Japan Options for WWII

[lwd]

.... The question is if they had the ware-with-all to subjugate Japan would they have? and I think they would have. The Mexican war showed they were willing to fight for more territory and Manifest Destiny showed a very imperialistic ruthlessness.

Actually the Mexican war rather graphically suggest they wouldn't have. The US did take some land from Mexico however they could easily have taken a lot more. Furthermore they reimbursed Mexico (although it can be argued far from the real value of the territories siezed). There's also the fact like I previously pointed out that the US didn't take a treaty port in China like most of the European nations involved there.

[lwd]

Puerto Rico and the Philippines are just two examples where the US decided not leave.

Not really. From very soon after the US took possesion of the PHilippines it was planned to grant them independence. The problem was setting up a functional government (by US stantdards). The US certainly didn't want to grant them independence just to see them taken over by another power either. Certainly there was a rather condescending attitude during part of the period but Philipine indepndence was set for 46 in 34 and had been part of the plan well before that.

Puerto Rico is a similar case except the Puerto Ricans simply have not elected to leave. There have been a number of referendums there over time where the US agreed to abide by the majority decision (statehood has also been an option in most of them).

It should be noted that the US did leave Cuba shortly after the conclusion of the Spanish American war as well. Cuba and Mexico were both closer and of more immediate interest to the US but in neither case did the US turn them into colonies.

[RF]

.... The Mexican war showed they were willing to fight for more territory and Manifest Destiny showed a very imperialistic ruthlessness.

Actually the Mexican war rather graphically suggest they wouldn't have. The US did take some land from Mexico however they could easily have taken a lot more.

As an aside here I have always been puzzled over the siting of the California/Mexico border, in that Baja California was left in Mexico and not annexed to the US. i presume today that the line of border does help keep out illiegal immigration.

[RF]

Puerto Rico is a similar case except the Puerto Ricans simply have not elected to leave. There have been a number of referendums there over time where the US agreed to abide by the majority decision (statehood has also been an option in most of them).

It should be noted that the US did leave Cuba shortly after the conclusion of the Spanish American war as well. Cuba and Mexico were both closer and of more immediate interest to the US but in neither case did the US turn them into colonies.

With respect to Puerto Rico I believe it has ''commonwealth status'' and I am surprised that there isn't greater support for statehood, not least in that it would mean formal representation in Congress. I believe that both the Republican and Democrat parties do include Puerto Rico delegations at their Presidential Conventions but that the citizens of Puerto Rico can't vote for the US President.....

I notice also that the US didn't leave all of Cuba and still retains a foothold in that country today.

[lwd]

As an aside here I have always been puzzled over the siting of the California/Mexico border, in that Baja California was left in Mexico and not annexed to the US. i presume today that the line of border does help keep out illiegal immigration.

Baja California is a very barren desert even today. According to Wiki the line dividing Alta California and Baja California was one seperating the zones of responsibabilty of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja_California

...With respect to Puerto Rico I believe it has ''commonwealth status'' and I am surprised that there isn't greater support for statehood, not least in that it would mean formal representation in Congress. I believe that both the Republican and Democrat parties do include Puerto Rico delegations at their Presidential Conventions but that the citizens of Puerto Rico can't vote for the US President......

From what I've read the support for the various options forPuerto Rico has been roughly in thirds for some considerable time. I.e. 1/3 want statehood, 1/3 want independence, and 1/3 like commonwealth status. The exact portions very but no group has managed to gain the majority in any of the elections.

Just looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico to make sure of the above and it notes that the pro independence parties typicyally only get 3-5% of the vote. From reading there there seems to be a push to change the status but it's not clear how.

[neil hilton]

The British conquered and ruled the Indian subcontinent in the face of odds that ordinarily mean't they wouldn't have had a chance of holding it. The way it was done was by getting support in India for British rule. Basically the same thinking I had viz the US possibly gaining hegemony over Japan. Outright conquest and complete military occupation, as you point out, wouldn't be sustainable.

It should be pointed out that India was a very fractured land (not least between Hindus and Muslims) so the British method of divide and rule worked. Japan in 1854 was unified, there were no factions opposing the Shogun until after Perry forced it open and an Imperialist faction rose. I suppose the US could have backed either side and thus gained divide and rule, even so as shown by what happened during the Japanese Imperialist revolution it would have been a very bloody affair and I doubt the US would have had the resources to succeed.

[neil hilton]

Puerto Rico and the Philippines are just two examples where the US decided not leave.

Not really. From very soon after the US took possesion of the PHilippines it was planned to grant them independence. The problem was setting up a functional government (by US stantdards). The US certainly didn't want to grant them independence just to see them taken over by another power either. Certainly there was a rather condescending attitude during part of the period but Philipine indepndence was set for 46 in 34 and had been part of the plan well before that.

Puerto Rico is a similar case except the Puerto Ricans simply have not elected to leave. There have been a number of referendums there over time where the US agreed to abide by the majority decision (statehood has also been an option in most of them).

It should be noted that the US did leave Cuba shortly after the conclusion of the Spanish American war as well. Cuba and Mexico were both closer and of more immediate interest to the US but in neither case did the US turn them into colonies.

Maybe this is somewhat cynical, but the facts are;- the US is still there. So much for plans and opinion polls.

[RF]

But doesn't the fact that the US is still in Puerto Rico still not approximate to what the polls and elections say, as only a third want the US out by achieving independence. Surely if there was a majority vote for independence the US would respect that?

There are independence movements in Hawaii and Alaska, and in the latter state there is also a party that wants Alaska to become a part of Canada. They have little electoral support (so far) but if they did gain majority support then I would imagine Congress and President would have to address the issue of seccession.

