U.S. Soldiers Mercenaries?

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

We all know that.

Then we must accept that Butler’s premise that we went to war to make profits for the “merchants of death” is false.

And what we know, Butler knew – but chose to ignore.

wabrams:

From what I’ve read, Butler’s mindset was more along the line of why did we even send supplies to help if not for us to make bigger profits? Was it right? Not really, but I do respect his point of view.

If’s difficult to respect the point of view of a professional soldier who would put his own country in grave peril. As I said, the Allies were losing the war – had we not entered the war, we’d have wound up facing a victorious Germany alone.

wabrams:

I don’t believe too many Americans thought anyone had the audacity to attack American soil. War with Japan was inevitable, but again I believe the American mindset was that we would pick and choose the time of our involvement.

How the war would start was immaterial in 1935. What was material was the Japanese aggression – no fair-minded person could honestly claim we were being led to hate Japan, and that the cause was the China trade or investments in a country we were bound to grant independence in only 11 years.

wabrams:

Based on our history in the early part of the 20th century, I would say Butler was in the right to question whether we would really give the Phillipine’s independece or just set up another puppet government.

Where did he question that?

He didn’t – he just glossed over the issue of Phillippines indpendence because it would muddy the water of his claim that it was all about investments.

wabrams:

With regards to China, I think it was fair to ponder whether we would fight Japan becuase they might encroach on our foreign investments or our soil.

What does that mean? That we should ignore the expansionistic war Japan had launched in China? Turn a blind eye?

If Butler was correct in his thesis, that’s exactly what we should do – so we could sell war materials to Japan. Clearly, he was not only suppressing facts that opposed his thesis, but also twisting them to fit.

wabrams:

What do you mean by “QED?”

Quod erat demonstrandum – “that which was to be proved” – is the standard comment at the end of a mathmatical proof.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

If’s difficult to respect the point of view of a professional soldier who would put his own country in grave peril. As I said, the Allies were losing the war – had we not entered the war, we’d have wound up facing a victorious Germany alone.

I find no difficulty in respecting his view point. If the man put his country in such grave peril, why did he alert the government that that the organizers of the bonus army were going to attempt a military coup? This man had spent more time abroad and fought more than most soldiers at that time. I’m sure he saw things that one could not fully grasp unless they were there. I suspect this is partially why he dispised America’s foreign investments abroad.
vern humphrey:

How the war would start was immaterial in 1935. What was material was the Japanese aggression – no fair-minded person could honestly claim we were being led to hate Japan, and that the cause was the China trade or investments in a country we were bound to grant independence in only 11 years. .

No fair-minded person in the 1930’s thought any country would dare attack us on our own soil.
vern humphrey:

Where did he question that?

He didn’t – he just glossed over the issue of Phillippines indpendence because it would muddy the water of his claim that it was all about investments.

I don’t see it that way. He sat back for 33 years and watched how the US would “grant” countries independence only to turn around and rig elections to put candidates in office who would do what the US said to do. Based on that, I would say he had every right to be skeptical.
vern humphrey:

What does that mean? That we should ignore the expansionistic war Japan had launched in China? Turn a blind eye?

If Butler was correct in his thesis, that’s exactly what we should do – so we could sell war materials to Japan. Clearly, he was not only suppressing facts that opposed his thesis, but also twisting them to fit.

What it means is that it was already a fore gone conclusion that we were going to war with Japan. The only question was would we go to war to prevent them from attacking us first or would they just go ahead and attack.
vern humphrey:

Quod erat demonstrandum – “that which was to be proved” – is the standard comment at the end of a mathmatical proof.

Math was never my strong suit. In any case, nothing was proved, just opinions shared.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

I find no difficulty in respecting his view point. If the man put his country in such grave peril, why did he alert the government that that the organizers of the bonus army were going to attempt a military coup? This man had spent more time abroad and fought more than most soldiers at that time. I’m sure he saw things that one could not fully grasp unless they were there. I suspect this is partially why he dispised America’s foreign investments abroad.

A man’s view point must stand on its own merits. Good people can have bad ideas, and bad people good ones.

In Butler’s case, his view point was skewed to the point of being propagandistic – and his writings prove it.

wabrams:

No fair-minded person in the 1930’s thought any country would dare attack us on our own soil.

That’s like saying no fair-minded person thought the people murdering and raping the family next doof would come to their house. Japanese militaristic aggression was worthy of being opposed, whether they attacked us or not.

wabrams:

I don’t see it that way. He sat back for 33 years and watched how the US would “grant” countries independence only to turn around and rig elections to put candidates in office who would do what the US said to do. Based on that, I would say he had every right to be skeptical.

