

In 1910 the U.S. had the greatest number of railroad miles of any country in the world. We had almost seven times what the Germany had in 2nd place. The U.K. was in 7th place. But railroad miles are as much a product of land area as anything else. But the ability to build railroads and fill them with locomotives and rolling stock is a reflection of a country’s industrial and economic power. By 1913 the United States had about twice as many kilometers of rail lines than all of Western Europe combined.

“On the eve of World War I some 1.7 million passenger cars were registered, and some 100,000 goods-carrying vehicles were registered in the United States. But the United States was far ahead of other countries in its use of internal combustion engine vehicles: there were only some 132,000 passenger cars in Britain.” So Germany lagged behind the U.S. (and Britain?) in auto production/use.

In the textile industry of 1910 American workers were the most efficient in the world, each one operating 5.62 looms. Canada was second with 2.53 looms per worker. Britain was third with 2.04. Germany was 5 with 1.28- behind Switzerland’s 1.4. Granted, these figures don’t indicate the overall size of a country’s textile output since some countries could have more workers than others, but it does indicate how efficiently a country’s textile industry was.

Germany was in no way an economic rival for the U.S. before, during or since World War I. And the best Germany could do with Great Britain is break even.

[flaja]

I see you have a sound understanding of historical economcis... not. Why am I not surpised?:rolleyes:

If I am wrong, tell me how. Germany’s entire economy post 1932 was aimed at fighting World War II.

[Susano]

Soooo... in order to refute my point about pre-WW1 Germany having a larger economy than GB, you cite sources about the USA? Allright then:rolleyes:

[flaja]

What? Economic growth does not come from building unrelated infrastructure and programs. In order to construct said infrastructure and programs, you must possess a strong economic base to start with. Obviously, Germany did. Ever since Germany was formed it pretty much had an excellent economic base to jump off of, even after horrible defeats and setbacks like WW1 and WW2. Being defeated by America has nothing to do with Germany's success.

So the Nazis’ Volkswagon factories that built tanks and not Volkswagons didn’t have a military purpose?

The Nazi expansion of the Autobahn didn’t have a military purpose?

What about all of the aircraft and battleships and U-boats that the Nazis built?

[Susano]

If I am wrong, tell me how. Germany’s entire economy post 1932 was aimed at fighting World War II.

Post 1932?
Well, anyways, of course it got directed towards arment and war efforts. But yo u cant direct an economy towards military means if said economy is not up for it! Yes, in good Keynesian manner the Nazi regime did tacjkle the unemployment problem with public investment, which mostly had the form of defense projects (but it gt helped massivyl b the fact that the economcial crisis at this point was becoming better anyways). However, even for that the industrial and economicla base already had to be in place - and in was in Germany, it just was hindered all the time by things like reperations, the Ruhr occupation and Versailles restrictions (which also did restriuct the German civilian economy).

[flaja]

Soooo... in order to refute my point about pre-WW1 Germany having a larger economy than GB, you cite sources about the USA? Allright then:rolleyes:

According to the 2002 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia “The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 had left Germany the most powerful nation of Continental Europe.” So Great Britain was still the most powerful nation in Europe.

http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/collections_az/firstww1-07/description.aspx (http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/collections_az/firstww1-07/description.aspx)

The relative sizes of the German and British economies became very apparent as World War I progressed. 83% of Germany’s public spending went to the war effort. In Britain this figure was only 62%. So, either Britain fought a smaller war than Germany did (which is doubtful) or Britain had a larger overall public budget and thus didn’t need to as much of it on the war. A larger public budget implies a larger economy.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:VejybO-GBvEJ:www.ieis.lu/books/britain/kern.PDF+britain+germany+economic+output+%22world+ war%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:VejybO-GBvEJ:www.ieis.lu/books/britain/kern.PDF+britain+germany+economic+output+%22world+ war%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us)

Great Britain had the largest economy in the world in 1850. And it was still producing 40% of the world’s exported trade goods in the second half of the 19th century.

In terms of per-capita GDP Great Britain was ahead of the U.S. and the U.S. was ahead of Germany in 1900 and Britain would remain ahead of Germany for the first half of the 20th century.

Beginning in 1870 Great Britain’s GDP output per hour of labor worked was the highest in the world and it remained the highest in the world until 1950.

Now, what have you produced to show that Germany’s economy was larger than Britain’s?

[flaja]

Post 1932?
Well, anyways, of course it got directed towards arment and war efforts. But yo u cant direct an economy towards military means if said economy is not up for it! Yes, in good Keynesian manner the Nazi regime did tacjkle the unemployment problem with public investment, which mostly had the form of defense projects (but it gt helped massivyl b the fact that the economcial crisis at this point was becoming better anyways).

