Pearl Harbor Defense

From: Guy Alcala

I forget how the
takeover went in the case of the Marianas

Invasion, June, 1944. You are probably thinking of Guam. That was ceded to
the US by Spain as part of the Spanish-American War settlement. The Marianas
were sold by Spain to Germany in 1899 (along with the rest of their Micronesian
holdings--the Carolines, etc.) Japan seized them from Germany at the onset of
WWOne in 1914 and was confirmed in her possession by the victors of that war.
The US acquired Micronesia by conquest during WW2 and was confirmed in
possession (as trust territories) by UNO after the war.

Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to
defeat
them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10
years

At one point at least a quarter of the entire US Army was engaged in supressing
the Filipino resistance. It was a major war.

While
the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
certainly had one.

After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
disease.
We did treat the Filipinos well (unlike the monstrous horrors imposed by the
Belgians on the Congolese in the same time frame), and by the 1920s were not
afraid to arm them and create a Filipino military force. The Filipinos were so
unafraid of their American "masters" that when the troops decided they didn't
like the pay scale the Americans offered, instead of grabbing their weapons,
revolting and starting a war, they went on strike.





Chris Mark

Chris Mark wrote:

From: Guy Alcala

I forget how the
takeover went in the case of the Marianas

Invasion, June, 1944. You are probably thinking of Guam.

Yes.

That was ceded to
the US by Spain as part of the Spanish-American War settlement. The Marianas
were sold by Spain to Germany in 1899 (along with the rest of their Micronesian
holdings--the Carolines, etc.) Japan seized them from Germany at the onset of
WWOne in 1914 and was confirmed in her possession by the victors of that war.
The US acquired Micronesia by conquest during WW2 and was confirmed in
possession (as trust territories) by UNO after the war.

Filipinos started to resist our takeover, they were relabeled
"insurgents" or "insurrectionists", and it took us another two years to
defeat
them. Moro uprisings continued to flare up for at least another 10
years

At one point at least a quarter of the entire US Army was engaged in supressing
the Filipino resistance. It was a major war.

I've seen figures of 75,000 U.S. troops in the Philippines at the time, but don't
know how accurate that is.

While
the US attempt at European-style empire was (thankfully) relatively short, we
certainly had one.

After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
disease.

Yeah, economic dominance turns out to be cheaper.

We did treat the Filipinos well (unlike the monstrous horrors imposed by the
Belgians on the Congolese in the same time frame), and by the 1920s were not
afraid to arm them and create a Filipino military force. The Filipinos were so
unafraid of their American "masters" that when the troops decided they didn't
like the pay scale the Americans offered, instead of grabbing their weapons,
revolting and starting a war, they went on strike.

Not that this was going to happen givenwhat japan was doing, and I have no idea
what the exact legal situation was then as the Philippines were called a
commonwealth, but I do wonder what the U.S. would have done if, in the mid-30s,
President Quezon had said to General MacArthur

"Douglas, It's been swell having you here, but we don't consider having bases owned
and operated by a foreign military on our soil consistent with our national
sovereignty. So we'll have to ask that you leave, although we'll be happy to have
you come and visit from time to time."

Guy

From: Guy Alcala

I do wonder what the U.S. would have done if, in the mid-30s,
President Quezon had said to General MacArthur

"Douglas, It's been swell having you here, but we don't consider having bases
owned
and operated by a foreign military on our soil consistent with our national
sovereignty. So we'll have to ask that you leave, although we'll be happy to
have
you come and visit from time to time."

