Assorted late 19th century what ifs

[raharris1973]

1) what if German took over the Spanish claimed Caroline and Palau islands earlier than OTL, in the 1880s?

By 1884-1885 Germany and Spain had conflicting claims over the Caroline and Palau islands in Micronesia. When Spain moved to formalize it’s claim Germany made countermoves. Each side sent gunships and raised flags on small islands.

Spaniards rioted against Germans and German diplomatic property and Bismarck worried about trade losses in Spain. In the end Bismarck proposed papal mediation which awarded sovereignty to Spain but gave access to German business and permitted Germany to take over the Marshalls.

What if Bismarck decided against arbitration in this case, or became incapacitated in this crisis and he or a successor stuck to bilateral competition and gunboat diplomacy?

Who grabs more islands, Germany or Spain? Does Spain back down, or does it lead to German Spanish war.

Many do not perceive Germany in the 1880s as the serious naval power it was in the 1900s. It is true it was not as strong this early, but already by 1882 Germany was third in Europe, behind only Britain and France in armored warship tonnage, so it was certainly ahead of Spain.

If there is a German Spanish war would Germany just win the contested territiries, or also other Spanish pacific territories like the Marianas, Guam, and Philippines, possibly African ones like Rio Muni near the equator, and Rio de Oro south of the equator?

Would other powers intervene on either the Spanish or German side? Who would do it and why?

2) what if Italy joined Russia’s war against the Ottomans in 1876-77?

What if Italy opportunistically attacks the Turks after Russia does, at least opening a front to seize Tunis, and possibly opening second front in Albania?

Would Italy be prepared to perform well and win against local Ottoman forces in either Tunis or Albania?

Assuming the Italians can handle the Turks and seized desired terrain, would any other powers object and intervene to block Italian annexations?

In the case of Tunis, would Britain object? On the one hand, Rome gets both sides of the central med straits. On the other, Italy is weak and kind of a British favorite.

France? Wanting Tunis for itself?

Might the Austrians or Serbs intervene to counter an Italian intervention in Albania?

3) What if German merchants and diplomats an in the Asia Pacific ran a shoestring side campaign against France in the region during the Franco-Prussian war?

Various Germans pull a “Lawrence of Arabia”-lite campaign in Southeast Asia against France’s then small and young empire in Indochina, while the main war goes on in Europe.

Diplomats and gunboat skippers representing the North GermanConfederation or Prussia, and merchants representing the Hamburger South Seas and Godeffroy firms implement this.

What this “German” effort consists of is initially diplomacy in the court of the King of Siam, advertising the defeats of the French in Europe, German victories, the capture of the French emperor, and emphasizing this is a good short term moment for Siam to invade and support an anti French uprising in Cambodia. France had only made Cambodia a protectorate 8 years before the Franco-Prussian War, and offended Siam greatly in the process, since Cambodia had been a Siamese vassal.

The Germans promise support with gunboats and sell guns and cannon from their own stocks and third party sellers operating in the region (possibly British, Dutch, or Americans) to encourage the Siamese.

The “Germans” also point out the long term advantages of trade relations with a rising Germany.

A similar mission goes to Annam to call upon the still independent authorities of that country and pay respect to any Chinese officials present. They also point out French defeats in Europe, Germany’s rising strength, and the special opportunity for the Vietnamese to support an invasion/uprising against the French occupying their far southern provinces around Saigon and the Mekong (what the French called Cochinchine) . Here again the Germans offer to provide support with gunships, military advice, guns and ammo.

Let’s say dealing with the dual invasions and uprisings and that trickle of modern supplies and advice, and unable to get any reinforcement in the months while Paris is besieged, the commune is fought, and peace is negotiated, the French need to retreat from indochina to Singapore or Manila.

What happens if in addition to the humiliation of Frankfurt, loss of Alsace Lorraine to Germany, France is forced to concede independence to Vietnam and Cambodia? That is extra humiliation.

I think German prestige in those areas would rise, but Germany’a power projection, at least for the 1870s will still be far too weak to support imposing a colonial protectorate or dominion over Siam, Annam, or Cambodia. Because of this weakness, Germany will end up regarded as an equal ally, admired by local elites, and the southeast Asian sideshow will be good advertising for German military, naval, educational and technical advising in the years ahead in China and Japan in addition to being good for business.

