Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Futurist » 04 Jan 2019 04:06

I know that the U.S. successfully acquired the Danish West Indies in 1917--in large part due to Denmark's willingness to sell these islands as a result of World War I. However, I am curious as to whether you think the U.S. should have tried getting additional Caribbean territories during the early 20th century?

For instance, I was thinking of the U.S. asking France and/or Britain to give up some of their Caribbean territories in exchange for loans/credit, war supplies, et cetera. Note that this doesn't necessarily have to happen during WWI; rather, it could be done after WWI as a way of getting the US to forgive French and British debts. Also, I seem to recall that there was an offer by France in 1939 to trade some of its Caribbean possessions in exchange for American planes or something like that. Could this offer have actually been successful if it wasn't for the Fall of France?

Also, while we're on topic--could the Netherlands have been successfully persuaded to sell its Caribbean possessions to the U.S. if Germany would have occupied the Netherlands during WWI as a part of the Schlieffen Plan?

Any thoughts on all of this? Basically, I want to know if there were missed opportunities for additional U.S. territorial expansion in the early 20th century.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Rob Stuart » 04 Jan 2019 05:59

Futurist wrote:
04 Jan 2019 04:06
I know that the U.S. successfully acquired the Danish West Indies in 1917--in large part due to Denmark's willingness to sell these islands as a result of World War I. However, I am curious as to whether you think the U.S. should have tried getting additional Caribbean territories during the early 20th century?

For instance, I was thinking of the U.S. asking France and/or Britain to give up some of their Caribbean territories in exchange for loans/credit, war supplies, et cetera. Note that this doesn't necessarily have to happen during WWI; rather, it could be done after WWI as a way of getting the US to forgive French and British debts. Also, I seem to recall that there was an offer by France in 1939 to trade some of its Caribbean possessions in exchange for American planes or something like that. Could this offer have actually been successful if it wasn't for the Fall of France?

Also, while we're on topic--could the Netherlands have been successfully persuaded to sell its Caribbean possessions to the U.S. if Germany would have occupied the Netherlands during WWI as a part of the Schlieffen Plan?

Any thoughts on all of this? Basically, I want to know if there were missed opportunities for additional U.S. territorial expansion in the early 20th century.
Well, Canadians are happy that "additional U.S. territorial expansion" did not lead to any part of Canada becoming part of the US. Given that Puerto Rico has not been given statehood, I suspect many of the people in the territories you're talking about may well be glad that they were not acquired by the US. In any case, the US has always claimed to be against people being colonized, so wouldn't the acquisition of Caribbean colonies violate that stance?

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Should The U.S. have tried Getting More Caribbean Territories In The Early 20th Century?

Post by Robert Rojas » 04 Jan 2019 06:24

Greetings to both brother Futurist and the community as a whole. Howdy Futurist (or Alvin Toffler if you so prefer)! Well sir, in respect to your introductory posting of Thursday - January 03, 2019 - 7:06pm, my imperialist inclinations notwithstanding, old yours truly is of the school of thought that the United States of America has ALREADY inherited far too many extraterritorial headaches after its' sweeping military success during the Spanish-American War of year 1898. Apart from potentially offering the Republic of Panama outright statehood, I personally fail to see what grand benefits are to be had after becoming a de facto colonial ruler for the disparate business concerns of Great Britain, France and the Netherlands. As it is, Washington, D.C. has plenty to chew on after its incremental acquisition and consolidation of what would become the now recognizable lower Forty Eight States of the Union after the conclusion of the American Civil War. I would be remiss if I did not give the gargantuan Alaskan Territory an honorary mention. In short, the Caribbean Basin was NOT a good fit for Yankee manifest destiny. Well, that's my initial two politically incorrect cents worth on this exercise into Western Hemispheric colonialism - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in your corner of Orange County down in the Southland of what was once our Golden State of California.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Futurist » 04 Jan 2019 06:38

Rob Stuart wrote:
04 Jan 2019 05:59
Futurist wrote:
04 Jan 2019 04:06
I know that the U.S. successfully acquired the Danish West Indies in 1917--in large part due to Denmark's willingness to sell these islands as a result of World War I. However, I am curious as to whether you think the U.S. should have tried getting additional Caribbean territories during the early 20th century?

For instance, I was thinking of the U.S. asking France and/or Britain to give up some of their Caribbean territories in exchange for loans/credit, war supplies, et cetera. Note that this doesn't necessarily have to happen during WWI; rather, it could be done after WWI as a way of getting the US to forgive French and British debts. Also, I seem to recall that there was an offer by France in 1939 to trade some of its Caribbean possessions in exchange for American planes or something like that. Could this offer have actually been successful if it wasn't for the Fall of France?