In 1935 congress passed theTydings-McDuffie Act, which created the Philippine
Commonwealth, with Quezon the first president, the Commonwealth status to end
after a decade, a which time the country would become independent.
Roosevelt asked MacArthur if he would like to become High Commissoner of the
new Commonwealth. But Mac would have to retire from the Army (he was CoS) to
take the job. He declined, but Quezon asked him to become military adviser to
the Philippine Commonwealth, a job he could take and still remain on active
duty.
Paul McNutt, former gov. of Indiana became PI High Commissioner and invited
Quezon to Washington, as FDR wanted to talk to him about the future of the
Philippines.
Instead of going directly to D.C., Quezon went by way of Tokyo and an audience
with Hirohito. When he finally arrived in L.A. Quezon announced to the press
that he had come to the US on behalf of the Filipino people to demand
independence from the US in 1938. He would insist on seeing the president and
having his demand met. Then he went to New York, took over the Roseland
Ballroom and partied, partied, partied.
FDR, who was considering speeding up Philippine independence to as early as
1940 at the suggestion of former Philippines High Commissioner Frank Murphy,
with the caveat that the Philippines declare themselves neutral and neither
maintain their own armed forces or host foreign forces, was furious with
Quezon, and also MacArthur, who had accompanied Q. FDR completely ignored
Quezon while he hung out in New York for months.
Finally MacArthur went to D.C. and asked to see the president on behalf of
Quezon. FDR gave him 5 minutes. He agreed to lunch with Quezon. But no
serious meeting.
At lunch Quezon demanded independence--and US guarantees of protection--in
such a rude and insulting manner that Roosevelt later told Harold Ickes of
Interior, which controlled administration of the Philippines, that as far as he
was concerned, the Philippines were not worth even attempting to defend. Let
the Japs take them and see how "the little weasel" likes taking orders from
them.
One immediate result of that lunch was when, shortly after, Quezon tried to buy
rifles from the US to equip the new Philippine Army, FDR blocked the sale. He
also ordered MacArthur recalled to the US and given another assignment.
MacArthur thereupon retired from the Army so he could stay on in the
Philippines with Quezon.
One reason the US was late in sending forces to defend the Philippines in the
face of the growing Japanese threat was the personal dislike by Roosevelt and
key membors of his government of Quezon, whom they considered a corrupt,
disloyal fop. McNutt described him as "the statesman as lounge lizard."
Goes to show just what a fiasco the whole Philippines episode was. We never
should have taken over the place, and, having taken it over, we should have
dumped it at the earliest possible opportunity, like maybe soon after the last
Moro fighting ended.


Chris Mark

On 23 Sep 2004 15:49:24 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

After one brief infection, we seem to have developed immunity to the imperial
disease.

Well, Chris, I don't know if I agree with that. Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between; Cuba and
Puerto Rico; Panama (okay, that was post-Spain), the Phillippines, and
Guam as you just mentioned. Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
liked so much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
done with Puerto Rico. It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
aversion to colonialism, perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism .

And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment. We are much nicer
about it in 2001 than we were in 1901, but it's still colonialism of a
sort.

One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing. It was a benign
sort of colonialism (France asked us to leave after a couple of
decades, and we went, a pretty rare event in the history of
colonialism) but still...

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

From: Cub Driver

Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;

I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii. Neither Mexico nor
Canada need fear US territorial aggression. And, of course, you intended to
say "Mexico" rather than "Spain," as Mexican independence long preceded
the_Mexican_-American War.

Cuba and
Puerto Rico;

I was lumping them in with the whole Spanish-American War, which was what i was
referring to when I said "one brief infection." I should have made that clear.

Hawaii, for crying out loud, which we
liked so much that we incorporated it,

Mr. Alcala had already mentioned Hawaii in his post, and as I agreed with his
comments I didn't bring it up again.
The Hawaii annexation is also a part of the S-A War "infection," because Hawaii
was a fine staging base for operations in the Philippines, although probably
even without that war, annexation was inevitable sometime during the McKinley
administration. Had Bryan been elected in 1896 it would not have been annexed
and it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Spanish-American War.
Grover Cleveland, who refused to consider annexing Hawaii during his
administration, wrote at the time, "Hawaii is ours. As I look back upon the
first steps in this miserable business, and as I contemplate the means used to
complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair."

o much that we incorporated it, as to a lesser extent we have
done with Puerto Rico.

yep. But it is a legacy of that one infection.
It was only in the 1930s that we developed an
aversion to colonialism,

You have to throw huge qualifications on that. There was major domestic
opposition to US colonialist or colonialist-like actions from the get-go. Just
as there has been opposition to the current US adventure in Iraq.
Again, I quote Grover Cleveland: "I mistake the American people if they favor
the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality...and
that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weaker one
of its territory." This is quite an amazing thing for an American president to
say in a era that was the height of European Imperial land-grabbing. Cleveland
was emphasizing that America was _not_ like Europe and we would not stoop to do
the dirty things the Europeans did.
The McKinley administration, under the influence of the Boston imperialists
(Henry Cabot Lodge and his crowd), turned away from that view, and their first
target was Hawaii, despite the many difficulties acquisition would cause. As
Alfred Mahan wrote to Theodore Roosevelt: "Take the islands first and solve
the problems afterward." Gee, that sounds like advice somebody must have given
Bush about Iraq. Like they say, history doesn't repeat itself--but it rhymes.

perhaps mostly in the person of Franklin
Roosevelt (he particularly disliked French and British colonialism .