In Britain the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties took some sixty years to grow from nothing to where they are today. Over time things do change.

[neil hilton]

Not particularly relevant here but after ww2 Malta elected to become part of the UK like Gib or the channel islands and yet the UK govt gave them independence (forced it on them). Hows that for strange!

[lwd]

...It should be pointed out that India was a very fractured land (not least between Hindus and Muslims) so the British method of divide and rule worked. Japan in 1854 was unified, there were no factions opposing the Shogun until after Perry forced it open and an Imperialist faction rose. I suppose the US could have backed either side and thus gained divide and rule, even so as shown by what happened during the Japanese Imperialist revolution it would have been a very bloody affair and I doubt the US would have had the resources to succeed.

Remove the Shogunate which wouldn't have been all that hard to do and conrol the Emporer and Japan would likely have fallen back into it's traditional fractious state. On the otherhand it would take some pretty astute manipulating to stay in control there. The Indians were fractured both along territorial and social lines. That's not as much the case for Japan.

Puerto Rico and the Philippines are just two examples where the US decided not leave.

Not really. From very soon after the US took possesion of the PHilippines it was planned to grant them independence. The problem was setting up a functional government (by US stantdards). The US certainly didn't want to grant them independence just to see them taken over by another power either. Certainly there was a rather condescending attitude during part of the period but Philipine indepndence was set for 46 in 34 and had been part of the plan well before that.

Puerto Rico is a similar case except the Puerto Ricans simply have not elected to leave. There have been a number of referendums there over time where the US agreed to abide by the majority decision (statehood has also been an option in most of them).
...

Maybe this is somewhat cynical, but the facts are;- the US is still there. So much for plans and opinion polls.

In the Philipines? To some extent because they requested us to be there.
In Puerto Rico? As pointed out there isn't now and has arguably never been a majority opinion that favored complete independence.

[RF]

Neil, Malta was never part of the British Isles, unlike the Channel Islands. It was a British colony.

Most of the British colonies were given independence between the end of WW2 and the late 1960's as part of the worldwide trend towards decolonialisation. The drive for indepedence largely came from within the colonial empire following on from the independence of India etc.. Malta was no exception. Those territories which wished to remain under British jurisdiction, mainly because they were too small to be independent countries, remained under such jurisdiction. This included Gibraltar.

[neil hilton]

Neil, Malta was never part of the British Isles, unlike the Channel Islands. It was a British colony.

Most of the British colonies were given independence between the end of WW2 and the late 1960's as part of the worldwide trend towards decolonialisation. The drive for indepedence largely came from within the colonial empire following on from the independence of India etc.. Malta was no exception. Those territories which wished to remain under British jurisdiction, mainly because they were too small to be independent countries, remained under such jurisdiction. This included Gibraltar.

I know Malta was never part of the British Isles but the people there actually asked to become a part of the UK, to be considered a part of the British Isles like the Channel Islands. They no longer wanted to be a colony or independent. But the British govt cut them loose.

[neil hilton]

In the Philipines? To some extent because they requested us to be there.
In Puerto Rico? As pointed out there isn't now and has arguably never been a majority opinion that favored complete independence.

Puerto Rico sounds similar to Northern Ireland.
However the point I was trying to make wasn't whether the Philippines or Puerto Rico wanted independence or not but that at the end of the day the US still maintains a presence there, with a helping of cynicism you can read into that many things true or not.

[lwd]

Puerto Rico sounds similar to Northern Ireland.

Well a big difference would be the fact that large numbers of Scottish Protestents were brought over to settle Northern Ireland. Their decendents are the ones that for the most part didn't want to seperate from Great Britain. There has been no such settlelment in Puerto Rico. My impression is at times the US government, or significant portions of it anyway, has actually wanted to get rid of Puerto Rico or failing that for them to become a state.

However the point I was trying to make wasn't whether the Philippines or Puerto Rico wanted independence or not but that at the end of the day the US still maintains a presence there, with a helping of cynicism you can read into that many things true or not.

At one point we were almost if not completely out of the Philippines I believe. All the bases had been turned over to their control. Here's a somewhat dated source for info on US/Philipine relations:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?f ... ID+ph0143)
This one gives some detail on the turnover of the last US bases in the Philipines:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2794.htm
and notes that relations have actually improved since then. The US military has sent troops to help with training in recent years because of the on going problems in the South. However this is hardly unusual as the US military has troops in quite a few countries dedicated to training and profesionalizeing their militaries.

[neil hilton]

Well a big difference would be the fact that large numbers of Scottish Protestents were brought over to settle Northern Ireland. Their decendents are the ones that for the most part didn't want to seperate from Great Britain. There has been no such settlelment in Puerto Rico. My impression is at times the US government, or significant portions of it anyway, has actually wanted to get rid of Puerto Rico or failing that for them to become a state.

Is the point you're trying to make here that the protestants (descendants of Scots) of Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK because they have Scottish ancestry? That implies the English and the Scots get on well which is most definitely not the case. The protestants of Northern Ireland want to remain in the UK because they don't want to be subsumed by a Catholic country and then undergo whatever subtle form of conversion would then happen.
The similarity I mentioned was in that the majority of the people want to remain with the UK but there is a minority that don't, like Puerto Rico regarding US presence.

Anyway this is getting way off topic. Japanese aggressive imperialism is the topic I believe.
Would the rest of the world have vilified Japanese action in China if they had not attacked western holdings? Italy was vilified by the league of nations for its invasion of Abyssinia although war against Italy was not declared I think that was down to leftover apathy from the effects of ww1. It just showed how toothless the league was and I believe this may well have spurred Japan to its invasion of China.