In His Own Right, Part III

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by OperationGreen

Always good and getting better

Thanks, mate!

[David bar Elias]

If you want a high-ranking rabbi to visit Japan, I'd suggest Stephen Wise, a progressive activist in his own right, and the man who jump-started the Reform movement on the west coast (in Oregon).

Just an idea......

[LacheyS]

The vehicle carrying US Secretary of State Robert Lansing turned off Mendiola Street and, as his door was opened, he was glad it was only February. Imagine how hot it would be in summer here. Directly ahead was the newly-renovated Malacanang complex and the small gentleman waiting for him ahead was the long-serving and inaugural Prime Minister of the Philippines, Sergio Osmena. Next year, Osmena would complete a decade in office and was not a man with whom the United States would trifle unnecessarily.

With Osmena stood his deputy, Manuel Quezon, and Francis Harrison, the Governor General of the Philippines. Lansing did not know how Harrison would take the idea that the President wanted to put him out of a job, but as a former Representative, at least he would understand the politics behind it all. It had been an open secret that the United States under President Clark had wanted out of the colonial game. Lansing was here to advise that the British had finally opened negotiations for the purpose of purchasing the Philippines from the United States.

The plan had some support at home, particularly in the Caribbean states where there was concern about the growing competitiveness of Philippino sugar. In the West, there were as many complaints about Philippino migration as there was regarding the Japanese and Chinese. All in all, Congress was likely to pass the bill provided the price was right, irregardless of the rants of the Republican Senate leadership.

There were two hiccups. Firstly, Britain was hesitant about the US price, being $1.9 billion per annum over a period of 25 years. While this was significant, inflation meant that it was lower much than the price paid for Egypt. Nonetheless, it still represented a significant investment by Britain and she needed to be sure that it would pay off. She wanted to bring the price down and wanted a provision in the treaty that, if the Philippines revolted against British rule before the end of the payment period, Britain would be entitled to cease payment. Secondly, Osmena wanted built into any treaty a series of guarantees regarding Philippino self-rule. He wanted a guarantee that there would be no change to the current governance system for the interim, but that:

1. At five years, all appointed members of Parliament would make way for elected members. (1921)
2. At fifteen years, the Philippines would be granted full dominion status. (1931)
3. At twenty-five years, the right to appoint its own Governor General would pass from the British Parliament to the Philippino Parliament. (1941)

Osmena also wanted a guarantee that there would be no attempt to combine the Philippines with another British colony.

The treaty was finally signed on 4 August and approved by the United Kingdom and the United States on 29 August. The final approved price was $1.4 billion per annum. In order to achieve Senate approval, the President was required to throw a sop to the imperialists: the purchase of the West Indies from Denmark. Over the next five years, the United Kingdom would spend a massive $2.5 billion on the development of the Philippines.

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by David bar Elias

If you want a high-ranking rabbi to visit Japan, I'd suggest Stephen Wise, a progressive activist in his own right, and the man who jump-started the Reform movement on the west coast (in Oregon).

Just an idea......

Name recorded. It is unlikely to occur before 1922, but I might use it after that date.

[M.Passit]

Like the map So you plan for the British to lose their control over Jamaica and Belize? In the map, Belize's even absorbed into Guatemala. Wait to see how that happen.

[G.Bone]

So Britain now has the Phillipines?

Interesting....how's the whole thing about China-Japan dynamic playing out with the Phillipines now UK?

Also, what about Thailand? That's ...I believe the only native regime in that area ITTL and OTL...

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by M.Passit

Like the map So you plan for the British to lose their control over Jamaica and Belize? In the map, Belize's even absorbed into Guatemala. Wait to see how that happen.

Ah no, at this stage, the Belize change is an error. Sorry, but thanks for your close scrutiny to point that out. I re-checked my BMP map and Jamaica is still red, but when I saved to JPG format, it blurs the colours. Anyone know how to fix that? The BMP format is too large to post on here.

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by G.Bone

So Britain now has the Phillipines?

Interesting....how's the whole thing about China-Japan dynamic playing out with the Phillipines now UK?

Also, what about Thailand? That's ...I believe the only native regime in that area ITTL and OTL...

Britain has now purchased the Philippines, or at least, the islands known as the Philippines. Remember that, in TTL, that is only the northern two island groups of what we know as the Philippines in OTL. Mindanao and all points south are still part of the independent Sultanate of Moro. Which brought be to another error on the map - not all of Moro was coloured white.

