is there a way for the U.S. to keep Cuba and the phillpine

after the the Spanish american war U.S. got puerto rico Guam Cuba and phippnies is there a way to get all those places still under american control
 
Yeah. You ignore Cuban and Phillippino Independence movements and crush them with your vastly superior numbers and military.

Though that'll never happen, the US is "built on freedom".
 
Cuba's a piece of cake. Just don't have that stupid document assuring they won't become US territory after the war.

The Philippines are much harder, but doable. Though probably not nicely.
 
I thought the U.S. never annexed Cuba after the Spanish-American War.

Wasn't it part of the Congressional deal before the actual war that the U.S. wouldn't take over Cuba, but simply liberate it from Spain?
 
I agree that Cuba is easier. sSenator Fidel Castro R Cuba anyone. tThe pPhilippines is larger,much further away and with no history of contact with the US. I think they also had a stronger independence movement.
 
I thought the U.S. never annexed Cuba after the Spanish-American War.

Wasn't it part of the Congressional deal before the actual war that the U.S. wouldn't take over Cuba, but simply liberate it from Spain?

Yup. It's called the Teller Amendment.

Keeping the Philippines is more difficult than Cuba and would require, at the very least, a less brutal Filipino-American war.
 
Seeing how many Filipino's live here I think they could have been admitted in, not as a state, but as a territory like Guam and Puerto Rico are.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
I thought the U.S. never annexed Cuba after the Spanish-American War.

Wasn't it part of the Congressional deal before the actual war that the U.S. wouldn't take over Cuba, but simply liberate it from Spain?

You used three different terms: annex, take over, and liberate.

The U.S. did not formally annex Cuba. They most certainly took it over. They did not liberate it.
 
as I understand it, the US went into the war with the idea of possibly gaining Cuba as a territory, and the Philippines were regarded (rather arrogantly) as a place that the US would 'civilize' and then set free. Somehow, it almost ended up the other way round, with the US fighting a really awful war against the Filipinos who objected to the idea, and Cuba becoming free from the start. I'd think the US trying to keep both places would have been a disaster, with intense guerrilla wars in both places, and the US military stretched to the breaking point...
 
It's significant that the Phil. only gained independence after Japan was completely defeated. IMO as long as any regional power was seen as a possible threat to the Philippines, the US would it as necessary to keep them.

So the best way would probably be a mildly expansionist Japan (or China) that is widely regarded as a danger, but that does not start a war against the US it will lose.

The question is: How will the continuing occupation of the Philippines affect US politics? I assume that there will be strong forces against the addition of more than thirty million non-whites during the 1960s. The Vietnam conflict will be butterflied away, but the fight against Filipino insurgents might be a ugly replacement.
 
No way

The ruthless war we fought in the Phillipines and our duplicity with Aguinaldo was very divisive in the states. We could not have maintained public support for occupying the PI without a plan to set them independent. The 1946 date for independence was set well before war with Japan became imminent.
Greg
 

mowque

Banned
Philippines are tough. From the very start in OTL, it was assumed we'd eventually give them back. Granted it took many decades of non-progress but it was generally always taken for granted that we'd leave. Independence was a common phrase as far back as the 20's. Once the USA starts to liberalize (or gets involved in some gigantic Pacific War) it will be natural to let it go.
 
I doubt that. Both had a strong desire for independence. Americans (the rank and file, not the elites) have no stomach for empire.
 
Easy - the United States is, in some shape or form, less racist at the time that they're acquired. What prevented statehood in both instances had a lot to do with American racial attitudes during the nadir of American race relations in the late 19th to mid 20th centuries.

Have a successful Reconstruction and avoid the racial social darwinisim of the 1890s to the 1940s and you'd probably see the United States annex Cuba and the Phillipines, let alone much of the rest of the world they played around in in the early 20th Century.
 
TNF. Glad you brought up the driving rascism of the time amongst American and nearly all anglo-saxon elites. Recently read a book called The Imperial Cruise by Bradley (Flags of Our Fathers) referring to TR and most others rampantly rascist attitudes and duplicity towards orientals and africans. We really screwed Korea (handing them to Japan while negotiating peace in the Russo-Japanese War) and colluding with the Spanish to exclude native Phillipinos from power. But even if we were not so dominated by racial theory, I doubt Cubans or Phillipinos would ever wish to join the US. Not sure (even thinking of Subic Bay and Guantanamo) that it would help us long term.
 
Top