Pardon me, but you have invented this argument – Butler never said we would fail to grant independence to the Phillippines. So you can hardly advance the proposition that he based his view point on that.

wabrams:

What it means is that it was already a fore gone conclusion that we were going to war with Japan. The only question was would we go to war to prevent them from attacking us first or would they just go ahead and attack.

No – you miscast the situation completely. It was a KNOWN and proven fact that Japan was waging an aggressive war in China, and all free countries had an obligation to show their disapproval and use their offices to stop the Japanese.

We now know that pressure was one reason Japan attacked us – but we couldn’t sit idle and do nothing. And Butler’s claim that it was all about the China trade and US investments in the Phillippines is simply false.

wabrams:

Math was never my strong suit. In any case, nothing was proved, just opinions shared.

Pardon me, but I said

Butler, like the Nye Committee itself, was not beyond suppressing that which did not fit his argument, and exaggerating that which did.

And you said:

Example? For Bultler, not the Nye Committee.

You set the conditions and I met them.

QED

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

A man’s view point must stand on its own merits. Good people can have bad ideas, and bad people good ones.

In Butler’s case, his view point was skewed to the point of being propagandistic – and his writings prove it.

More like disallusioned after so many years over seas.
vern humphrey:

That’s like saying no fair-minded person thought the people murdering and raping the family next doof would come to their house. Japanese militaristic aggression was worthy of being opposed, whether they attacked us or not.

I would hardly call the Asian continent a neighbor. With regards to their military aggressions, I couldn’t agree with you more.
vern humphrey:

Pardon me, but you have invented this argument – Butler never said we would fail to grant independence to the Phillippines. So you can hardly advance the proposition that he based his view point on that.

I know he didn’t say we would fail to prevent it, I was merely trying to specualte as to what was going through his head when he questioned if it was about investments.
vern humphrey:

No – you miscast the situation completely. It was a KNOWN and proven fact that Japan was waging an aggressive war in China,

We all know that; I was never even questioning that.
vern humphrey:

and all free countries had an obligation to show their disapproval and use their offices to stop the Japanese.

We now know that pressure was one reason Japan attacked us – but we couldn’t sit idle and do nothing. And Butler’s claim that it was all about the China trade and US investments in the Phillippines is simply false.

That all is true, but that never would have sold the American public that we needed to go to war.
vern humphrey:

Pardon me, but I said

And you said:

You set the conditions and I met them.

QED

You gave your opinion that Butler and the Nye commission suppresed information that did not suit them. That doesn’t prove everything they said is wrong. I’m sure their detractors suppresed information if it didn’t suit their own agenda as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

More like disallusioned after so many years over seas.

How does that make suppression of key facts acceptable or logical?

wabrams:

I would hardly call the Asian continent a neighbor. With regards to their military aggressions, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Would Jesus say they were our neighbors?

And would strategists say war in China threatened everyone? The Navy and Marine Corps certainly recognized that and were preparing for such a war if it came.

wabrams:

I know he didn’t say we would fail to prevent it, I was merely trying to specualte as to what was going through his head when he questioned if it was about investments.

How is that a valid argument? Any man must expect his arguments to stand or fall on their own merits. Butler’s fall of their own weight.

wabrams:

That all is true, but that never would have sold the American public that we needed to go to war.

How is that relevant? The American public could see what the Japanese were doing – there was no need for some dark plot to make them understand that.

wabrams:

You gave your opinion that Butler and the Nye commission suppresed information that did not suit them. That doesn’t prove everything they said is wrong. I’m sure their detractors suppresed information if it didn’t suit their own agenda as well.

I’m not obliged to support their detractors – only to examine what Butler himself said. And he clearly suppressed facts and presented others in ways calculated to lead to the conclusion he wanted.

You set the standard, I met it. QED.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

How does that make suppression of key facts acceptable or logical?

Was it deliberate suppression or just disillusion?
vern humphrey:

Would Jesus say they were our neighbors?

So we are switching this to a theological discussion?
vern humphrey:

And would strategists say war in China threatened everyone? The Navy and Marine Corps certainly recognized that and were preparing for such a war if it came.

Most likely because the Marine Corps would have been the first responders and the Navy their transportation.
vern humphrey:

How is that a valid argument? Any man must expect his arguments to stand or fall on their own merits. Butler’s fall of their own weight.