France will have the physical power at a later point to recolonize Vietnam, but it would have to start from scratch. In any case the revanchist priority will be Alsace-Lorraine ahead of Indochina.

 

[raharris1973]

4) What if the Spanish share of intervention in the Franco-Spanish invasion of Vietnam of 1858-1862 was larger, and followed French suggestions to open up a Spanish front in the north in Tonkin?

From wiki on Cochinchina campaign - Wikipedia, which won the French their first territorial foothold in Vietnam, in the far southern part:

"The Spanish, who had played a junior role in the Cochinchina campaign, received a share of the indemnity but made no territorial acquisitions in Vietnam. Instead, they were encouraged by the French to seek a sphere of influence in Tonkin."

OTL of course "Nothing came of this suggestion, however, and Tonkin ultimately fell under French control also, becoming a French protectorate in 1883." after later French expeditions.

So in the ATL is during 1861-62, the Franco-Spanish effort is scaled up a bit, with the Spanish, in fact largely Filipino-manned, invasion force concentrating on Tonkin in northern Vietnam. In northern Vietnam, the Spanish-Filipino invaders hook-up with the uprising of the Catholic descendant of the former Le Dynasty, Tạ Văn Phụng - Wikipedia, which was raging at the time, and and unlike OTL, where Tu Duc's Nguyen Dynasty regime survived the war with territorial losses and an indemnity, he loses power to combined broader invasion and victorious rebellion, and Vietnam is divided by 1864 into a French protectorate south of the 17th parallel and a Spanish protectorate north of the 17th parallel.]

In the 1880s, when France completed its OTL conquest of Tonkin, China asserted its rights as suzerain power over Vietnam as a tributary state and fought France. China lost and France got it all. In the early 1860s, I don't think China can afford to intervene in Vietnam at all against Spain, because it is dealing with the Taiping rebellion and the Nien Rebellion and possibly more rebellions all at the same time.

So I think France and Spain will win dominant status, even if, especially in the north, Ta Van Phung, their client, keeps a lot of autonomy.

What happens in the decades going forward with Indochina split between French and Spanish influence. Especially when the Spanish-American war happens?

 

[Buba]

Spanish Indochina - very interesting.
Made me wonder - come the Phillipines National Struggle - the Spanish now have a large pool of ferocious troops "next door" and put down the rebellion with cheap and nasty* Vietnamese soldiers?

Holding Tonkin, requires the Spanish to endure the Chinese backlash in the mid '80s. Although France would probably help with that.

No French Tonkin - do we get French Hainan and/or Taiwan in 1884 instead?

* as in "inexpensive to hire" and "wish they do not take you alive"

 

[raharris1973]

Spanish Indochina - very interesting.
Made me wonder - come the Phillipines National Struggle - the Spanish now have a large pool of ferocious troops "next door" and put down the rebellion with cheap and nasty* Vietnamese soldiers?

Holding Tonkin, requires the Spanish to endure the Chinese backlash in the mid '80s. Although France would probably help with that.

No French Tonkin - do we get French Hainan and/or Taiwan in 1884 instead?

* as in "inexpensive to hire" and "wish they do not take you alive"

these are some fascinating knock-on effects I had not thought of!

you think the Chinese will challenge the Spanish in Tonkin in an 1880s rebound, using the Black Flag Army and maybe regular troops?

And I guess by then some Vietnamese will be sick and tired of the Spanish and revolting. Seems plausible enough.

I wonder if the Chinese have decided to antagonize the Spanish by the 1880s if the Qing also might send aid to Filipino rebels for good measure.

You mention the French helping out the Spanish if there is a Chinese challenge. That is probably a good thing, otherwise antiquated Spanish forces might be at risk of an Adua style defeat.

another power that might offer to help Spain for its own reasons could be Japan, seeking to displace China in Korea.

 

[Buba]

you think the Chinese will challenge the Spanish in Tonkin in an 1880s rebound, using the Black Flag Army and maybe regular troops?