In Asia, the odds ones out are not China and Japan, who are getting along famously, but Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, East Timor and German New Guinea (as they are the areas affiliated with the Strasbourg Commission). Japan is running a rather large current account deficit with China, as she needs to trade with the USA, and the USA doesn't allow Japanese products into the country unless the Japanese country meet the standards applied by the Federal Trade Commission (the producer must allow collective bargaining, no forced labour, no child labour, no employment discrimination, equal pay for equal work, reasonable employment hours, periodic paid annual holidays). This is how Clark has been able to completely wipe tariffs. Therefore, about 20% of Japanese capital is ending up in China (Chinese wages are still lower than Japan's) while 30% of Chinese products are ending up on ships headed toward the United States (because Chinese wages are MUCH lower than the United States).

The world economy suffered from the hit that the FTC legislation produced, but is now starting to recover and countries like Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and China are being forced to imitate the standards its applies, as they are unable to function without their US trade. This means, in turn, that Germany and Britain are looking to build industrialisation in their colonies, as wages are lower and resources are close at hand, saving on transport costs. Manufacturing, in turn, requires education. I might create a table to show national GDP's and wages for 1918.

[LacheyS]

to do a table but I could get it to work. So I will have to present the statistics as I can. They are divided according to OTL countries, as the original figures I gathered are based on OTL. The list for per capita income in Western Europe in 1918 (OTL figures are in parentheses) are:

Britain: $5687 ($5459)
France: $5582 ($2395)
Netherlands: $4587 ($3352)
Austria: $4538 ($2555)
Denmark: $4452 ($3458)
Germany: $4339 ($2983)
Belgium: $4286 ($2861)
Switzerland: $4224 ($3798)
Sweden: $3261 ($2532)
Italy: $3118 ($3391)
Norway: $3026 ($2242)
Finland: $2614 ($1370)

In OTL, the GDP of these countries in 1918 combined was $780,645 million. In TTL, it will be $1,082,076 million. Much of this increase (47%) will come from France, which will boom in comparison to OTL. The only country going backwards in comparison to OTL will be Italy, which, with the loss of the common market and its wars, will suffer a 7.5% decrease in economic growth.

Population in 1918 will be 236.056 million, compared to 227.568 million in OTL. The population in the Netherlands will go backwards, as about 85,000 of its citizens migrate to Flanders.

I will give you a 1918 snapshot of other countries as I have them available.

[G.Bone]

Y'know the GNP doesn't really matter...I was just asking about the regional quibbles now that N. Phillipines is occupied by the Brits...

Still - what about Thailand? Just a minor note?

[LacheyS]

Theodore Roosevelt arrived at the border of Mexico on 9 March. The resemblance to Clark's journey before his inauguration was clear and deliberate. He was here to meet with President Carranza and to speak to a crowd of somewhat angry Mexicans, who feared that this man might once again occupy the White House. Roosevelt knew that, for the future to be secured, Mexico must once again feel safe.

He rose to the podium and a less-than-receptive audience. His words were as follows:

"There are always in nature those minds that have been inflamed to weak and to vicious acts of violence. There will always be those who will abuse and slander. There will always be those who brutally and bitterly assault all that is good. I have truly endeavoured never to be one of those men. I give you my word that my only care has ever been for my country. I have said no thing that I could not substantiate, done no deed that I could not justify.

Nontheless, the issues that have divided in the past have brought sadness and misery to both sides of the border, to both great nations. However, it does not reduce - rather, it emphasises - that we both share a common need. Citizens of Mexico, we see, as you do, a world of those who have and those who have not. We see the day when wars will not be between countries, but between the creed of the great and powerful against the creed of the meek and lowly. When that day comes where those who have not, swayed by their injury, rise up, when they loose their passions to reclaim what is rightfully theirs, when they turn against those who have improperly claimed what is not their own, that will be an ill day for both our countries.

We ask the citizens of Mexico to join with us and forestall the war of creed. We ask them to stand with just men of generous and forgiving hearts, to put aside the grievances that have held us apart, and to stand together for the elementary rights of humanity. Never in my life have I realised the futility of our division as I do today; never in my life have I been as committed to repairing the bridges between us and standing up for what is our common good. I do not regard creed or birthplace as being the essential makeup of a good man; it is a matter of spirit and purpose and your President represents both.

I have today sincerely asked President Carranza to take the lead in denouncing militarism and disorder, to denouncing riot and rebellion, and, in return, the day I am elected, I will offer your country the protection and defence of the United States. A foundation will be established between our two great countries as the nucleus of our eternal peace, and we will turn aside from a relationship that has been dominated by cruel greed and violence to one dominated by righteousness and justice. This will not be a peace marked of cowardice and sloth, or an instrument to further the ends of despotism and anarchy. It will not be a tool of heartless and all-absorbing commercialism, nor one of indulgence and sentimentality. This will not be a peace of giant leaps, but one of confident and practical steps toward that lofty ideal.