Also, while we're on topic--could the Netherlands have been successfully persuaded to sell its Caribbean possessions to the U.S. if Germany would have occupied the Netherlands during WWI as a part of the Schlieffen Plan?

Any thoughts on all of this? Basically, I want to know if there were missed opportunities for additional U.S. territorial expansion in the early 20th century.
Well, Canadians are happy that "additional U.S. territorial expansion" did not lead to any part of Canada becoming part of the US. Given that Puerto Rico has not been given statehood, I suspect many of the people in the territories you're talking about may well be glad that they were not acquired by the US. In any case, the US has always claimed to be against people being colonized, so wouldn't the acquisition of Caribbean colonies violate that stance?
It wouldn't violate the principle of national self-determination if the people of these territories will approve of being transferred to U.S. rule. For instance, it looks like the people of the Danish West Indies approved of being transferred to the U.S.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Dani ... referendum

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: In Fond Memory Of Gordon Sinclair - EH!?

Post by Robert Rojas » 04 Jan 2019 07:56

Greetings to both cousin Rob Stuart and the community as a whole. Howdy Rob! Well sir, in deference to your point OR points-of view as articulated within your posting of Thursday - January 03, 2019 - 8:59pm, like yourself, old yours truly is pleased as punch that neither successive Democrat nor Republican administrations thought it wise or prudent to absorb ANY part of Canada since that great misunderstanding way back in year 1812. After all, was it not paternalistic Great Britain that ostensibly coveted a healthy slice of your de facto territory between year 1867 and year 1949? From the inception of Canada of July 01, 1867, the "mother country" saw fit to continue to occupy and govern what would eventually become Newfoundland and Labrador. That's right folks, eighty two years worth of enlightened governance not from Washington, D.C. but from London. WITH FRIENDS LIKE THAT! Incidentally, unbeknownst to you, the rank and file citizenry of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have consistently turned down every referendum for Statehood. If I had my druthers, the United States of America would cease and desist from continuing to pour good money after bad and unilaterally grant the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico its independence. On the other hand, maybe it's high time for Ottawa and Washington, D.C. to consider a trade. Canada can acquire the ever tropical paradise of Puerto Rico in exchange for the American acquisition of Quebec. Given their discomfort with English speakers, one must REALLY wonder how well the progressive thinking burghers of a newly christened State of Quebec would adjust to a wholesale invasion of disparate Spanish speakers. Yes, there is nothing like sharing the love! It's just friendly food for thought. Tostadas anyone? Well, that's my latest two politically incorrect cents worth on this exercise in shifting demography - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day up in your corner of the proverbial GREAT WHITE NORTH of Canada - EH!?


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Futurist » 04 Jan 2019 08:24

What would be really great would be combining tostadas with poutine.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by South » 04 Jan 2019 10:39

Good morning Futurist,

Re: "any thoughts...";
Re: "additional US territorial expansion";

Ref: Monroe Doctrine
Ref: United Fruit Company


The Monroe Doctrine obliged the US not to interfere with the current European colonies already established. It was a trade-off type of policy with modifications over the years: Platt Amendment, Roosevelt Corollary, Kissinger Addendum.

From it's pronouncement in Dec 1823, matters changed here in the US. There were domestic US "interests" that did not want the US to acquire, for example, new agricultural lands. If you own a large sugar plantation in Louisiana, you surely do not want an additional competitor. Same matter in re the California ag interests. The culmination, if any, was a major reason for the US to relinquish the Philippines were the political complaints of the California (and others) ag interests not wanting tariff/duty exempt cheaper foods entering the US.

Additional US territorial expansion need not occur via governmental acquisition of lands. The Board of Directors of United Fruit Company can explain how this is done. So can the Banana Republic statesmen and their generals. Join them in New Orleans or later in Miami while sipping on an Orange Crush or Orange Julius. Be prepared with the questions because they are busy. Tiffany's opens and it's immediately crowded.

..........

James; The US doesn't use colonies. They're "insular possessions".
Futurist; Besides the principle of national self-determination, there's the principle of sovereignty. The Congress of Vienna got the attention of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams.

......