In OTL Qing charrange France, so why not Spain? If anything Spain is more "paper tiger" than France

I wonder if the Chinese have decided to antagonize the Spanish by the 1880s if the Qing also might send aid to Filipino rebels for good measure.

That would be a smart move. Filipino's in revolt by 1884 already?

another power that might offer to help Spain for its own reasons could be Japan, seeking to displace China in Korea.

1884 not too soon for Japan to move against China? AFAIK in OTL Japan did not jump on the French bandwagon?

 

[raharris1973]

Developing my Scenario 1), the fight over the Caroline islands,

Germany is the overwhelming favorite to win in any contest with Spain for grabbing islands, through a superior merchant marine and navy, and certainly any war, with its navy being third place in Europe (even if a very distant third behind Britain and France) in armoured warship tonnage.

If it came to war, how greedy might Germany get, beyond vindicating its initial claims to the Palaus, Carolines, and its side-claims to the Marshalls?

Will they sweep the Spanish entirely out of the Pacific, taking the Marianas, including Saipan and Guam, and the Philippines? Doing a full occupation of the Philippines would be a more expensive proposition than the rest because of its size and population, although its potential for agricultural production and as a market is greater. And Germany is rather busy in 1884-85 setting up practically the rest of its African empire.

Would the Germans get greedier and grab Spain's African enclaves like Rio Muni (Equatorial Africa) and Rio De Oro (Western Sahara)? I really doubt they would go for the Canaries because that's a more ancient Spanish possession with a population more committed to remaining Spanish.

Could the Germans even be greedy/gutsy enough to try for Spanish possessions in the Caribbean like Puerto Rico or Cuba? At that point, they are taking major risks of pissing off the US (who's fleet though is at a nadir in strength) and the Britain (whose fleet is not).

Now, according to the wikipedia article, Carolines Question - Wikipedia
"However, by now Bismarck feared that in the event of war with Spain, France would side with her against Germany."

That would make things waaaaayyyyy more complex for Germany, by bringing in a "1st Division" power against Germany.

I'm not sure how realistic that fear was though. Certainly if France joined the war on Spain's side, the war at sea would totally flip to the advantage of the Franco-Spanish side because of France's substantial naval lead over Germany. But France could not assume a war with Germany would be limited to the colonial sphere. Indeed, its main objective would be in Europe, to regain Alsace-Lorraine, especially because the recently concluded Tonkin campaign, and setbacks and cost overruns there while fighting the Sino-French war, soured French politicians on colonial warfare. I don't know that France would or should be so confident about the outcome of a war in Europe in 1885. It was more fortified and militarily recovered than in the 1870s certainly, but Germany's alliance situation was infinitely better. Germany would enjoy the benevolent neutrality, at a minimum, of its "Three Emperors League" partners Austria-Hungary and Russia, and Italy would arguably be treaty obligated to take Germany's side against France if France attacked Germany. Italy might indeed have a positive incentive to engage in war with France to avenge and perhaps reverse the French seizure of Tunis, and possibly claim French lands in Nice, Savoy, and Corsica on historic and ethnic grounds. Meanwhile, France would just be allied to Spain, a "3rd Division" power.

Bottom-line - if the war broadens to additional participants, it gets more messy, and interesting, even if the Germans start to suffer more in the Pacific and Sub-Saharan African fronts.

Perhaps, Bismarck, or an alternative German chancellor, might be prone to dismiss the hypothetical French threat if the Carolines issue comes to a head a year earlier than it did in OTL. It would be harder to believe that France would join Spain in a war over colonial matters in 1884 while it is under the relatively pro-German Jules Ferry government that is at the height of the Sino-French war and its pursuit of the conquest of Indochina.

If France under such circumstances, did still choose to intrude in a German Spanish war, Paris would be quite over-extended. Having a superior navy and alliance with Spain, but also being at war with Germany on land and sea, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, and quite possibly additionally the Italians in Europe.

 

[raharris1973]

In OTL Qing charrange France, so why not Spain? If anything Spain is more "paper tiger" than France

That would be a smart move. Filipino's in revolt by 1884 already?

1884 not too soon for Japan to move against China? AFAIK in OTL Japan did not jump on the French bandwagon?

