Why did Europe obey the Monroe Doctrine (Short Animated Documentary)
video description
Date: 2025-03-24
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
history_matters
The European colonial powers did not obey the Monroe Doctrine. Spain, France, and Portugal simply did not have the military, financial and manpower resources to take or retake any of the former north and south American colonial territories after their wars of independence in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Even the UK/British Empire decided to hold its existing American colonies (Canada, Jamaica, Belize, Guyana, various Caribbean islands, but not to make any attempt to expand its New World holdings and thereafter to focus on India and its other Asian and African holdings (recognizing that Canada did expand westward into indigenous lands already claimed by Britain. This was largely a simple cost-benefit analysis, and most of these European colonial empires were run on the cheap, and any attempt to fight former colonial peoples who were of European descent and armed with European weapons technology would have horrifically expensive. France was the one major exception when it tried to create a de facto colony/protectorate in Mexico during the American Civil War, while the U. S. government was distracted with an existential war at home. And anyone familiar with Mexican and/or French colonial history knows how that turned out: the Mexicans fought a costly guerrilla war against Emperor Maximilian and his French colonial occupation troops, and made the endeavor economically unviable, even with little or no help from the Americans. After the Civil War ended in 1865, the French beat a quick retreat and left Maximilian to face a Mexican firing squad on his own.
reply
The European colonial powers did not obey the Monroe Doctrine. Spain, France, and Portugal simply did not have the military, financial and manpower resources to take or retake any of the former north and south American colonial territories after their wars of independence in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Even the UK/British Empire decided to hold its existing American colonies (Canada, Jamaica, Belize, Guyana, various Caribbean islands, but not to make any attempt to expand its New World holdings and thereafter to focus on India and its other Asian and African holdings (recognizing that Canada did expand westward into indigenous lands already claimed by Britain. This was largely a simple cost-benefit analysis, and most of these European colonial empires were run on the cheap, and any attempt to fight former colonial peoples who were of European descent and armed with European weapons technology would have horrifically expensive. France was the one major exception when it tried to create a de facto colony/protectorate in Mexico during the American Civil War, while the U. S. government was distracted with an existential war at home. And anyone familiar with Mexican and/or French colonial history knows how that turned out: the Mexicans fought a costly guerrilla war against Emperor Maximilian and his French colonial occupation troops, and made the endeavor economically unviable, even with little or no help from the Americans. After the Civil War ended in 1865, the French beat a quick retreat and left Maximilian to face a Mexican firing squad on his own.
reply
DouwedeJong
As explained in A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution by Theodore Draper, the idea of an independent America was inevitableit was always a matter of when, not if. Over time, history has been rewritten to portray American independence as a more dramatic event than it originally was.
Racism also played a role. European powers could control native populations but had more difficulty ruling over European immigrants. At its core, ownership of territories was often about resource exploitation rather than governance. Few nations were willing to send their young people to die in wars that primarily enriched the elite. Britain was, and still is, one of the few exceptions.
In the early 19th century, the Industrial Revolution gave people hope, reducing the willingness of young men to fight and die for the wealthy. However, Queen Victoria revived this tradition with the Victorian wars, once again sending young soldiers to die for the interests of royalty. To truly understand the Monroe Doctrine, it is essential to look beyond the policy itself and examine the domestic power dynamics, business interests, and political structures that would be needed to ignore it.
reply
As explained in A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution by Theodore Draper, the idea of an independent America was inevitableit was always a matter of when, not if. Over time, history has been rewritten to portray American independence as a more dramatic event than it originally was.
Racism also played a role. European powers could control native populations but had more difficulty ruling over European immigrants. At its core, ownership of territories was often about resource exploitation rather than governance. Few nations were willing to send their young people to die in wars that primarily enriched the elite. Britain was, and still is, one of the few exceptions.