The advance in the relationship of the United States with Mexico can be made along several lines. Firstly, we need to arbitrate our differences and draw together to resolve the questions that have explicitly dealt with the controversies between us. I am prepared to submit to international arbitration where we are unable to resolve these differences ourselves, but I believe that we have the capacity and intelligence to resolve our own problems. Secondly, it is clear that the international framework I encouraged has expanded to create a rule of law for nations, an ideal for which we might strive. It is my hope that we can work together to advance this ideal throughout Europe, throughout Asia, throughout the Americas to secure a framework that will prevent all hostility between sovereign and supreme states. Thirdly, under my Administration, America will endorse the masterstroke of the Strasbourg Commission, joining together with those Great Powers honestly bent on peace, and will encourage the formation of an international police power, competent and willing to prevent hostilities between nations. Together, Mr Carranza and I, as international statesmen, will work together to bring about a world of nations that desire peace and that are incapable of aggression, earning our peoples a place in history for all time and the eternal gratitude of all men."

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by G.Bone

Y'know the GNP doesn't really matter...I was just asking about the regional quibbles now that N. Phillipines is occupied by the Brits...

Still - what about Thailand? Just a minor note?

No regional quibble exist. Britain, Russia, Japan and China are all, on paper, allies.

Thailand is still in an alliance with Britain, having taken under the terms of that treaty what is currently OTL northern Malaysia. King Rama VI has continued his father's reforms - compulsory primary education, building of universities, abolition of polygamy, free vaccinations and health care, expansion of railways, establishment of an elite military corps. The only difference that has come about is his establishment of a British style succession to the monarchy, meaning that upon his death, the throne will pass to his daughter, Queen Ramu I (Bejaratana), with Queen Savang Vadhana acting as Regent until 1943. However, I wasn't going to mention that until the mid-1920's.

Rama VI's expenditure will not hurt Thailand as greatly as it did in OTL as the rest of the world will not be suffering the economic morass that was World War I. Nonetheless, it will be bad enough for Queen Savang Vadhana to establish an appointed Legislative Council in 1925, followed the establishment of a constitution shortly thereafter, designed to protect the young Queen Ramu's position.

[Michael Canaris]

Originally Posted by LacheyS

The list for per capita income in Western Europe in 1918 (OTL figures are in parentheses) are:

Britain: $5687 ($5459)
France: $5582 ($2395)
Netherlands: $4587 ($3352)
Austria: $4538 ($2555)
Denmark: $4452 ($3458)
Germany: $4339 ($2983)
Belgium: $4286 ($2861)
Switzerland: $4224 ($3798)
Sweden: $3261 ($2532)
Italy: $3118 ($3391)
Norway: $3026 ($2242)
Finland: $2614 ($1370)

I was of the impression that, ceteris paribus, wars tend to increase headline GDP, while peace brings slumps (due to the effect both have on aggregate demand.)

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by Michael Canaris

I was of the impression that, ceteris paribus, wars tend to increase headline GDP, while peace brings slumps (due to the effect both have on aggregate demand.)

Welcome, Michael. Glad to have a New South Welshman on board.

I am of the thought that this "doctrine" is a fallacy. Firstly, any money expended on the instruments of war is ultimately destroyed, whether it be bombs, tanks, fuel, or whatever else. There is still labour and capital being used, but instead of going into productive output, it is being used to produce to fight war. As a result, the nation suffers from the opportunity cost - the fact that labour and capital have not been used in the most highly valued production possible.

For example, in World War II, America produces a stack of tanks and airplanes, but civilian car manufacturing virtually shut down. The planes and tanks were useless for any productive means after 1945, while civilian automobiles would have continued to retain some productive value. In war, transport also gets taken over for military purposes, meaning a rationing of fuel and transport infrastructure for productive outputs.

You then factor in the cost of lives lost, with the waste resultant from previous expenditure on education, health and social welfare for people who will no longer use those resources because they're dead.

I think the idea arose because America got out of the Great Depression on the back of World War II. No doubt that World War II provided an opportunity for those who had the money to invest it because they could make a profit out of war. However, I can certainly think of less destructive ways to encourage people to invest money. The fact that America chose not to use those mechanisms and remained in stagnant growth for longer than other countries doesn't mean that war is the best economic panacea for a stagnant economy, or even necessarily a good one.

[LacheyS]

The Sultan of Nejd, Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, received the notice of jihad bis saif on 5 June, 1916, signed by the Caliph himself and endorsed by the Porte in Beirut. The mujahideen of the Ottoman Empire would soon be on their way. With the notice came a letter, reported drafted by the Caliph himself and accusing Ibn Saud and his family of multiple crimes.

