Humanities desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 19

Why did the US take over the Danish West Indies but not any other Caribbean islands other than Puerto Rico?

Why did the US take over the Danish West Indies (later renamed the US Virgin Islands) but not any other Caribbean islands other than Puerto Rico (which AFAIK the US acquired as a result of its victory in the Spanish-American War as opposed to any conscious effort/attempt to acquire it on the US's part)? As in, what exactly made the Danish West Indies so special in a way that none of the other Caribbean islands were? Futurist110 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

The United States had been interested in the islands since at least the 1860s. The United States finally acted in 1917 because of the islands' strategic position near the approach to the Panama Canal and because of a fear that Germany might seize them to use as U-boat bases during World War I.

--174.95.161.129 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did no other Caribbean island(s) hold any strategic value? Futurist110 (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that Denmark's limited ability to fight back was a factor, but I couldn't possibly comment. Alansplodge (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the linked article, it appears that Denmark sold the islands rather than the US "taking them over", and moreover it sounds like they were a motivated seller, looking to get something out of an unprofitable investment. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had the US forcibly occupied these islands against Denmark's will during World War I, wouldn't it have had to withdraw from these islands and return them to Danish rule once the war would have been over? Futurist110 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No other Caribbean islands were held by countries that the U.S. didn't not want to piss off. Britain and France were U.S. allies and directly involved in fighting the war in 1917 on the side of the U.S. Spain and The Netherlands were officially neutral in World War I, and the US had good reason to not try to take any of their islands. While Denmark was also officially neutral during the war, they (under pressure) were collaborating with Germany by allowing Germans military access to their territorial waters, for example. See Denmark during World War I.--Jayron 32 13:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The USA were also neutral at the time the sale was agreed and effected. See 1916 Danish West Indian Islands sale referendum and Treaty of the Danish West Indies. Payment was made on 31st March 1917, the USA did not declare war on Germany until 6 April 1917, and not until December on Austria-Hungary. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the US's calculations in regards to the Netherlands would have been different had Germany occupied the Netherlands during World War I just like it did with Belgium? Futurist110 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for opinions or speculation don't belong here. You know that. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. also acquired Cuba as a result of winning the Spanish-American War, but after a brief military occupation, granted it independence rather than annex it. They also had various naval bases in the Caribbean (Guantanamo Base is the most famous) and also stationed various water and coaling stations for U.S. Navy ships patrolling the area. There was no need to annex significant additional territory, as "friendly" foreign governments like those in Cuba, Panama and elsewhere were just as efficient. Xuxl (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the World War I-era Dutch government was less susceptible to German pressure than the World War I-era Danish government was? Futurist110 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Schleswig Holstein was in Germany and there was thus a substantial Danish speaking minority in Germany and the German army. There is a web site devoted to these soldiers and the Danish dead.(www.denstorekrig1914-1918.dk) The existence of these people may have made the Danish Government more susceptible to german pressure. This is only a guess on my part. Part of the territory in question was transferred to Denmark from Germany in 1919..Spinney Hill (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing the Netherlands to join the Central Powers would have been a serious own-goal in terms of industrial capacity and naval bases. Presumably an assessment was made that Denmark's entry into the war wouldn't have made a great deal of difference, although I haven't found any sources to support this. Alansplodge (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish language sources help request

Hello once again,

I am in process of updating regarding Ottoman time female slave trade in Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları. While some authorship refs are still to be updated like Halil İnalcık.

But some sources of Author Zübeyd Güneş Yağcı / Yoğcı, seem to be available in Turkish language only. Many of her reference work is available in Google scholar. Being female author of Turkish origin inclusion of her research and views will be valuable for the articles Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları and Slavery in the Ottoman Empire.

Requesting gist of hers research and views from google scholar and following refs for the articles Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları and Slavery in the Ottoman Empire.

Slave Trade in Crımea Durıng the 16th Century Author Güneş Yağcı, Zübeyde

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: You may have more success at the Resource Exchange. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill:, It seems the Resource Exchange usually supports in making resources available, I am not sure of translation support but I will try after having an opinion from User:Lambiam, because he has been supporting to a good extent since last few discussion on this forum itself. Thanks again for prompt response and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: We do have a user category for editors who translate from Turkish into English, it may be worth contacting some of them. See Category:Translators tr-en. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When was Matilda of Scotland regent?

The article of Matilda of Scotland say she served as regent of England several times when her husband was absent abroad. But it doesn't say exactly which years she was regent, and one can't assume she was regent every time he was absent either. Several books as well as the internet I have looked in to actually also say that she was regent several times, but also fail to name the years. Is it known which years she was regent? Its a bit similar to Matilda of Flanders who was also known to be regent but often fail to mention regency years. Thank you --Aciram (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comprehensive list of dates may not be known to scholars. 900 years ago is a very long time, and what scholars are able to piece together is largely from extant works that bear her seal/signature, things like royal decrees which have her (rather than Henry's) mark on them. Scholars may know that she signed such-and-such a decree on some date, and then cross-reference that date and see that Henry had just led his troops in such-and-such battle at the same time, and they then know that she was acting as regent while he was away. I don't know that there exists a comprehensive chronicle of every day of Henry's reign and the exact dates that Matilda was acting as regent thusly; that's the nature of history this old... Much of it is incomplete. Which is not to say that there isn't more known about Matilda than is in the Wikipedia article, and of course others that can find such information should share it, but that also doesn't mean that we should expect a level of detail from the 12th century that we find at more proximate times. --Jayron 32 15:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand one cannot know the exact dates, but I was wondering if one could at least point out a year or two? For example "She was regent sometime during the year of 1108, exact date unknown" or similar? That much could perhaps be reasonable to know if one do have such documents and the other things you mention above?--Aciram (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We apparently know that she acted as regent during Henry's absences in 1104, 1107, 1108 and 1111. --Antiquary (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excellent, that was exactly what I was looking for, thank you very much! Do you perhaps have any similar knowledge about the years of her mother-in-laws regencies? --Aciram (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's news to me that Matilda of Flanders ever was regent of England. I see our article on her makes such a claim, but the reference to Freeman's History of the Norman Conquest of England doesn't back it up. The Handbook of British Chronology only lists William fitz Osbern and Odo of Bayeux as William's "vicars" in England. Do you mean Matilda's regencies of Normandy? The documentation there must be even sparser. --Antiquary (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to her regency in Normandy. I can make another section for that perhaps.--Aciram (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you all move too fast! I might as well add this though -- here’s a nice reference that fully fits Jayron32’s explanation: [1] “The evidence is too sparse to provide a chronology of [regency] office-holders…and the terminology is at this period so vague that it is at times uncertain whether a given individual was holding a formal office. No one would now maintain that the justiciarship in its fully defined sense existed before Henry II’s reign…”, Plus another chronology of Henry I’s travels: [2]. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the participants in the discussion have allowed that Matilda [of Scotland] wielded a wide range of powers but admit that the vice - regal arrangements in Henry's reign were too fluid to allow Matilda the honor of being formally numbered among England's vice - regents". Matilda of Scotland: A Study in Medieval Queenship (p. 78), Lois L. Huneycutt 2003. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]