True, indeed.

And we're fighting two colonial wars at the moment.

I'm not sure about that. I suppose it depends on how you define "colonial."
They could be described as wars of self-defense. But then, broadly, that was
how the Boston imperialists described their expansionist policies: acquire a
defensive cordon of outlying territories to fend off the expanding imperialist
powers; if we don't take Hawaii, Britain will; if we don't take the PI, Germany
will; etc.
We certainly don't intend to annex Afghanistan and Iraq after the fashion of
Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

One could even argue that we colonized German and Japan, not to
mention Korea, Britain, and numerous other nations in the ten years
following World War Two, and are only now withdrawing.

But that, again, was a defensive action. We certainly had no plans to do that
before the Soviet threat became clear. In fact, at Yalta, when Stalin
specifically asked Roosevelt how long the US would maintain troops in Europe
after the fighting ended, FDR responded two years at most. This fact was one
of the reasons that it was agreed to rehabilitate France as a "great" power and
give it a zone of occupation in Germany.

People look at the events of history from different perspectives. I do believe
the words "colonialism" and "imperialism" are bandied about too freely these
days, now that most have forgotten what _real_ imperialism and colonialism
were. US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful,
prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination. Since we have de
facto been in charge of the planet post 1945 we have bungled badly at times,
but compared to how the world was managed in the half century before we took
over, we've done very well, indeed, for ourselves--and for the world.




Chris Mark

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: Cub Driver

Americans are
certainly economic colonialists, even today.

I don't understand what that means. Could you explain?

And we were certainly geographical colonialists, as Spain discovered
on several occasions. Texas, California, the states between;

I discount that because it was in the time frame when we were creating our
country. Once we settled on our borders in the mid-19th century, we have
stayed in them with only two exceptions--Alaska and Hawaii.

Not to mention the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and a
significant number of islands in the Pacific such as
Wake, Guam, Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc and there's the
panama canal zone of course

Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening
in various central and south american nations
to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in
1933 comes to mind. See Banana Wars.

The fact is the US went through a colonial period
too.

Keith

From: "Keith Willshaw"

Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

Puerto Rico

Discussed






Chris Mark

From: "Keith Willshaw"

Not to mention the Phillipines,

Extensively discussed in the thread

Puerto Rico

Discussed

Wake,

Ceded to the US by Spain as part of the settlement of the Spanish-American War,
which has been discussed

Guam,

Discussed

Kwajalein, Eniwetok etc

Spanish possessions sold to Germany, seized by Japan, seized by the US.
Already discussed.

panama canal zone

Mentioned, not discussed

Then there's the little matter of US forces intervening
in various central and south american nations
to protect US economic interests, Nicaragua in
1933 comes to mind.

Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same thing
as imperialism, although the more radical left (and libertarian right) loves to
obscure the difference. Lumping US actions in Central America into the same
box with what the US did with Puerto Rico or the Philippines is to make a false
comparison.

The fact is the US went through a colonial period
too.

No one has disputed that. The proposition is that the US flirtation with
"classic" imperialism was brief in duration and limited in extent, largely due
to domestic opposition.


Chris Mark

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
From: "Keith Willshaw"



Protecting economic interests, even with limited use of military force to
ensure order and the maintenance of friendly governments is not the same
thing
as imperialism,

Of course it is, thats why Britain built an Empire fer crying
out loud.

Keith

From: "Keith Willshaw"

snip

I only replied to you to point out that you were bringing up points already
discussed as if they had not even been mentioned. That suggests you were only
interested in making a put down, not actually discussing the subject.
Based on previous encounters, I'm really not interested in having a
conversation with you.
Have a nice day.


Chris Mark