You are right Spain was weaker than France, but in this TL, what might be different is Spain has been sitting on Tonkin for 20 years (since 1860s) in cooperation with a local ally, not invading fresh in the 1880s against a viet emperor who was complaining about it. So the Chinese might be more “accustomed” to Vietnam being out of their sphere.

the Filipinos were not in a continuous rebellion in the 80s. There were secret societies most likely, and there was a revolt/mutiny briefly in the 70s.

in OTL Japan talked to France about jumping in, but they could never agree on the price. When France wanted it, Japan’s price for the risk was too high. When Japan was willing to do it for less, France didn’t feel like it needed it anymore. Maybe the Spanish are more accommodating?

 

[raharris1973]

Spanish Indochina - very interesting.
Made me wonder - come the Phillipines National Struggle - the Spanish now have a large pool of ferocious troops "next door" and put down the rebellion with cheap and nasty* Vietnamese soldiers?

* as in "inexpensive to hire" and "wish they do not take you alive"

--- This brings up great questions by the time we get to the middle and late 1890s. Assuming there is still a Cuban rebellion and a Spanish-American war, how does the Pacific theater of the Spanish-American War go compared to OTL?

I think the Americans will still want to neutralize any Spanish fleet(s) in the Pacific, and I don't see why the Spanish fleet would be any less antiquated or doomed to defeat against the Americans.

So I think the Americans would win battles in places like Manila Bay or Guam or Haiphong Harbor, wherever Spanish fleet elements are hanging out.

But what would the situation be on the ground.

Would the Americans land, or would Spanish control on the ground be prohibitively strong, with proxy native troops (cheap and nasty) and Spaniards to prevent chances of any success by the small US Marine Corps or deployable Army detachments.

That might be the case if the Spanish are using the 'divide and conquer' strategy you suggest, having used Filipino troops to help secure control in North Vietnam, and then using North Vietnamese troops whenever the Filipinos revolt. The Spanish would probably have the good fortune that the Filipinos and Vietnamese, being strangers to each other, would not revolt at the same time, and could be readily hired to suppress each other.

Or might there be an insurgency challenging enough in either the Philippines or North Vietnam that Spanish control is weakened and the US can make deals with them to defeat the Spanish to take Manila and/or Hanoi. And after that, would America make them allies, protectorates, or colonies. Making North Vietnam a protectorate or colony would be even more out on a limb than the Philippines, because its not an island, but we cannot rule out an American attempt.

If America does *not* try to take any of the land territories in the Philippines or Vietnam from Spain, and it keeps those countries after the Spanish-American war, I can imagine Spain joining the "9-Nation Alliance" against the Boxers when their rebellion breaks out in 1899. That may peer pressure Portugal to join in as the 10th participant. [OTL's 8 Nations were: 1) Russia, 2) Britain, 3) France, 4) Japan, 5) Germany, 6) USA, 7) Italy, 8) Austria-Hungary]

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

the Filipinos were not in a continuous rebellion in the 80s. There were secret societies most likely, and there was a revolt/mutiny briefly in the 70s.

The Katipunan was an example of a secret society that led the Philippine Revolution. In fact, many figures prominent in the Philippine independence movements joined the freemasons, such as Marcelo Del Pilar, the Luna brothers (Antonio and Juan) and others. Ironically enough, it was a Spanish military officer who established freemasonry in the Philippines, which did not accept Filipinos at first.

 

[ATP]

The Katipunan was an example of a secret society that led the Philippine Revolution. In fact, many figures prominent in the Philippine independence movements joined the freemasons, such as Marcelo Del Pilar, the Luna brothers (Antonio and Juan) and others. Ironically enough, it was a Spanish military officer who established freemasonry in the Philippines, which did not accept Filipinos at first.

Masons always tried revolutions in not anglosaxons countries.And rarely could control them.

Let assume,that Spain hold North Vietnam.Nothing change till 1953,when commie revolution is crushed by joined efforts of France and Spain.
Spain get H bombs as result.Portugal join alliance for self- defence.

No Vietnam war and american defeat there.In 1975 Spain widraw from Vietnam after Franco death - but commies do not take power,local authorities with french help are enough to defeat commies.
French Vietnam become formally independent,too - but french sphere of influence still.Just like Cambodia.

