Talk:Client state/Archive 1

Archive 1

日本は米国の「患者国家」？/Client state = Patient state

ガバン・マコーマック氏は client state を「顧客国家」と訳しているが、その訳はふさわしくないと思う。日本は米国の顧客国家であるがゆえに日本は米国を満足させるべく米国の言うことを聞くということを述べているが、本来ならサービスを提供する側が顧客を満足させる。これが「顧客満足」である。もっとも「client」は語源的には接客者のほうが偉いというのを暗示しているが・・・「顧客国家」という訳は本末転倒だ。Client は「患者」をも意味し、client state は「患者国家」が適訳である。患者なら医者の指示に従わなければならない。勝手な和製英語を作れば「patient state」だ。Patient state はまた「忍耐強い国」をも意味し、日本（特に沖縄）は基地の重圧に忍耐することを強いられており、まさにpatient stateだ。戦前日本の軍国主義体質を「治療」すべくGHQに占領されていたが、1952には「治療」は済み、独立国になったはず。いつまでも患者国家である必要はなく、日本は（顧客なら）米国にもっと「ノー！」とクレームをいえるようになるべきだ。--スカーレット上原 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Mr. Gavan McCormack translates client state as "a customer nation", but thinks that the reason is not good. Japan speaks that I hear what U.S.A. says because Japan is an American customer nation in order to satisfy U.S.A., but a side to originally offer service to satisfies a customer. This is "customer satisfaction". "client" suggests that a person of waiting on customers is greater for the etymology, but the reason called the ... "customer nation" is illogical in fact. Client means "a patient", and, as for client state, "a patient nation" is appropriate translation. A patient must obey the instructions of the doctor. If it makes selfish Japanese English, it is "patient state". Patient state means "a patient country" again, and, in Japan (Okinawa in particular), it is forced the strong pressure of the base to standing it, and it is right patient state. It was occupied the Japanese militarism constitution in "treatment" すべく GHQ, but I finished "the treatment" to 1952 and should have become the independent country before the war. It is not necessary to be a patient nation forever;, in Japan, more (a customer) in U.S.A.; "no!" You should get possible to call an objection ". --HANMURA Ken (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To delete this article?

I do not see any valid reference suppporting the text of this article. Also, no wish to work on expanding or supporting by references the existing text - from the article inception.

--Standshown (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid Hanmura Ken misunderstands the term 'client', which has two separate but related meanings in English. One meaning is indeed as 'customer', but the relevant meaning is as a subordinate or follower of a patron. That is the meaning intended by McCormack. 124.176.50.184 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Colombia and Mexico Nowadays, this countries are the best known US client states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.215.69 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Iraq-US?

Does the relationship between the United States and Iraq constitute a client state relationship? Wikipediarules2221 07:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Iraq most definitely a US client state. Some would go much further than that, and list nations like South Korea, Japan, and even the UK as US client states. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge the Puppet state, Satellite state, and other related articles into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest that the articles Puppet state, Satellite state, and other related articles into this article. I believe that the terms "puppet state" and "satellite state" are merely alternate versions of the term client state. These alternate versions of the title could be mentioned in the intro of this article, such as by a statement like this "A Client state also known as puppet state or satellite state...". By merging those articles into this one, it will reduce duplication of information and allow relevant material to be concentrated into a substantial article. I propose a vote of Yes or No on this.--R-41 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Puppet state is a derogatory term while client or satellite state are more neutral. There is a lot of political bias in the lemma's. Biased editors push their political agenda on wikipedia. I have my doubt about a merge: it is a lot of work, many editors are polarized about the content and the resulting quality will suffer from that. Otto (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If it creates clarification I think it is worth it.--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What sources do you have that show the terms all belong under the one topic? I agree that about the issue of bias, and that the terms have varying degrees of negativity, but that would seem to suggest that they are not really synonyms. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I oppose merging vassal state, which in medieval times had a more well-defined meaning; see vassal, which is frankly a better merge target for "vassal state". If all were merged here, the resulting article would be too amorphous. I don't yet have a strong opinion on the other two (satellite & puppet), but puppet is usually more narrowly defined than mere client. I'll try to find a reference for that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. Puppet state is a state that is created to serve as a vehicle for another state's power, whereas a client state usually obtains as a result of a "regular" state's defeat in war. A client state also retains a larger measure of independence than a puppet state and has better historical prognosis. Satellite requires more thought. Bazuz (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose, each term has differing meanings and especially contexts (based on their times). Each article should focus on the way that particular term has been used, and client state can deal with the crossovers. ··gracefool☺ 03:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Bazuz et al that there is a distinction between puppet and client states, but it seems that satellite and puppet are used more interchangeably: for example, the states referred to as "satellites" of the USSR are commonly recognized to be "puppets" of the Soviet Union, and are even listed by name in both articles. So:

* Yes to merge of satellite and puppet

* No to merge of satellite/puppet and client state Zujua (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Opposition I strongly oppose merging the articles. Each has their uses and help researchers narrow down topics. I have seen many times when articles are merged, one article eventually becomes buried then vanishes. Mergers of ANY article in Wikipedia are wrong in my view so to respond to Zujua, the answer is NO. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. and ROC(Taiwan)

The example of Taiwan as a US puppet state seems misplaced here. While the actual status of the island is open to debate, the US currently maintains neither a military base on the island nor any official diplomatic relations with Taipei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.17.183 (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbia = client state of Russia in 1914

Historians say Serbia was a client state of Russia in 1914. They also say Britain, Russia and Austria-Hungary at the time saw Serbia as a client state. 1) "Serbia was essentially a client state of Russia," [Stokesbury, A Short History of World War I (2009) p 20. 2) "Serbia itself became a Russian client state " [Reneo Lukic, ‎Allen Lynch - 1996 p 331] 3) "Austria-Hungary's leaders hesitated only because Serbia was a client-state of Russia, and Russia had an ally in France" [Bowman - 1998 p 372]; 4)--here's a 1922 usage: " Serbia, which had become almost a. client state of ... Russia" [Ency Britannica 1922]; 5) "great tension between Austria and Serbia, a Russian client state. " [Haffner 1989 p 78]; 6) in July 1914 "Russia promptly mobilized to protect its little client state," [Merry 2005]; 7) " St. Petersburg had many motives for acting as the patron of a greater-Serbian client state." [Hermann, 1997 p 115] 8) "Russia's status as a Great Power required that it not allow its client state, Serbia, to be humiliated, much less obliterated. " [Noble et al 2007 textbook]. 9) "Montenegro was effectively a Russian client state" [Ponting 2002 p 60] 10) "Britain regarded Serbia as a client state of Russia" [Cowper 1990 p 209] 11) " Serbia's overt hostility to Austria was made possible by Russian patronage of its most reliable client state" [Lowe 2013]. Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Add that to the article (especially the Montenegro part). -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

ok i will (later tonite) Rjensen (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Poland, Baltic States and Ukraine are American Client States

Poland, the Baltic States and Ukraine are Client States of US just like Syria is a Russian Client State.--88.65.190.144 (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

U.S. and Israel

I don't understand why Israel isn't mentioned as a U.S. client state, when their relations are the very definition of client state. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle-East and the wider Muslim world is done at Israel's behest. All political/military actions the U.S. takes there are to either to ensure Israel's military superiority and to keep it from being held accountable. Also: "The United States also supports small, but strategic, countries in regions where their sovereignty is threatened." This statement implies that the sole reason the U.S. supports these nations is because they are weak/helpless to defend themselves, with enemies threatening them at every turn. Which is far from the truth. It reads like a statement from the U.S. Government. (i.e. Bahrain is supported because it hosts the Fifth Fleet, essential for U.S. military activities in the region and Taiwan: to oppose China). A qualifier or a rewording should be in the works. Anyway, would like to know other thoughts before making any changes. RTCKING (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel is more independent from US than Estonia for example but actually you are right and I would say that all countries in the world that have American Military Bases are Client States of US, especially Germany and Japan.--88.65.190.144 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no sources for Argentinian client states

this article is bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.158.213 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Horrendous article

On one hand we have notable absences (e.g., Ireland as a British client state certainly until 1800 or so and arguably until 1921). On the other hand the examples given wander without caveats so far into the gray area of what are "allied independent smaller states" as to make the very definition of "client state" useless. Juan Riley (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with above. The article is POV, biased and inconsistent. Otto (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. This is a very bizzare article, especially regarding the US at the bottom. Some of the sources just seem to be a single academic paper or comment piece in a newspaper. I might have a go editing them. Seaweed (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)