It’s very valid: one’s mindset and what lef to it are most important when trying to discern their point of view.
vern humphrey:

How is that relevant? The American public could see what the Japanese were doing – there was no need for some dark plot to make them understand that.

:banghead:
I have not once said the American public didn’t understand it. What I have been saying is the mindset up until Pearl Harbor was that we shouldn’t get invloved.
vern humphrey:

I’m not obliged to support their detractors – only to examine what Butler himself said. And he clearly suppressed facts and presented others in ways calculated to lead to the conclusion he wanted.

I never said you had to support their detractors. I was merely saying they weren’t completely innocent either.
vern humphrey:

You set the standard, I met it. QED.

I asked what he suppressed. You told me what he left out or what he thought really went on behind the scenes. This isn’t suppression.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

Was it deliberate suppression or just disillusion?

Malice or mental problems? Who knows?

wabrams:

So we are switching this to a theological discussion?

If you look at the top of your screen, you will see this forum is called “Catholic Answers.” When addressing questions like this in a Catholic forum, a Catholic answer is appropriate.

wabrams:

Most likely because the Marine Corps would have been the first responders and the Navy their transportation.

In other words, a Marine general – even a retired one – should have clearly understood the threat to world peace that Japanese militarism posed.

wabrams:

It’s very valid: one’s mindset and what lef to it are most important when trying to discern their point of view.

While this is a Catholic forum, it isn’t (so far as I know) a psychiatric forum. The issue under debate is the reality of the situation, not the mental state of the people involved.

wabrams:

I have not once said the American public didn’t understand it. What I have been saying is the mindset up until Pearl Harbor was that we shouldn’t get invloved.

And how is that relevant? A nation’s leaders are supposed to look into the future, see problems and be prepared to deal with them. No military professional could fail to see that Japanese militarism and aggression was not a threat to world peace.

wabrams:

I never said you had to support their detractors. I was merely saying they weren’t completely innocent either.

Given that I’m not obliged to support them, what difference does their innocence or guilt make?

wabrams:

I asked what he suppressed.

And I gave you a concrete example. He suppressed the whole question of Japanese aggression.

wabrams:

You told me what he left out or what he thought really went on behind the scenes. This isn’t suppression.

That, by definition, is suppression – he presented a skewed set of facts to make an unwarranted conclusion. We judge the validity of his arguments by what he left out and how he presented those he left in. Clearly, his conclusions were wrong.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

Malice or mental problems? Who knows?

Exactly.
vern humphrey:

If you look at the top of your screen, you will see this forum is called “Catholic Answers.” When addressing questions like this in a Catholic forum, a Catholic answer is appropriate.

But you rarely interject Christ or God when discussion of politics or military matters are involved.
vern humphrey:

In other words, a Marine general – even a retired one – should have clearly understood the threat to world peace that Japanese militarism posed.

Or either he was so disillusioned or had the normal mindset at the time that he thought there was no way Japan would attack us first.
vern humphrey:

While this is a Catholic forum, it isn’t (so far as I know) a psychiatric forum. The issue under debate is the reality of the situation, not the mental state of the people involved.

But how can you do that unless you understand someone elses point of view. How was it formed? Why was it formed? Etc.
vern humphrey:

And how is that relevant? A nation’s leaders are supposed to look into the future, see problems and be prepared to deal with them. No military professional could fail to see that Japanese militarism and aggression was not a threat to world peace.

It’s very relevant. A leader can say all he wants that he wants to go to war, but if the public by and large doesn’t support him then it isn’t going to happen.
vern humphrey:

Given that I’m not obliged to support them, what difference does their innocence or guilt make?

I haven’t once said that you were obliged to support Butler or his opponents. he difference is you can’t smear one person without pointing out the faults of there opponents and come off objectively.
vern humphrey:

And I gave you a concrete example. He suppressed the whole question of Japanese aggression.

He never suppresed the notion of japanese aggression. He merely stated that at that point in time, the only way he could see us going to war with Japan was over US assets.
vern humphrey:

That, by definition, is suppression – he presented a skewed set of facts to make an unwarranted conclusion. We judge the validity of his arguments by what he left out and how he presented those he left in. Clearly, his conclusions were wrong.