In the early 19th century, the Industrial Revolution gave people hope, reducing the willingness of young men to fight and die for the wealthy. However, Queen Victoria revived this tradition with the Victorian wars, once again sending young soldiers to die for the interests of royalty. To truly understand the Monroe Doctrine, it is essential to look beyond the policy itself and examine the domestic power dynamics, business interests, and political structures that would be needed to ignore it.
reply
danmur2797
Europe didn't exactly obey this proclamation--as mentioned in the video, the U. S. didn't really have the means to enforce it the first century post independence.
Spain tried to retake parts of Latin America in the 1820s.
In 1830 France partook in a blockade of Mexico in what was called the Pastry War in Mexico. The French invaded Mexico again in 1862 occupying it during the 1860s. (And the British and Spanish sent fleets too before negotiating with the Mexican government)
In South America Britain was still poking its nose around Argentina and Brazil, and roundabouts (how the Falklands issue came about. They were active in stoking Argentine-Brazilian rivaleies too.
And Brazil didn't really gain its independence from Portugal until 1825. In fact the Portuguese crown temporarily moved their court to Brazil from Lisbon during the Napoleonic Wars.
reply
Europe didn't exactly obey this proclamation--as mentioned in the video, the U. S. didn't really have the means to enforce it the first century post independence.
Spain tried to retake parts of Latin America in the 1820s.
In 1830 France partook in a blockade of Mexico in what was called the Pastry War in Mexico. The French invaded Mexico again in 1862 occupying it during the 1860s. (And the British and Spanish sent fleets too before negotiating with the Mexican government)
In South America Britain was still poking its nose around Argentina and Brazil, and roundabouts (how the Falklands issue came about. They were active in stoking Argentine-Brazilian rivaleies too.
And Brazil didn't really gain its independence from Portugal until 1825. In fact the Portuguese crown temporarily moved their court to Brazil from Lisbon during the Napoleonic Wars.
reply
RKNGL
1: 44 The Americans soft supported the British seizure of the Falklands. A German guy who was named the first Argentinean governor of the island started the first years of his reign by capturing 3 American fishing vessels whose crews he tried to put on trial for not following his regulations which neither the British or Americans were following. Which resulted in an American warship the USS Lexington attacking the settlement he'd made on the islands. The Governor refused to admit is own part in the incident, doubled down, and basically destroyed Argentina's relations with the US.
The British had a high opinion of that governor for essentially letting them takeover the islands. The Falklands were basically lazily surrendered to British, as the governor refused to return. He spent the next 30 years trying to get the US to pay him for raiding his settlement.
reply
1: 44 The Americans soft supported the British seizure of the Falklands. A German guy who was named the first Argentinean governor of the island started the first years of his reign by capturing 3 American fishing vessels whose crews he tried to put on trial for not following his regulations which neither the British or Americans were following. Which resulted in an American warship the USS Lexington attacking the settlement he'd made on the islands. The Governor refused to admit is own part in the incident, doubled down, and basically destroyed Argentina's relations with the US.
The British had a high opinion of that governor for essentially letting them takeover the islands. The Falklands were basically lazily surrendered to British, as the governor refused to return. He spent the next 30 years trying to get the US to pay him for raiding his settlement.
reply
kiko-ue5bc
2: 10 For those wondering what the sign says:
I believe that owning people is in the natural order of things and don't believe it should be in the federal government's perview to change said arrangement. Furthermore I believe that in order to uphold the founding father's ideals of a more perfect union it is necessary for the states that engage in the peculiar institution to secede and create a better one
It's a paraphrase from Confederates Jefferson Davis on seceding from the U. S and the ownership of Slaves.
reply
2: 10 For those wondering what the sign says:
I believe that owning people is in the natural order of things and don't believe it should be in the federal government's perview to change said arrangement. Furthermore I believe that in order to uphold the founding father's ideals of a more perfect union it is necessary for the states that engage in the peculiar institution to secede and create a better one
It's a paraphrase from Confederates Jefferson Davis on seceding from the U. S and the ownership of Slaves.
reply
AlexanderRM1000
I'd only read about the Monroe Doctrine in American history books and knew the US was too weak to enforce it, but assumed the reason it stuck anyway was the newly independent republics were strong enough that their resistance alone could make recolonization unprofitable.