How so?

Hitler’s armaments programs ended the Great Depression in Germany. The Great Depression did not get better on its own.

The GDP of the U.S. was as high in 1937 as it had been in 1928- the last full year before the Great Depression hit. But the unemployment rate in the U.S. for 1937 was over 10%. The Great Depression in the U.S. did not end until December 7, 1941.

However, even for that the industrial and economicla base already had to be in place - and in was in Germany, it just was hindered all the time by things like reperations, the Ruhr occupation and Versailles restrictions (which also did restriuct the German civilian economy).

The French had left the Ruhr in 1930, before Hitler became Chancellor and by the time Hitler took power Germany’s reparations payments had been re-negotiated- and even without renegotiation they were never more than Germany could have afforded.

[Susano]

Now, what have you produced to show that Germany’s economy was larger than Britain’s?
Nothing,m but neither have you. And Im too lazy to go search anyways. Couple of points about your sources though: First, politcial and economical might are different, and second 1871 is not 1914. In 1871, Britains economy still was larger than Germanys, and really, who could have called even an united Germany more powerful than the British Empire? So that makes sense to rank Germany only strongest on the continent, but it says nothing about its comparative 1914 economy.

Also, being a somewhat loose federation, the German Imperial Governemnt actually during its whole time did have problems to raise funds. So they might even have a smaller budget, but due to financial policy and politcial structures, and not economcial concerns. Though I also do think that Britain, mainly involved through an expeditioary force, would also spend less on the war than Germany.

How so?

Hitler’s armaments programs ended the Great Depression in Germany. The Great Depression did not get better on its own.[/quote9
It did. Thats the nature of economy, economcial cycles. In the ealry 30s (that is, beofre Hitler took over), German unemployment and GDP actually did get better again. It wasnt over yet, but, yeah, it got better, the downpoint of teh cycle had been reached.

[quote]The French had left the Ruhr in 1930, before Hitler became Chancellor and by the time Hitler took power Germany’s reparations payments had been re-negotiated- and even without renegotiation they were never more than Germany could have afforded.
But enough to severly hurt the economy, as said also coupled with Versailles restrictions Hitler ignored - and on that he did good. And yes the Ruhr Occupation already was over, but thats what Im saying - the economy also already was getting better again.

[Starviking]

And the "Peaceful British" Empire that used atrocities in the Mau-Mau uprising?


So? All nations have committed atrocities. America in the Phillipines and Vietnam, Germany in Europe and Namibia, France in Algeria, Spain in...lots of places.

Starviking

[flaja]

Nothing,m but neither have you.

How so? Have you even read what I’ve posted? The fact that as late as 1900 Britain’s exports accounted for 40% of the world’s total shows that its economy was larger than Germany’s.

[Roberto]

How so? Have you even read what I’ve posted? The fact that as late as 1900 Britain’s exports accounted for 40% of the world’s total shows that its economy was larger than Germany’s.

No, you just proved that Britain was a large colonial power in terms of exports. You did nothing to prove that Britain had a superior economy than Germany.

[Trotsky]

This thread is just dumb. People being better off because the British Empire took over? The USA needing to have run herd over Germany and Japan instead of letting them become "threats" to its security? A massive independence movement in Puerto Rico? Where do people in this day and age keep coming up with this moonshine?

[Roberto]

This thread is just dumb. People being better off because the British Empire took over? The USA needing to have run herd over Germany and Japan instead of letting them become "threats" to its security? A massive independence movement in Puerto Rico? Where do people in this day and age keep coming up with this moonshine?

It's pretty much just Flaja who's saying that stuff. I expect him to be banned quickly if he steps it up.

[flaja]

No, you just proved that Britain was a large colonial power in terms of exports. You did nothing to prove that Britain had a superior economy than Germany.

How can you export something if you don’t have the industrial base to produce the exported products and build the ships that carry these products around the globe?

[flaja]

It's pretty much just Flaja who's saying that stuff. I expect him to be banned quickly if he steps it up.

So this board is not in favor of freedom of speech? What about Vladimir, who in another thread has blamed the Jews for all of the current turmoil in the Middle East? Will he be banned as well?

[Trotsky]

This is an internet messageboard, not a constitutional republic. The US Bill of Rights doesn't apply here. :rolleyes:

[Dean_the_Young]

Didn't even see the banned part. Never mind.

[HJ Tulp]

Dunno about the other colonial empires but making the US not support the ex-collaborator Soekarno would practically be enough to ensure a United States of Indonesia instead of the creation of a new imperialistic power.