Suppress:

1 : to put down by authority or force : SUBDUE
2 : to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of
3 a : to exclude from consciousness b : to keep from giving vent to : CHECK
4 obsolete : to press down
5 a : to restrain from a usual course or action <suppress a cough> b : to inhibit the growth or development of
6 : to inhibit the genetic expression of <suppress a mutation>

Source:
m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=suppress

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

But you rarely interject Christ or God when discussion of politics or military matters are involved.

When appropriate, I inject religion. Given that the question, (who is my neighbor?") is one asked of Christ, and one which He answered, how can His answer be inappropriate here?

wabrams:

Or either he was so disillusioned or had the normal mindset at the time that he thought there was no way Japan would attack us first.

Again, whether through his mental state or through malice, he presented a biased and inaccurate picture leading to a wrong conclusion. We don’t need to psychoanalyze him, all we need to do is examine his facts and his conclusions. When we do that, we see the bias and distortion. We see he was wrong in his conclusions.

wabrams:

But how can you do that unless you understand someone elses point of view. How was it formed? Why was it formed? Etc.

When a man tells me the earth is flat, I don’t need to psychoanalyze him to demonstrate that he is wrong. Nor do I need to look farther to see that following his conclusions would lead me far astray.

wabrams:

It’s very relevant. A leader can say all he wants that he wants to go to war, but if the public by and large doesn’t support him then it isn’t going to happen.

What’s your point?

In 1935, we were not at war. We were, however, opposing the Japanese aggression with both moral and economic means.

wabrams:

I haven’t once said that you were obliged to support Butler or his opponents. he difference is you can’t smear one person without pointing out the faults of there opponents and come off objectively.

Are you accusing me of smearing someone?

wabrams:

He never suppresed the notion of japanese aggression. He merely stated that at that point in time, the only way he could see us going to war with Japan was over US assets.

Which, as I have pointed out, was patently false. Our opposition to Japan was based on Japanese militarism and aggression in China.

I’ll use your own definition here. Not the words in bold:

wabrams:

Suppress:

1 : to put down by authority or force : SUBDUE
2 : to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of
3 a : to exclude from consciousness b : to keep from giving vent to : CHECK
4 obsolete : to press down
5 a : to restrain from a usual course or action <suppress a cough> b : to inhibit the growth or development of
6 : to inhibit the genetic expression of <suppress a mutation>

Source:
m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=suppress

Note how Butler kept all mention of Japanese aggression out of his argument, excluding it from consciousness for his readers.

His argument was biased in the extreme, and his conclusions clearly wrong.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

When appropriate, I inject religion. Given that the question, (who is my neighbor?") is one asked of Christ, and one which He answered, how can His answer be inappropriate here?

If that’s the case, then EVERY country is our neighbor and we’ve been poor neighbors from time to time.
vern humphrey:

Again, whether through his mental state or through malice, he presented a biased and inaccurate picture leading to a wrong conclusion. We don’t need to psychoanalyze him, all we need to do is examine his facts and his conclusions. When we do that, we see the bias and distortion. We see he was wrong in his conclusions.

Of course his viewpoint was biased: it was his view. The conclusions aren’t all wrong. Some are valid enough to think on them, others are just plain absurd.
vern humphrey:

When a man tells me the earth is flat, I don’t need to psychoanalyze him to demonstrate that he is wrong. Nor do I need to look farther to see that following his conclusions would lead me far astray.

Some things are either true or the’re not. Other things aren’t so clear cut.
vern humphrey:

What’s your point?

In 1935, we were not at war. We were, however, opposing the Japanese aggression with both moral and economic means.

My point is that you’ve said he was absolutely wrong about his accusations because we went to war with Japan because of their aggression towards us., or at least that’s what you have hinted at. I was saying that Butler most likely felt that we would have gone to war with Japan over our foreign assets, not their aggression towards us.
vern humphrey:

Are you accusing me of smearing someone?

Maybe smear was to harsh of a word, but I was referring to Butler.
vern humphrey:

Which, as I have pointed out, was patently false. Our opposition to Japan was based on Japanese militarism and aggression in China.

Oh, so we went to war with Japan over their aggression in China? Or do you mean the opposition i.e. economic and diplomatic because they went to war with China?
vern humphrey:

I’ll use your own definition here. Not the words in bold:

vern humphrey:

Note how Butler kept all mention of Japanese aggression out of his argument, excluding it from consciousness for his readers.

That would be Merriam-Webster’s definition. And you can put those word’s in bold all you want, but the meaning is lost unless you read the rest of the sentence they’re in. That meant suppressing something from one’s own consciousness, not others, or to keep it a secret.
vern humphrey:

His argument was biased in the extreme, and his conclusions clearly wrong.