One of my history textbooks said, other European powers discussed helping Spain get their colonies back, but never mentioned that it was just France and a couple others discussing that and Britain against it
reply
I'd only read about the Monroe Doctrine in American history books and knew the US was too weak to enforce it, but assumed the reason it stuck anyway was the newly independent republics were strong enough that their resistance alone could make recolonization unprofitable.
One of my history textbooks said, other European powers discussed helping Spain get their colonies back, but never mentioned that it was just France and a couple others discussing that and Britain against it
reply
AnaIvanovic4ever
Ok I'll bite, who are the gold and silver medalists in the Best US presidents named James competition Not American, and it is confusing that you don't number your presidents George I (Washington, George II (Bush sr) George III (Bush jr) etc, as we monarchies do. I've no idea how many kings came before king Charles, but that he's the third Charles everyone knows. So stop talking about the 44th POTUS and say Barack I instead, also metric system!
reply
Ok I'll bite, who are the gold and silver medalists in the Best US presidents named James competition Not American, and it is confusing that you don't number your presidents George I (Washington, George II (Bush sr) George III (Bush jr) etc, as we monarchies do. I've no idea how many kings came before king Charles, but that he's the third Charles everyone knows. So stop talking about the 44th POTUS and say Barack I instead, also metric system!
reply
Orientalius
If yall are wondering what Thomas Jefferson said at 2: 10
I believe that owning people is in the natural order of things and don't believe it should be in the federal government's preview to change said arrangement. Furthermore, I believe that in order to uphold the founding father's ideals of a more perfect union, it is necessary for the states that engage in the peculiar institution to secede and create a better one
Abraham Lincoln -
reply
If yall are wondering what Thomas Jefferson said at 2: 10
I believe that owning people is in the natural order of things and don't believe it should be in the federal government's preview to change said arrangement. Furthermore, I believe that in order to uphold the founding father's ideals of a more perfect union, it is necessary for the states that engage in the peculiar institution to secede and create a better one
Abraham Lincoln -
reply
thatwolfdude018
I slightly disagree with you on Monroe being known for 1 thing. Yea he’s responsible for the Monroe Doctrine. But he’s also responsible for approving the Missouri Compromise. That was a bad decision and many historians think that compromise was a big factor as to why the Civil War started. So technically Monroe is known for 2 things but eh whatever I’m a history nerd
reply
I slightly disagree with you on Monroe being known for 1 thing. Yea he’s responsible for the Monroe Doctrine. But he’s also responsible for approving the Missouri Compromise. That was a bad decision and many historians think that compromise was a big factor as to why the Civil War started. So technically Monroe is known for 2 things but eh whatever I’m a history nerd
reply
history_matters
Another interesting this about the Monroe Doctrine is that the Confederate States essentially tried to invoke it to reach a peace deal with the U. S. My understanding is that the Confederates tried to reach a peace deal while also arguing that a combined U. S. and C. S. effort could help drive the Austrians and French out of Mexico.
reply
Another interesting this about the Monroe Doctrine is that the Confederate States essentially tried to invoke it to reach a peace deal with the U. S. My understanding is that the Confederates tried to reach a peace deal while also arguing that a combined U. S. and C. S. effort could help drive the Austrians and French out of Mexico.
reply
lapamful
The irony of Britain liking the Monroe Doctrine because it wanted to open up Latin America to trade with those nations but then 100 years later refused to do the same with India, which Britain occupied, which is why America decided to weaken the British Empire in its negotiations with Stalin over the post-WWII world and balance of powers.
