US didn't get the Philippines

6) Agree for the most part on this ifs of convergences except the certainty that Japanese will receive German's portion of Phillipines post WWI. Don't think the western powers will be so generous, especially since Japan's contribution to entente victory would've certainly been not exactly meaningful.

Japan is likely to actually be occupying some of the German Phillippines territory. Under those circs, and given the exhaustion that the Entente is suffering at the end of the war, I think it likely that Japan gets something.
 
I wonder whether France even bothers to get a slice. They could ask for compensation elsewhere (I'm particularly thinking of Gambia, that Britain would seriously consider to give the French some years later in the context of the general settelment of their colonial disputes.)
 
I think y'all're underselling the Philippine Republic, especially Lardo. I do like Lardo's idea of changing Mckinley's mind, though.

Tell me, if the world's so separatist, why did those thirteen quarreling colonies hang together? Or Japan? Or Canada? Or the UNITED Kingdom that crossed the water? Why's Europe getting CLOSER? Why didn't Iraq break up like half the pundits said?

There would be rebellions, of course, like our Shay's and Civil War. But, federal democracies are pretty good at putting them down. OTOH, it might've also gone in and out of dictatorship as IOTL.

Democracies are also the best at tech, and so they'd likely modernize well.

IMHO, the most rational US-Philippine deald would've been for basing rights in exchange for American agreement to defend them from external attacks; of course, most rational has a way of being rare in the real world.
 
I think y'all're underselling the Philippine Republic, especially Lardo. I do like Lardo's idea of changing Mckinley's mind, though.

Tell me, if the world's so separatist, why did those thirteen quarreling colonies hang together? Or Japan? Or Canada? Or the UNITED Kingdom that crossed the water? Why's Europe getting CLOSER? Why didn't Iraq break up like half the pundits said?

There would be rebellions, of course, like our Shay's and Civil War. But, federal democracies are pretty good at putting them down. OTOH, it might've also gone in and out of dictatorship as IOTL.

Democracies are also the best at tech, and so they'd likely modernize well.

IMHO, the most rational US-Philippine deald would've been for basing rights in exchange for American agreement to defend them from external attacks; of course, most rational has a way of being rare in the real world.

Two points:
a)Iraq does not break up mostly because it is not allowed to by anyone in the area, and AFAIK the Americans are not willing to encourage it either, whatever the neocon agenda might have been.
Iraq is not allowed to split basically because in the local politics as I understand them, a split would cause a mess. It's not like Iraq is made of discrete territorial/historical entities with some internal coherence. There were, and maybe there are still, very harsh clashes about the Kurdish or Arabic pertinence of some areas, not unlike the troubles some former Soviet areas are into because the dictators had ordered massive deportations (horrible simplification here) and displaced people claim the areas they (or their parents) are from as national home.
A partition of Iraq would be a mess, and would also mean a Kurdish state of sort, that is warrant for future WORSE mess in the current situation.
b) In 1898, no colonial power saw people of the Philippines as even remotely equal to "Aryans". (And actually there was a number of white people who perceived being "Aryan" as a part of their identity, if not the foremost part).
So there would be no much care about whether Philippines are ruled by the most ruthless tyrant or a decent approximation to democracy. "Aryan" so called democracies of the time, the few that were, did not care at all.
(I say called democracies for in most cases, there was no female suffrage. So half the adult population was forbidden full citizenship. This does not fulfil my idea of what a "democracy" is).
 
I think y'all're underselling the Philippine Republic, especially Lardo.

Actually, I think I've been generous.

I do like Lardo's idea of changing Mckinley's mind, though.
The decision whether or not to keep the Philippines in the OTL came down to just that; McKinley sleeping on it. While he dressed it up in the usual "White Mans' Burden"(1) rhetoric of the period, his decision did have sound geopolitical reasons behind it.

If the war and the decision it forced had not occurred so rapidly or if the international community had been casually discussing the dissolution of the Spanish Empire as it had been with the Portuguese Empire, McKinley's decision could have been very different.

Tell me, if the world's so separatist, why did those thirteen quarreling colonies hang together? Or Japan? Or Canada? Or the UNITED Kingdom that crossed the water? Why's Europe getting CLOSER? Why didn't Iraq break up like half the pundits said?
Tell me, if you're unable to see the fundamental structural, cultural, political, and sociological differences between the 1898 Philippines and the British Colonies of 1776, the Japan of the Shogunate Era, Canada of 1867, Britain of 1703, and Europe of 2010 why should we bother discussing this topic with you at all?

Any real discussion requires it's participants to first agree on the basic nature of reality.


1 - Kipling wrote the poem of that title in part to convince the US to keep the Philippines and, contrary to what many believe, the phrase "... lesser breeds without the law..." was a reference to the Germans.
 
Last edited:
Falecius wrote:
... So there would be no much care about whether Philippines are ruled by the most ruthless tyrant or a decent approximation to democracy. "Aryan" so called democracies of the time, the few that were, did not care at all.
... or, they could choose the democracy instead of the tyrant, as easily, eh?. In fact, part of the gummint had already chosen democracy - the democratic rebellion against Spain was US-supported.

Another consideration is that, before the McKinley Admin, US policy toward the weak and non-european had strictly been about trade and bases (albeitly unfairly), and avoided imperialism and administering big turf. A decision the other way as Lardo suggested, and as I suggested, to just have a base and defense deal, would've been in keeping with that tradition.

Still a third consideration's loyalty - stick with our man, even if he's not white..

Lardo wrote, sniffily:
Tell me, if you're unable to see the fundamental structural, cultural, political, and sociological differences between the 1898 Philippines and the British Colonies of 1776, the Japan of the Shogunate Era, Canada of 1867, Britain of 1703, and Europe of 2010 why should we bother discussing this topic with you at all?
If it's so thoroughly obvious, then it should be trivial to explain WHY instead of just assuming, eh? Which difference matters, and, again, WHY?
 
Top