Instead of tostadas avec pootine, how about some of that Canadian apple juice that's fermented and then distilled.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Rob Stuart » 04 Jan 2019 11:02

Futurist wrote:
04 Jan 2019 06:38
It wouldn't violate the principle of national self-determination if the people of these territories will approve of being transferred to U.S. rule. For instance, it looks like the people of the Danish West Indies approved of being transferred to the U.S.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Dani ... referendum
That would be different. In fact Newfoundland (now styled Newfoundland and Labrador) joined Canada as our 10th province following a referendum.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Futurist » 05 Jan 2019 03:00

Rob Stuart wrote:
04 Jan 2019 11:02
Futurist wrote:
04 Jan 2019 06:38
It wouldn't violate the principle of national self-determination if the people of these territories will approve of being transferred to U.S. rule. For instance, it looks like the people of the Danish West Indies approved of being transferred to the U.S.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Dani ... referendum
That would be different. In fact Newfoundland (now styled Newfoundland and Labrador) joined Canada as our 10th province following a referendum.
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with territorial acquisitions if they have the consent of the population (or even if they don't have the consent of the population but the population is quickly swamped by settlers from our own country).

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4201
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by OpanaPointer » 05 Jan 2019 03:17

Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Should The U.S. Have Tried Getting More Carribbean Territories In The Early 20th Century?

Post by Robert Rojas » 05 Jan 2019 03:47

Greetings to both brother Futurist and the community as a whole. Howdy Futurist (or Alvin Toffler if you so prefer)! Well my friend, in respect to your posting of Friday - January 04, 2019 - 6:00pm, old yours truly is of the school of thought that you just might be navigating quite a SLIPPERY SLOPE with the blanket notion that there is nothing wrong with territorial acquisitions IF THEY HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE POPULATION. One only needs to be reminded of the ANSCHLUSS of March 12, 1938 when National Socialist Germany absorbed Austria and more recently, the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula on March 18, 2014 by the Russian Federation at the expense of Ukraine. There are a multitude of other historical examples, but I think you get the picture. Now, just to sate my personal curiosity, have I misconstrued OR taken something out of its proper context with your commentary? Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this topic which is now descending into the abyss of situational ethics - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in your corner of Orange County of what was once our glorious Golden State of California.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Futurist » 05 Jan 2019 04:18

OpanaPointer wrote:
05 Jan 2019 03:17
Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state.
It doesn't want to become independent either, though.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: RE: Should The U.S. Have Tried Getting More Carribbean Territories In The Early 20th Century?

Post by Futurist » 05 Jan 2019 04:23

Robert Rojas wrote:
05 Jan 2019 03:47
Greetings to both brother Futurist and the community as a whole. Howdy Futurist (or Alvin Toffler if you so prefer)! Well my friend, in respect to your posting of Friday - January 04, 2019 - 6:00pm, old yours truly is of the school of thought that you just might be navigating quite a SLIPPERY SLOPE with the blanket notion that there is nothing wrong with territorial acquisitions IF THEY HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE POPULATION. One only needs to be reminded of the ANSCHLUSS of March 12, 1938 when National Socialist Germany absorbed Austria and more recently, the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula on March 18, 2014 by the Russian Federation at the expense of Ukraine. There are a multitude of other historical examples, but I think you get the picture. Now, just to sate my personal curiosity, have I misconstrued OR taken something out of its proper context with your commentary? Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this topic which is now descending into the abyss of situational ethics - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in your corner of Orange County of what was once our glorious Golden State of California.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
I don't know if the referendums in Austria in 1938 and Crimea in 2014 were completely free and fair. Still, if these referendums genuinely were free and fair, I would have had no problem with either of these two annexations (something which would have been especially true had both Nazi German and Putin's Russia been less authoritarian). I mean, it would be in bad taste for Russia to guarantee Ukraine's borders and then renege on this pledge, but Russia is hardly the only country which behaves inconsistently.

My issue with Hitler was having him conquer a lot of heavily populated non-German areas, engage in anti-Semitic discrimination, commit genocide and mass murder (not only against the Jews but also against the Roma, disabled, et cetera), and plan to deport large numbers of people from his newly acquired living space.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1774
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by Futurist » 05 Jan 2019 04:28

I personally think that, in general, international law should be more receptive to the idea of secession and national self-determination. I mean, obviously countries are reluctant to give up their own territory unless they are forced to do this, but countries have sometimes used the national self-determination principle to expand their territory in the past. For instance, think of Italy's and Serbia's post-WWI territorial gains.

In the grand scheme of things, the 20th century was actually very receptive towards national self-determination--with the creation of various new countries, decolonization, and the redrawing of borders to make them match ethnic lines more.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4201
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Should the U.S. have tried getting more Caribbean territories in the early 20th century?

Post by OpanaPointer » 05 Jan 2019 11:50

Futurist wrote:
05 Jan 2019 04:18
OpanaPointer wrote:
05 Jan 2019 03:17
Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state.
It doesn't want to become independent either, though.
Yeah, status quo ante is fine with them.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Return to “What if”