Some conclusions were blatantly wrong, others debatable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

If that’s the case, then EVERY country is our neighbor and we’ve been poor neighbors from time to time.

Right on one one point, wrong on the other. By and large, the United States has been a pretty good neighbor.

wabrams:

Of course his viewpoint was biased: it was his view. The conclusions aren’t all wrong. Some are valid enough to think on them, others are just plain absurd.

Enough of them are wrong to invalidate his premise.

wabrams:

If Some things are either true or the’re not. Other things aren’t so clear cut.

And by and large where they are clear-cut, he is wrong. Where they are not so clear-cut, his technique of warped selection of facts should serve as a warning.

wabrams:

If My point is that you’ve said he was absolutely wrong about his accusations because we went to war with Japan because of their aggression towards us., or at least that’s what you have hinted at. I was saying that Butler most likely felt that we would have gone to war with Japan over our foreign assets, not their aggression towards us.

No. I say Butler ignored Japanese militarism and aggression, and attributed the entirity of our relations with Japan to some dark plot hatched by monied interests. He was clearly wrong – and not by accident. He well knew the strategic situation – the Marines had operated under the influence of Pete Ellis for a decade and a half.

wabrams:

If Maybe smear was to harsh of a word, but I was referring to Butler.

I didn’t smear Butler. Any person who writes to the public must expect the public to critically examine his facts and conclusions.

wabrams:

If Oh, so we went to war with Japan over their aggression in China? Or do you mean the opposition i.e. economic and diplomatic because they went to war with China?

Japanese aggression in China led the United States to rightly oppose further aggression with diplomatic and economic measurses. The decision to go to war was Japan’s, not ours.

wabrams:

If That would be Merriam-Webster’s definition. And you can put those word’s in bold all you want, but the meaning is lost unless you read the rest of the sentence they’re in. That meant suppressing something from one’s own consciousness, not others, or to keep it a secret.

Or simply omitting key facts when trying to present a conclusion which those facts don’t fit.

wabrams:

If Some conclusions were blatantly wrong, others debatable.

As I said, enough was wrong – and the methodology for arriving at those wrong conclusions so blatant – that the whole thesis is poisoned.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

Right on one one point, wrong on the other. By and large, the United States has been a pretty good neighbor.

Oh, so we’ve never wronged one of our neighbors?
vern humphrey:

Enough of them are wrong to invalidate his premise.

If you want to cure the headache to cure the cold, go right ahead.
vern humphrey:

And by and large where they are clear-cut, he is wrong. Where they are not so clear-cut, his technique of warped selection of facts should serve as a warning.

That’s debatable.
vern humphrey:

No. I say Butler ignored Japanese militarism and aggression, and attributed the entirity of our relations with Japan to some dark plot hatched by monied interests. He was clearly wrong – and not by accident. He well knew the strategic situation – the Marines had operated under the influence of Pete Ellis for a decade and a half.

I can agree with you on that, but I would say his choice to ignore most of it came from his disillusionment.
vern humphrey:

I didn’t smear Butler.

Like I said, smear was probably too harsh of a word.
vern humphrey:

Any person who writes to the public must expect the public to critically examine his facts and conclusions.

Don’t even get me started on that one.
vern humphrey:

Japanese aggression in China led the United States to rightly oppose further aggression with diplomatic and economic measurses. The decision to go to war was Japan’s, not ours.

Just making sure we were on the same page.
vern humphrey:

Or simply omitting key facts when trying to present a conclusion which those facts don’t fit.

Aww, you’ve got to love politics.
vern humphrey:

As I said, enough was wrong – and the methodology for arriving at those wrong conclusions so blatant – that the whole thesis is poisoned.

Again, this is were his mindset comes into play.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

Oh, so we’ve never wronged one of our neighbors?

No, but I think we can claim to be better than average neighbors. You can rake up all the incidents you like, and every one of them can be matched by both an act of good-neighborlyness, and by an even more wrong act by other nations in a similar situation.

wabrams:

I can agree with you on that, but I would say his choice to ignore most of it came from his disillusionment.

But what does that matter? He chose to suppress facts, and to misrepresent others.

wabrams:

Again, this is were his mindset comes into play.

But why do we care about his mindset? The man is dead – we won’t “cure” him of his problems.

