No USA=No Monroe Doctrine=colonization, led by Belgium & Germany?

Let's get one definition correct because a lot of posting is confusing what Monroe said- the Monroe Doctrine was that the US would take any attempt of European interference in the independence of nations in the Western Hemisphere as being an act that threatened the US interests and that would have consequence with that nation's relations with the US. It did not originally mean "we will kick your butt and you better not do it". That part was what the British said they would do. So, please stop saying that "well, xy nation was able to yx and the US did nothing and xy nation didn't take into consideration that the US would". Because the US never said the Monroe Doctrine meant war, though many subsequent presidents including Roosevelt (who by establishing the Roosevelt Corollary is the reason you're all getting confused as to the Monroe Doctrine's meaning), JFK (invoked in regarding Cuba), and Reagan (invoked it regarding Grenada) did use it as established American policy that meant the President had the right to use his war powers and presidents after Teddy were actually referring to the Roosevelt Corollary and not the Monroe Doctrine itself, which all of you seem to be confusing as well. And the British with American support pointed to the Monroe Doctrine almost immediately to push the Russians to give up claims along the Pacific down the Oregon coast and California; the British POINTED TO THE MONROE DOCTRINE just to be clear.
 

dcharleos

Donor
OK I concede that I was using an hyperbole and I wild concede the point USA was not Weak for half of their history, only until around 1888 or so, I´m using the date of the USS Charleston (C-2) commission as a strong date, before that the USA have little projection capability compared to the R.N. after that they could go blow for blow. But the Dates you are using as 1840-1850 or so to mark the USA as strong power are too early

You referred to the US as "weak for like half their history." Strong is a relative term, but in the 1840s, the US was conquering Mexico and forcing the strongest power in the world to negotiate with them on equal terms. I don't see how that demonstrates weakness. China, for example, was unable to negotiate with the UK as an equal power during the same period. Simply because the US wasn't the most powerful country in the world doesn't make them weak.

By the 1850s, the US was one of the top three industrial powers in the world, and would become one of the top two by the end of the decade. Again, these aren't measures of weakness as far as I can see. Simply because the US didn't have a top three army or navy at the time doesn't make them weak. With their massive industrial capacity, they could build a navy and equip an army. Moreover, the geopolitical position of the US is itself a strength, as the US is protected by the Atlantic and Pacific. That one strength is so important it gave the US the luxury of not having a large army or navy.


Are you really given the USA the credit of stop the French intervention in Mexico? Really? so the Hundred of Mexican Dead, the Constantly battles that were expending the French position, the constantly lost of battles and material against the Mexican rebels, the Incredible high monetary cost that France could not spend anymore, the Fact that France need their troops and focus in Europe, for the Italian Wars of unification, the defense of the papal States, And the Growing power of the Prussian State are secondary to you and a simple letter from the USA is the reason the French stooped their intervention in Mexico?

I didn't intend to give the US sole credit for stopping the French intervention in Mexico. The threat of intervention was certainly a factor, even an important factor, but not the only one.

You said that "The USA was the 800 hundred pound Gorilla in the Caribbean and north-central america, as long they maintain their distance of the UK and France interest."

That is demonstrably false. The US did not, in fact, maintain their distance from the interests of the French, as Seward's letter shows. With respect to the Oregon territory, the US did not maintain their distance from British interests.
 
Last edited:
The US projected very early a global presence compared to all the Western Hemisphere and most of Europe. Not being a France or Britain didnt mean the US was weak. By 1830 they had naval squadrons off Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Indian Ocean, and they even in 1800s a squadron off the Pacific coast they didnt even have at the time. No other Western Hemisphere nation attempted such a global presence and the majority of Europe couldnt. Imagine Mexico 20 years after independence fighting pirates in Algeria or Sumatra like the US did; maybe they couldve, but Mexico didnt, the US did. In 1898 how many truly independent nations (they make their own foreign relations, no protectorates), around 50 in the world? and only 2, maybe 4 could have beat the US?
 
Roosevelt (who by establishing the Roosevelt Corollary is the reason you're all getting confused as to the Monroe Doctrine's meaning)
That was explicitly that the US would intervene in the Caribbean involving issues of debts between their governments and Europeans, as that had been the excuse used for many interventions. Many times it involved the countries actually wanting colonies or to get more influence. The French went with the British and Spanish to Mexico with that excuse, but the other two pulled out when they realized what's the French were up to. The Germans also were wanting to snag the islands of Venezuela, though didn't make any formal demands or offers as their researchers found they wouldn't provide very good ports. As the name implies, it was a follow up to the Monroe Doctrine. Neither were exactly official, but interpretations for the Monroe Doctrine was ever evolving. We got Dollar Diplomacy with Taft, and the Good Neighbor Policy with FDR. I think it was around his time that the US had really started to expand influence in South America. They had some influence now and then of course, such as President Hayes helping with the peace between Paraguay and Bolivia, for which Paraguay named a department after him.
 
But that wouldn’t be a weak country- that would be an average country. Most countries can’t impose their will on everyone around them.
Hence the term "comparable weakness".
Although I'm leaning towards "ability to impose one's will/influence other nation's policies" being a better gauge of un-weakness than "ability to defend oneself from
invasion", as factors like geography plays a larger part in the latter than the former*. Then again, there's probaly even better ones.
(Part of my brain is now trying to compare the comparable weakness of Belgium and New Zealand, from the late 19th century and forward.)

*Regardless of industrial strength, it has always been easier to invade Belgium than the USA.

It feels like I’m debating definitions a lot, so I’ll just say that the important thing is the context of the thread.
True.
 
Top