France and Spain remain close allies till 1968,and even after that still help each other and dislike USA.

Now - no commie Vietnam,but 2 free states,and Cambodia in french sphere of influence.
Spain still have H bombs,and some influence in Vietnam.

USA much more conservative without Vietnam defeat.No blm or antifa.

 

[raharris1973]

Scenario #5 - What if the "Virginius Affair" led to an Anglo-Spanish War?

Continue in my tradition of not giving Spain a break, I am converting this PoD, that is often used for getting an early Spanish-American War, in 1873, to get an Anglo-Spanish War instead.

My reasoning is simple. I've learned the affair of rogue Spanish executions involved British citizens as well as American, and the Royal Navy was involved in halting the incident. Furthermore, unlike the Americans, who may well have been behind the Spanish in the technology of their available ocean-going ironclad ships, the Royal Navy would be a shoo-in to defeat the Spanish fleet anywhere around the globe. Plus the British didn't like slavery and this could speed things along.

Here's some background:

The Virginius affair which was a diplomatic dispute that occurred from October 1873 to February 1875 between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain (then in control of Cuba), during the Ten Years' War. Virginius was a fast American ship hired by Cuban insurrectionists to land men and munitions in Cuba to attack the Spanish regime there. It was captured by the Spanish, who wanted to try the men onboard (many of whom were American and British citizens) as pirates and execute them. The Spanish executed 53 of the men but stopped when the British government demanded it when HMS Niobe, arrived at the city of Santiago where the executions were taking place. The commander of the ship, Sir Lambton Loraine, immediately ordered the Spanish to cease the executions. Loraine even went so far as to threaten to bombard the city if his demands were not met. Spain relented and halted the executions, sparing the surviving crew of the Virginius.

One of the thing mentioned in the clip is that at the time of the affair, the Spanish ironclad Arapiles was in Brooklyn, New York for repairs that lasted from May to January 1874, Being a more modern ironclad, the United States Navy had no warship in its inventory capable of engaging it. This led to the sickening realization that if war had broken out, the Spanish warship could have begun shelling New York City with impunity, the US Navy powerless to stop it. Had Spain sent its fleet to battle, the US Navy would be fighting an enemy with a larger number of more advanced ships. The US Navy was surpassed by Spain both in quality and quantity. To make matters worse, the few warships the United States had were incapable of fighting abroad. The available ironclads were originally designed for operation in coastal areas and on rivers. They could hardly make the 100 mile journey to Cuba much less sail to Spain from across the Atlantic.

But what if there was no peaceful settlement and war broke out between the United States and Spain in 1873.

What if the Disraeli government decides to go a couple steps further and issues an ultimatum, perhaps alone, perhaps jointly with the United States, insisting on mediating between Spain and the Cuban rebels?

I'm presuming Spain will have to refuse on honor grounds and the British can obliterate the Spanish fleet around Cuba, land marines, link up with the Cuban rebels, and voila, Cuba has slavery abolished 13 years early and independence 25 years early.

I'm assuming Britain wouldn't be trying to seize Cuba for itself and adding more political complications with the Cubans, US, and Latin American republics.

But, if Disraeli's already worked up the jingo spirit against the old love to hate 'em whipping boy enemy of Spain, there is plenty of scope elsewhere in the global Spanish empire for British acquisitiveness.

In the Caribbean, there's Puerto Rico. But, I suspect that's best left alone, either made independent or left in the hands of Spain (although made to abolish slavery if that hadn't been done), since American republics would get irritated and it adds nothing Britain doesn't already have from its numerous other Caribbean bases.

However, in the Pacific, the British could lay claim to the Philippines and the whole of the Spanish East Indies, including, Palau, the Caroline and Marianas islands. This supplements Britains trade position around China and Japan, adding to the string of colonies and concessions from Shanghai to Hong Kong to Malaya, Borneo and Singapore, Lower Burma, and the Antipodes.

In Africa, Britain can grab Fernando Poo and Rio Muni and any forts on the southern Moroccan coast of Rio Muni.