The issue is, did he accurately represent US foreign policy in general, and our use of military force specifically? And the answer is, no – he didn’t.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

No, but I think we can claim to be better than average neighbors. You can rake up all the incidents you like, and every one of them can be matched by both an act of good-neighborlyness, and by an even more wrong act by other nations in a similar situation.

Here we agree.
vern humphrey:

The issue is, did he accurately represent US foreign policy in general, and our use of military force specifically? And the answer is, no – he didn’t.

When it came to WW1 and Japan, I think 90-95% of what he said was off the mark. I think he was very much on point with the Spainish-American War, Nicarauga, Haiti, Mexico, the Phillipines, etc. THose were nothing more than power grabs, both politically and financially.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

When it came to WW1 and Japan, I think 90-95% of what he said was off the mark. I think he was very much on point with the Spainish-American War, Nicarauga, Haiti, Mexico, the Phillipines, etc. THose were nothing more than power grabs, both politically and financially.

The Spanish-American war was fueled by reports of Spanish atrocities in Cuba – as reported by our press. Having got into that war, we could hardly leave the Phillippines hanging – te Japanese would have snapped them up.

In the matter of Mexico and Central America, we made mis-steps, but remember those nations were undergoing one revolution after another – which in the case of Mexico sometimes spilled over onto US soil. Haiti was a basket case then, and is a basket case now – the only time it had anything resembling stable government was under the US.

 

[mommyaprilj]

Prehaps while my husband proudly serves his country he should allow his children to starve, for though I do work, I don’t make enough to support us.

What a silly statement.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

The Spanish-American war was fueled by reports of Spanish atrocities in Cuba – as reported by our press.

Pretty much a one-man job by WR Hearst.

Having got into that war, we could hardly leave the Phillippines hanging – te Japanese would have snapped them up.

In 1898? That doesn’t seem likely. The Japanese hadn’t even fought the Russians yet, and it was only after their victory in that war that they got the confidence to begin expansionist thinking.

the only time it had anything resembling stable government was under the US.

Or more accurately under the dictators that the U.S. liked to install in the region.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

In 1898? That doesn’t seem likely. The Japanese hadn’t even fought the Russians yet, and it was only after their victory in that war that they got the confidence to begin expansionist thinking.

You’re kidding, right? If the Japanese didn’t have “the confidence to begin expansionist thinking” then how did they get the confidence to fight the Russians?

And they did not built the Army and Navy that defeated the Russians just in the years between 1898 and 1905! Those forces were abuilding long before then. And they were building with a goal – to expand Japanese territory.

If the Philippines had been left up for grabs, they would have been grabbed.
Arba Sicula:

Or more accurately under the dictators that the U.S. liked to install in the region.

Caudisimo was rampant in Latin America long before the United States became independent. When the nations of Latin America became indepentent, it was already deeply ingrained in their traditions.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

If the Philippines had been left up for grabs, they would have been grabbed.

What is your source for Japanese plans for expansion into the Philippines at the beginning of the century? Have you an author or a title I could look up? I’d be interested in seeing something about this situation specifically.

Caudisimo was rampant in Latin America long before the United States became independent. When the nations of Latin America became indepentent, it was already deeply ingrained in their traditions.

And the “benevolent” U.S. governments capitalized on that and exploited that tendency. Nice guys, us.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

What is your source for Japanese plans for expansion into the Philippines at the beginning of the century? Have you an author or a title I could look up? I’d be interested in seeing something about this situation specifically.

You’re kidding, right?

Japan was building a formidable Navy – one capable of defeating the Russian Navy (which occurred in 1905, less than a decade later.) Japan was also building an Army capable of defeating Russia.

Also, due to the lack of resources on Japan’s home islands, in order to maintain a strong industrial sector with strong growth, raw materials such as iron, oil, and coal largely had to be imported. Most of these materials came from the United States. So, for the sake of the military-industrial development scheme, and industrial growth on the whole, mercantilist theories prevailed, and the Japanese felt that resource-rich colonies were needed to compete with European powers. Korea (1910) and Formosa (Taiwan, 1895) had earlier been annexed as primarily agricultural colonies. Manchuria’s iron and coal, Indochina’s rubber, and China’s vast resources were prime targets for industry.

That’s a lot of activity there! Annexation of Taiwan in 1895, war with Russia in 1905, annexation of Korea in 1910. Japan was clearly on the march in the 1890s.
Arba Sicula:

And the “benevolent” U.S. governments capitalized on that and exploited that tendency. Nice guys, us.

That’s your interpretation – funny how no one else had a better solution at the time.