reply
The irony of Britain liking the Monroe Doctrine because it wanted to open up Latin America to trade with those nations but then 100 years later refused to do the same with India, which Britain occupied, which is why America decided to weaken the British Empire in its negotiations with Stalin over the post-WWII world and balance of powers.
reply
Ynhockey
Wasn't the doctrine Canning's idea Not the general concept which had been around before that, but the practical details. I think he had a lot to do with it. He posited that the Americans would be paying to advance essentially British interests, which was pretty much true for a while.
reply
Wasn't the doctrine Canning's idea Not the general concept which had been around before that, but the practical details. I think he had a lot to do with it. He posited that the Americans would be paying to advance essentially British interests, which was pretty much true for a while.
reply
WDKimball
Did they King Charles is still King of Canada. Saint Pierre and Miquelon are a French TOM; Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana are French DOMs. Belize and several Antilles and Leeward Islands, the Falklands and South Georgia are British Commonwealth.
reply
Did they King Charles is still King of Canada. Saint Pierre and Miquelon are a French TOM; Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana are French DOMs. Belize and several Antilles and Leeward Islands, the Falklands and South Georgia are British Commonwealth.
reply
history_matters
About colonies and imperialism: Why does Trump not recognise the amendment to the 1916 treaty on Denmarks sale of the Virgin Islands to the US In it, Ronald Lansing on behalf of the USA recognised that Denmark had full sovereignty over Greenland.
reply
About colonies and imperialism: Why does Trump not recognise the amendment to the 1916 treaty on Denmarks sale of the Virgin Islands to the US In it, Ronald Lansing on behalf of the USA recognised that Denmark had full sovereignty over Greenland.
reply
history_matters
A lot of gaslighting in this video, but here is the real basic timeline of American/British Relations since the Revolution:
Britain losing to America by 1815
Britain caving to America by 1846
Britain begging America by 1940
reply
A lot of gaslighting in this video, but here is the real basic timeline of American/British Relations since the Revolution:
Britain losing to America by 1815
Britain caving to America by 1846
Britain begging America by 1940
reply
Blanco8x8
How come citizens of the United States get to be called Americans and not citizens of Mexico or Canada
Because the 19th Century Monroe Doctrine implies that the United States is the dominant nation of the American continent.
reply
How come citizens of the United States get to be called Americans and not citizens of Mexico or Canada
Because the 19th Century Monroe Doctrine implies that the United States is the dominant nation of the American continent.
reply
Jonkuzon
George washington: do not meddle in the affairs of the American continent, pwease.
Europe: cracka thinks we’ll listen to him
James Monroe: monroe doctrine time
Europe: yes Mr President, glory to the American Century
reply
George washington: do not meddle in the affairs of the American continent, pwease.
Europe: cracka thinks we’ll listen to him
James Monroe: monroe doctrine time
Europe: yes Mr President, glory to the American Century
reply
POGAKAChaos
Basically Britain told them to do some they said no, Britain twisted their arm, they said ok but it was our idea. Basically daddy Britain and baby usa having a wee disagreement before they completely caved to Britain power.
reply
Basically Britain told them to do some they said no, Britain twisted their arm, they said ok but it was our idea. Basically daddy Britain and baby usa having a wee disagreement before they completely caved to Britain power.
reply
costellomhor
The US wasn't capable of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine until post WW2. Prior to that, it was enforced by the far more powerful UK which was quite happy to keep continental European influence in the Americas to a minimum.
reply
The US wasn't capable of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine until post WW2. Prior to that, it was enforced by the far more powerful UK which was quite happy to keep continental European influence in the Americas to a minimum.
reply
zddxddyddw
Yay! Despite lasting only a second, this is the first time that I see the Anglo-French Blockade of the Rio de la Plata being mentioned in English-speaking media. It's a subject that is easily worth an entire video itself.
reply
Yay! Despite lasting only a second, this is the first time that I see the Anglo-French Blockade of the Rio de la Plata being mentioned in English-speaking media. It's a subject that is easily worth an entire video itself.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
