How does US not taking over Philippines effect the Eastern front?
- Thread starter ZerkoAyan
- Start date
Well, if the US didn't establish the Constabulary then I imagine Japan would have taken it over in WW1, or sooner - it had intentions on it as early as the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese conflict, and definitely had the capacity for doing so
The independent Philippine State would benefit from a relatively capable landholding elite class with experience in administration, but would develop fractious and unstable politics and would also have serious issues projecting state capacity on Mindanao and the areas in OTL where issues arise. I don't anticipate them presenting much of a challenge to Japan - the OTL war with the US was pretty much a disaster against a country with limited and mostly ad hoc land power capacity and much harder logistics to deal with
If however the Philippines becomes basically an American Protectorate, similar to Liberia, then it may be safe from the immediate designs of other colonial powers until after WW1, however.
The independent Philippine State would benefit from a relatively capable landholding elite class with experience in administration, but would develop fractious and unstable politics and would also have serious issues projecting state capacity on Mindanao and the areas in OTL where issues arise. I don't anticipate them presenting much of a challenge to Japan - the OTL war with the US was pretty much a disaster against a country with limited and mostly ad hoc land power capacity and much harder logistics to deal with
If however the Philippines becomes basically an American Protectorate, similar to Liberia, then it may be safe from the immediate designs of other colonial powers until after WW1, however.
Last edited:
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
How about Wilhelmine Germany purchases the PI from Spain? That would have very interesting butterflies.
As I understand it, the US originally just was going to take a naval base and leave the rest independent. But the UK basically told them---if you don't take it, we're going to, because we can't let the Germans get it. Maybe Japan would get it if they could talk the UK into letting them have it. But they might not trust Japan that much, the Philippines is a very strong position for controlling the China trade routes.
That is if the US stayed neutral or joined the Allies in WW1. Watch out for the Japanese as they have interest on the islands.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Functionally WWII is butterflied away, and possibly WWI as well simply because of the sheer amount of time for minor changes to make the world very different
The big change is who succeeds Theodore Roosevelt, without being the governor general of the Philippines Taft almost certainly gets George Shiras seat on the supreme court and doesn't become secretary of war and the 27th president. I'm not prepared to speculate on them, but that almost certainly changes the 1912 presidential campaign and who is president during the start of WWI will have a big effect on US nuetrality
The big change is who succeeds Theodore Roosevelt, without being the governor general of the Philippines Taft almost certainly gets George Shiras seat on the supreme court and doesn't become secretary of war and the 27th president. I'm not prepared to speculate on them, but that almost certainly changes the 1912 presidential campaign and who is president during the start of WWI will have a big effect on US nuetrality
Driftless
Donor
There's an interesting timeline - both for the first forty years of the 20th Century, WW2, and post colonial periods.
Yeah I see the US as way less likely to get involved in WW2, especially in the Pacific, without owning the Philippines. Every outcome probably sucks for the Philippines too, becoming a UK or German or Japanese colony, probably worse than being a US colony and way worse than being independent with a US naval base only. Perhaps if a friendly ASB shows up and the UK/US/Japan jointly agree to Belgium-ize the Philippines where all 3 agree to guarantee it's independence. But I'd need quite a bit of strong drink to see that one as likely.
Is Germany likely to invade an American protectorate with a major American naval base in it?
My guess is more likely Japan or the UK, but I don't think the US would fight to protect it if it wasn't a colony, as long as the invading power didn't threaten their naval base.
For the basic details, Wiki is perfectly sufficient. But you could probably do with a decent history of the Spanish American war. One detail that Wiki has that I didn't know:
Andrew Carnegie offered the US government $20 Million to recognize the independence of the Philippines (20 million was the treaty compensation amount the US paid to Spain for it). And the Philippine-American war started before the ink on the treaty ending the Spanish-American war was even dry.
Driftless
Donor
FWIW, in 1914/1915? Gen Hunter Liggett (who later commanded a Corps for the AEF) did a detailed tactical study of how to defend the PI, anticipating a Japanese invasion. In short, Ligget nailed the Japanese 1941-42 plan. Landing at Lingayen Gulf, sweeping down towards Manila, with a critical side attack to take Bataan and the Marivales Heights. Possessing those Heights would allow enemy artillery to shell both Manila Bay and Subic Bay (The USNs anchorage), making both harbors perilous.
Of course, if the anti-imperialists carry the day, then that anchorage at Subic Bay is probably mostly a coaling and supplies storage depot, rather than a major base of operations.