The Caliph cited that this was a war of defence, citing numerous justifications. He quoted Quran 22:39-40, arguing that the destruction of churches, mosque and synagogues by Saudis was a wrongfully waged war. He stated, in revealing that he had ensuring no cooperation between Ibn Saud and other Muslims that Quran 60:10 made clear that alliance with those who fight against you to change your religion is unjust. He then stated that his duty, under Quran 2:190-191, was to ensure that the Saudis ended their persecutions and to continue hostilities until all people were free to worship the Most Wise and Compassionate.

Ibn Saud had been born in 1876, the son of the then Sultan of Nejd. However, his father had been deposed in 1890 and the young prince went into exile in Kuwait. In 1902, he had returned to depose the Rashidi and to retake his father's throne. However, his ongoing harrassment of the Rashidi tribes made him an enemy of Constantinople and the Ottomans sent assistance to the Rashidis on a continual basis from 1904 until finally declaring war themselves in 1916. In October of that year, the United Kingdom agreed to end its trade with the Saudis and to detain any Ikhwan who went outside Saudi territory. The Sherif of Mecca and Prince of the Arabs, Hussein Ibn Ali, joined with the Ottomans and the Rashidis, riding into Riyadh in October and sacking Masmak Castle. The fort was razed to the ground, but no sign was found of Ibn Saud and many of his defenders dissolved into the streets of Al-Bathaa. The Saudi chieftain's eldest son, Turki, was killed in the fighting.

As for the leader himself, Ibn Saud was captured on 11 March, 1917, by troops loyal to Sheikh Salim Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah, Emir of Kuwait. After conferral with both the British and the Ottomans, he was transferred to Baghdad where he lived under house arrest for the next eleven years, receiving a stipend from the Ottoman government but separated from his children and wives. In, November, 1928, he was killed while making an attempt to escape from custody and is buried in an unmarked grave south of the Jabrin Oasis.

[SteveW]

No offence, but I don't think 85,000 Dutch will move to Flanders. Flanders at that time was a lot poorer- the powerhouse of the Belgian economy was Wallonia. What I think you WILL see is a large number of Frenchmen move to Wallonia to take up work, which will alter the demographics. Charleroi for one might become as big as, say, Lille. Flanders might well see emigration: to the Netherlands, but also to places such as Indonesia or South Africa. By the way- who's taken the Congo? (the problem being that in OTL the Belgian Congo was administered mainly in French rather than Flemish).

As much as Flanders didn't choose to join the Netherlands at the referendum, there's still probably a good chance that it could join at a later date, especially if it's economy stays weak.

By the way, as there will be a lot more people alive in this TL than in OTL, will we see more emigration to German South-West Africa, Algeria, and South America? I bet that a lot of unhappy Italians would be happy to pack up and head for Brazil and Argentina- and maybe even to Algeria. In fact, with France's traditional ties to Poland and the fact that thousands of Poles moved to France to work in the coal mines in OTL, maybe some could even be encouraged to come to French colonies?

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by SteveW

No offence, but I don't think 85,000 Dutch will move to Flanders. Flanders at that time was a lot poorer- the powerhouse of the Belgian economy was Wallonia. What I think you WILL see is a large number of Frenchmen move to Wallonia to take up work, which will alter the demographics. Charleroi for one might become as big as, say, Lille. Flanders might well see emigration: to the Netherlands, but also to places such as Indonesia or South Africa. By the way- who's taken the Congo? (the problem being that in OTL the Belgian Congo was administered mainly in French rather than Flemish).

As much as Flanders didn't choose to join the Netherlands at the referendum, there's still probably a good chance that it could join at a later date, especially if it's economy stays weak.

By the way, as there will be a lot more people alive in this TL than in OTL, will we see more emigration to German South-West Africa, Algeria, and South America? I bet that a lot of unhappy Italians would be happy to pack up and head for Brazil and Argentina- and maybe even to Algeria. In fact, with France's traditional ties to Poland and the fact that thousands of Poles moved to France to work in the coal mines in OTL, maybe some could even be encouraged to come to French colonies?

No offence taken. I rely on people with more expansive knowledge of the era to pick holes before I do final drafting. OK, so I will place the decrease in Flanders rather than in the Netherlands and I will have the population move to the East Indies (which is where I wanted my migrating Dutch to eventually end up in the first place). I honestly hadn't thought about the Congo. I'm guessing at the amount of revenue it produced and get France to buy out Flander's share (how does $3250 million sound for the era?)