If greedy, Britain could try for the Canaries, or Minorca again, but that's really rubbing it in and giving Spain another Gibraltar or Alsace-Lorraine like grievance, in addition to seeming a bit uncontrollably grabby to France and the rest of the continent. But Disraeli and the Royal Navy can do it.

What are the global, European and British, American, and Spanish domestic consequences from there?

 

[Buba]

Plus the British didn't like slavery and this could speed things along.

Let us not go overboard with "not likey slavery". Britain fought to prop up Ottomans against Russia, did not care about Spain, Brazil, Peru ...

In Africa, Britain can grab Fernando Poo and Rio Muni and any forts on the southern Moroccan coast of Rio Muni.

1 - Yes, more malaria infested swamps is what the Empire needs.
2 - the Morrocan coast forts are useless money drains too.
So no, IMO not grabbed. Unless a school acquaintance of somebody in the Gov't has some business deals there ...

European - and I include Macronesia here - aquisitions should be out due to Balance of Power.

I agree - Cuba and PR become independent under UK friendly regimes, like almost all of Latin America in this period. Like you said - neither brings anything that the UK does not have already. And listening to US whinning and huffing and making itself more important than it is would simply be not worth the bother.

Pacific - again agreement - Britain might be tempted to claim the Pacific flyspecks. A map painting exercise which does not add anything to existing costs.

The gorilla in the room is the Phillippines.
I'm torn between British colony versus protectorate/independence. Strategic location, potential for growing tropical cash crops are "pros" for colonisation, of course. But acquiring a bunch of pseudo-European brown kafflicks may be undesirable from the POV of mores of the day. Hence I lean towards South American style independence.

 

[stevep]

raharris1973

As I said on the other site you mentioned this I doubt that if Britain would go for a wider war but only really be interested in bringing to book the administrators on Cuba and in the process probably seeking to end slavery there. I doubt they would go for a conflict with Spain elsewhere. At this point Spain is deep in the Third_Carlist_War so the British government would probably take the view their argument would be with the people on Cuba who ordered the executions rather than any of the factions in Spain.

There's the possibility that some local commander might, on hearing of 'war' with Spain could take action against an island outpost, probably somewhere small in the Pacific but that could well be reversed in any peace settlement. I can't see any action against a colony as large as the Philippines, unless there's a major revolt there at the time.

You could see Cuba occupied briefly but its likely to end up liberated - with slavery ended since British had the opportunity - or possibly even returned to Spain as a way of avoiding tension with Madrid although I would expect the former.

As I said elsewhere Cuba no longer being Spanish means that its unlikely the US would go to war with Spain at a later date so they probably won't end up with the Philippines. It could stay with Spain for a while or end up sold to someone else - possibly France, Germany or less likely the US or Japan.

Steve

 

[raharris1973]

As I said on the other site you mentioned this I doubt that if Britain would go for a wider war but only really be interested in bringing to book the administrators on Cuba and in the process probably seeking to end slavery there. I doubt they would go for a conflict with Spain elsewhere.

Maybe so, or they get carried away with smacking around the old favorite enemy, especially since he's old and decrepit now.

At this point Spain is deep in the Third_Carlist_War so the British government would probably take the view their argument would be with the people on Cuba who ordered the executions rather than any of the factions in Spain.

I suppose with the civil war it would be fairer to only hold the local Cuba authorities accountable and not the home country sorting things out. And it occurs to me that Liberal England beating up on Spain might ironically help the Carlist cause.

I have a bad feeling that Carlist and other reactionary movements in Spain would be able to exploit a British war of anti-Spanish colonial despoliation best. The Carlists would try to make Spanish liberals suffer for their ideological association with with the liberal British government and liberal America. The Carlists would add to their rallying cries, "Spaniards, rise with us, be authentic patriots, fudge the English and Americans, fudge their liberal democracy, fudge their Protestantism and fremasonry!"

There's the possibility that some local commander might, on hearing of 'war' with Spain could take action against an island outpost, probably somewhere small in the Pacific but that could well be reversed in any peace settlement. I can't see any action against a colony as large as the Philippines, unless there's a major revolt there at the time.