Yeah it's hard to defend the Philippines against the Japanese as the Americans. They're just way way closer to their sources of supply. The Pacific is just that big. The various war plans of the US recognized that.
Driftless
Donor
Oh yeah. Those really early OTL plans had the US Navy Asiatic Fleet (by whatever name) bugging out, leaving the US Army to hold on till the full Pacific fleet could be assembled. The Army wasn't thrilled with that idea....***
I was more thinking of that German option, where if they held the bulk of Luzon and other parts of the Archipelago, their land forces wouldn't have to break much of a sweat to make Subic Bay untenable, and Cavite was even less safe. The same conditions would probably be true if the US really stepped back and opted for a base on another part of the chain, like Davao.
The third option that others have listed, seems more likely to me, where the British step in some fashion. The RN could pretty easily keep any foreign navy from establishing a squatters claim. But do the British want to go through the dog fight of trying to subdue the Filipino independence forces on land? Tack on the Boer Wars to that ruinous assymetric set of warfare very far from home on two fronts
*** Source for some of that info is : "Guardians of Empire" by Brian McCallister Linn
Last edited:
Guardians of Empire is available for checkout on Archive.org. I too think that the UK would've come out on top in the scrum for the Philippines, although I also agree that it would likely wind up being a sore spot for them, just like it was for the US.
Why do you claim that? Compare Puerto Rico and the Philippines to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and one may decide that being a British colony was a lot better than being a US one.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Apples to Oranges, comparing settler colonies with non-settler colonies
Compare Puerto Rico with the British Caribbean colonies and only the Cayman islands and Guyana come out ahead, and the former only due to the offshore finance industry. Jamaica, most directly comparable with Puerto Rico is a lot poorer than Puerto Rico
Comparing the Philippines to British colonies in East Asia, they are substantially poorer than Singapore (City State, wealth would not scale up well), Brunei (petrostate) and Malaysia, but substantially richer than New Guinea and the Solomon islands. Including South Asia and they are richer than India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, by a big margin with Pakistan, poorer than Sri Lanka (though that is changing as the Sri Lankan economy is in free fall) and Bhutan (not by much), much richer than Myanmar and Nepal
So on average comparing more apples to apples the Philippines and Puerto Rico are better off than normal for a British colony in their area
Well, according to Wiki (I know) the former and current British colonies in the Americas are ranked 1 (Bermuda), 3, 4 (Falklands), 5 (Guyana) and 6 (Canada) in terms of per capita GDP, with three other European colonies or ex-colonies in the top 10 along with the USA itself in 2 and Puerto Rico in 10th. The US Virgins and only just ahead of the British Virgins. A far as I can see, the two US territories are pretty much dead in the middle of the British ones.
The Philippines are vastly different to the Solomons and New Guinea and have been for thousands of years. I don't know why you included them and not Hong Kong (not a settler colony and one with no natural resources, but with a per capita GDP 7.5 times that of the Philippines. But perhaps the best comparison is ex-British colony Malaysia, with a per capita GDP three times as high as the Philippines despite not being a settler colony. Of the three major countries in the area (Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) the former US colony is by far the poorest.
The Indian subcontinent and Africa are so different to any US colony or territory that they can't be compared.
I'm not trying to say that the US is worse at running colonies - I am merely saying that the evidence does NOT show that there's any evidence that becoming a British colony is worse than becoming a US one.
The Philippines are vastly different to the Solomons and New Guinea and have been for thousands of years. I don't know why you included them and not Hong Kong (not a settler colony and one with no natural resources, but with a per capita GDP 7.5 times that of the Philippines. But perhaps the best comparison is ex-British colony Malaysia, with a per capita GDP three times as high as the Philippines despite not being a settler colony. Of the three major countries in the area (Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) the former US colony is by far the poorest.
The Indian subcontinent and Africa are so different to any US colony or territory that they can't be compared.
I'm not trying to say that the US is worse at running colonies - I am merely saying that the evidence does NOT show that there's any evidence that becoming a British colony is worse than becoming a US one.
Those 3 are all settler colonies, the Philippines would likely be closer to India insofar as being a UK colony. My guess is it'd take a lot longer to be granted independence from the UK than it did with the US (which would've happened a bit sooner if the Japanese hadn't intervened). The Philippines-UK war (instead of the Philippines-American war) would probably be about a wash in terms of how nasty it was. The UK would also probably have a harder time defending it and reclaiming it than the US did after Japan overruns it during WW2.
Being a German colony just means it gets taken by Japan in WWI, likely making it now a Japanese colony. Being a Japanese colony puts it in danger of ethnic cleansing and/or demographic displacement.