I think Flanders will eventually be absorbed by the Dutch, but I haven't decided for certain or when that might occur.

As to the population of the Italian peninsula, I have the population rising from 37.5 million to 37.7 million between 1913 and 1918. This is an increase of only 0.53% over a period of six years (miniscule), so the rest of the population will have to be going somewhere. I hadn't gone as far as planning where. I was thinking initially thinking Tripolitania and Tunisia, but Algeria would work just as well, and there would be better incomes to be had in Argentina (though not Brazil). Actually, I like the Argentine idea.

I have Poland losing about 10% of its population over the next decade or so. Now some of those will be clearly headed to Uhyun and Joseon, but that still leaves about half a million for whom I haven't yet begun to account. The problem with putting them to work in the mines is that incomes are rising drastically in France and the American trade regulations mean the Poles will need to get the same wages as French workers. French capital would probably therefore decide to build manufacturing plants in Poland and buy the coal mines there, so they can pay lower wages for the same products as well as preserving their own coal supplies for later use while exploiting someone else's supply. So I think I need to find them an alternative location.

[LacheyS]

In the period to 1916, there were three countries that increasingly found that wage inflation, driven by large current account surpluses, was begin to severely erode their competitive position. The first of these was the United States of America, which due to its scale of operations, made the most enormous impact on the global economy. Although GDP growth was minimal, the US had already established a superior trading position.

From 1913, new trade and wage regulations discouraged US companies from investing heavily in their own country, although they did invest in greater raw material production. Therefore, in the years 1913-1915, US companies, despite their complaints regarding congressional regulation, actually found themselves swimming in a pool of significant cash assets. Some estimates have put that unproductive liquid asset base at $70 billion by the year 1915. We can therefore begin to understand the sudden boom of Latin America once the Congress lifted foreign investment restrictions.

The Great Boom, as it is known today, lasted only three years in total, but it was sufficient to drag the world economy out of the rut it had endured since 1912. Over the course of two years, the productive output of Latin America rose by 68%. Looking at the individual figures for where US companies spent monies, there is no doubt that the largest recipient was Brazil. Into an economy that had previously been $19 billion in size went $29 billion of US money. The results were staggering. Per capita incomes rose from $811 to $2050 and unemployment virtually disappeared. Argentina attracted the next largest input (about $9.2 billion) before wage inflation made it uncompetitive. Another country to benefit enormously was Peru ($8.8 billion). In just two short years, the average per capita income of Latin America rose from about $1600 to close to $2800.

The second country to have significant impact, though on a much smaller scale, was the Commonwealth of Australia. Riding on high commodity prices, the Government found itself with a current account surplus approaching $1.1 billion per annum, or 22% of GDP, and continuing to rise. However, like its Anglophone cousin on the other side of the Pacific, Australian wages were extremely high and business was reluctant to invest. During the administration of Andrew (later Sir Andrew) Fisher, the Australian government demanded from Britain a transfer of sovereignty for New Guinea so that it could control the market. Britain had already transferred administrative control in 1906; it was a relatively small step to pass over full control from London to Melbourne.

By the time Matthew Charlton became Prime Minister, New Guinea had enjoyed an influx of $8.4 billion over a period of five years as well as an influx of residents from Australia itself. In 1918, using the constitutional proscription on indigenous voting to prevent power sharing, Australia named New Guinea as its seventh state and expressed an interest to Berlin about purchasing control of German New Guinea, a deal that was concluded the following year.

The third country was the tiny Pacific dominion of New Zealand, established in only 1907. Because of the scale of its economy, benefits ran only into the hundreds of million, rather than the billions, and impact on the external world was minimal. Nonetheless, it did reach an arrangement with cash-strapped Portugal over the eastern half of Timor and, even though Lisbon remained official sovereign, most of the titles on land were held by New Zealand companies and citizens. A similar situation soon existed in Fiji and large amounts of European and Indian labour were brough to both countries to work an estimated additional 50,000 jobs.

[G.Bone]

No lumping of NZ as Aussie?

Australia named New Guinea as its seventh state and expressed an interest to Berlin about purchasing control of German New Guinea, a deal that was concluded the following year

What does Indonesia have to say about this?

[LacheyS]

Originally Posted by G.Bone

No lumping of NZ as Aussie?


What does Indonesia have to say about this?

New Zealand actively declined becoming part of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. She became a Dominion in her own right in 1907, giving her equal status with Australia. While there is increasing discussion about union between the two countries today, that is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Indonesia doesn't exist until the 1940's in OTL and it definitely doesn't exist here in TTL by 1916. The Dutch rule the archipelago. I can't see why they would particularly care if the British changed the internal management of one of their possessions.