There was a short-lived revolt at Cavite in 1872, but it was put down quickly. It was not followed up by a continuous movement though until the propaganda movement of Filipino exiles in Europe began pamphleteering, and a continuous armed insurgent movement only began with Bonifacio's Katipunan movement from 1892. So there was not something for the British to piggy back on right there in 1873. Now seeing Britain/America free Cuba may bring people out of the woodwork quickly, but not necessarily enough to make Gladstone and the Admiralty start thinking of a campaign from scratch if they weren't already thinking on those lines.

But if there was an anti-Philippines campaign, I could imagine the British supporting nominal independence with Gladstone offering the French an opportunity to exercise a condominium/protectorate over the islands. That would be to avoid offense to the French interests in the region, but the French would have to worry that accepting could offend the Spanish.

You could see Cuba occupied briefly but its likely to end up liberated - with slavery ended since British had the opportunity - or possibly even returned to Spain as a way of avoiding tension with Madrid although I would expect the former.

Agreed on liberated. I don't think a return would happen. The Cuban rebels, who had been fighting for five years, would throw a fit.

As I said elsewhere Cuba no longer being Spanish means that its unlikely the US would go to war with Spain at a later date so they probably won't end up with the Philippines.

Absolutely agree

It could stay with Spain for a while or end up sold to someone else - possibly France, Germany or less likely the US or Japan.

If Spain doesn't sell their possessions to another power, I can imagine Spain holding on to Puerto Rico, Guam and Micronesia into the 20th century, but the Philippines would successfully rebel.

Spain might sell to Germany or Japan, with Micronesia most likely to be bought and sold.

 

[raharris1973]

The gorilla in the room is the Phillippines.
I'm torn between British colony versus protectorate/independence. Strategic location, potential for growing tropical cash crops are "pros" for colonisation, of course. But acquiring a bunch of pseudo-European brown kafflicks may be undesirable from the POV of mores of the day. Hence I lean towards South American style independence.

I could imagine the British supporting nominal independence with Gladstone offering the French an opportunity to exercise a condominium/protectorate over the islands. That would be to avoid offense to the French interests in the region, but the French would have to worry that accepting could offend the Spanish.

The Catholic thing I don't think is too big a deal. Well the British were no strangers to religiously different populations by this point, with probably over 100 million Hindu and Muslim subjects too. I think the Catholicism alone should not be comparably stressful for the British like the Irish issue, because the Filipino Catholics on the other side of the world won't be living side-by-side with more than a handful of Protestant (British administrators, soldiers, sailors, merchants), unlike the Catholic Irish in regular and tense contact Protestant middle and upper class and landlord people in Ireland and the UK who remind them of their social and national subordination all the time.

 

[WolfBear]

I could imagine the British supporting nominal independence with Gladstone offering the French an opportunity to exercise a condominium/protectorate over the islands. That would be to avoid offense to the French interests in the region, but the French would have to worry that accepting could offend the Spanish.

The Catholic thing I don't think is too big a deal. Well the British were no strangers to religiously different populations by this point, with probably over 100 million Hindu and Muslim subjects too. I think the Catholicism alone should not be comparably stressful for the British like the Irish issue, because the Filipino Catholics on the other side of the world won't be living side-by-side with more than a handful of Protestant (British administrators, soldiers, sailors, merchants), unlike the Catholic Irish in regular and tense contact Protestant middle and upper class and landlord people in Ireland and the UK who remind them of their social and national subordination all the time.

What about giving the Philippines to Japan?

 

[stevep]

What about giving the Philippines to Japan?

In 1873? The Meiji 'Restoration' and modernisation is just beginning but Japan is still a distinct unknown and it could developed into a fairly modern state - as it did, slip back into chaos and corruption like China, civil war or anything. Also the Philippines are a Christian state - albeit Catholic - and hence the possibility of putting it under the control of a non-Christian state which furthermore has an history of religious repression and brutality may not go down well.

If say Japan, in the aftermath of its 1895 victory over China and the US for some reason doesn't occupy the Philippines then Japan may have an option to take it over, although a clear "we're liberating fellow Asians from European colonialism" wouldn't go down well at all with the European powers or the US but they would be in a position to act as a new 'guardian' for a formally independent Philippines. However I can't see anyone considering it as an option with Japan in its 1873 state.