![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would anyone (in the U.S.) ever describe a state as a U.S. "satellite state"? -- user:Daniel C. Boyer, June 24, 2002
The neutrality of this page is seriously undermined unless it is edited to include the plethora of examples of U.S. satellite states, in particular, since it is arguably one of the largest coordinators of satellite states in the 20th century. I don't have time to do it right now but I may come back and edit, but anyone who wants to add this feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus206 ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-- I concur, albeit I likewise am short on time to do the research. R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In its usual sense (Warsaw Pact) the term seems inaccurate - the Warsaw Pact nations were nothing more than puppet states controlled from Moscow. To me the term 'satellite state' would suggests a country internally independent but part of an involuntary alliance - such as Prussia and Austria in 1810 (at the height of Napoleon's power), or Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria during World War II which supported the Nazis out of fear.
Immediately after the American Civil War, some of the former Confederate States were under the control of élites (however benign, and in my opinion the Reconstruction governments would have been better for most of the people of the Southern states than what followed) whose accession to power was facilitated with the aid of the Union Army.
The "Republic of Hawaii" that the United States eventually annexed in 1898 looks much like a classic example of a puppet state. -- Paul from Michigan 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This article should be merged with Satellite country. -- Hcheney 03:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Satellite country now redirects to this article. However see below about merge with Satellite nation FerralMoonrender 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's bad to have a dangling clause before the definition and China is not the article we should link to when referring to the People's Republic of China. I don't think those changes were controversial. Don't revert them. -- Jia ng 13:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The expression was used in the US corporate media
The expression "satellite state" is now used by historians, journalists and common people all over the world. For example, it is also used in Poland. The suggestion that the usage of that expression was restricted to the US corporate media is misleading and, frankly, sounds somewhat paranoiac.
Central and
Eastern European countries of the
Warsaw pact during the
Cold War, which they accused of being politically tightly controlled by the
Soviet Union (from
1945 until
1989).
It's not a matter of accusation. The countries of the Warsaw Pact were tightly controlled by the Soviet Union. There is a lot of evidence proving that - Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, consulatations with the Soviet rulers before making any major political decision in the satellite states, etc.
Italy, France and West Germany, countries under the tight political control of the US.
Italy, France and West Germany were not under the tight political control of the US (except for the after-war period). If someone looks for satellite states of the US, in my opinion they should look for them in Latin America. Soviet Union, however, exercised considerably tighter control over some Central European countries than did the US over Latin America countries. Boraczek 16:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The expression is used by anti-communists to describe the Central and Eastern European countries of the Warsaw pact
Not only anti-communists used and use this expression in this sense. In fact, it was also used by Yugoslavian communists.
Anti-communists claim these countries were controlled by the Soviet Union
This is not what anti-communists claim. These are simply well-known facts (admitted by some communists as well).
The Eastern bloc noted the independence of the socialist republics, which like Yugoslavia were free to do as they will
Socialist republics of the Eastern bloc were not free to do as they will. Yugoslavia was not a satellite state. The Eastern bloc did not always note the independence of Yugoslavia. In early 19550s the Eastern bloc accused Yugoslavia of being a servant of capitalist countries. Boraczek 14:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You didn't substantiate the statement that people who describe the Eastern bloc countries as satellite states are anti-communists. I wonder if you could do it. Boraczek 08:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article. Is it acceptable to you now? Or do you have some objections? Boraczek 17:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would just like to say that I have never heard any U.S. ally referred to as a "satellite state." I have heard of places like Panama referred to as banana republics, but that's about it. In contrast, the term is employed constantly in reference to the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites -- cuz that's what they were, satellites for a buffer zone and an extension of Communist influence. The term "satellite" doesn't make much sense for U.S.-supported governments, usually referred to by detractors as puppets or, as i said in the case of Central America, banana republics. J. Parker Stone 06:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
MT is making an analogy between puppet states and satellite states -- the two are not synonymous, as i mentioned above. J. Parker Stone 01:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
what is this? it's a factual term used to refer to Eastern Europe post-WWII, not "perjorative." just because anti-communists have made use of the term doesn't make it biased in nature -- i'm sure you could get some critics of U.S. Cold War policy to refer to them as Soviet satellites. J. Parker Stone 02:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any major objections about content as is. The tag can be removed if agreed. -- TJive 23:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here so please be patient with me if I happen to break some code of ethic which I am not aware of, but I have a couple of questions concerning the article.
I was just wondering why are the only Satellite states given as examples happen to be under Soviet control. I think that this might give the wrong impression to people because if the definition used is: "Satellite state is a political term that refers to a country which is formally independent but is primarily subject the domination of another, larger power". The problem is that even though there are probably hundreds of examples out there from throughout all of human history the only ones given were under Soviet control or at least implied Soviet control. The change I am hoping for would be that another example be given like in South America during the Cold War, Carthage after the 2nd Punic War or the Italian states that were under Austria following the Congress of Vienna. James 1789 04:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Satellite states have the formality of independence (thus they are distinct from protectorates or colonies) but practical dependency.
Frequent interventions in countries in Central and South America by the United States demonstrate the lack of complete independence of those countries. Thus a freely-elected government (Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile) that suddenly chooses to act contrary to the interests of American corporate investors is in deep trouble. Inclusion of communists in the government in such countries is not good for the survival of a government. Some countries are obliged to act as "banana republics" in a manner analogous to central planning from elsewhere.
So if some other country dictates the permissible range of government activity or regulates the composition of the government -- then the coerced country is likely a satellite state. If some other country dictates the economic activity in a country, then the coerced country is a satellite. If some country forces another country to co-ordinate its military or diplomatic policies with some other State, then the country whose basic policies are dictated is a satellite state. If one country is capable of enforcing repression of another then the repressor has control of a satellite state. (Note that repression of such blatant criminality as slave trafficking, drug-trafficking, or piracy doesn't count). That all says nothing of the political ideology of the country enforcing the satellite status of another country.
Do degrees of satellization exist? Of course. Vassal states have existed since there were empires. Some alliances are more equal than others. Some situations (Germany, Italy, Austria, or Japan immediately after World War II) necessitate control by the victors, however benign. Most creditors expect the payment of debts. -- Paul from Michigan 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the " artificial state" wikipedia entry redirected to this article. That technically isn't correct. I just wrote a quick starter article for " Artificial state". Help improving it to something worthy of wikipedia is appreciated.
rvv from Revision as of 06:59, 21 March 2007 168.184.241.253
I see a quote The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia is sometimes referred to as a Soviet satellite backed by some US "historians". Since it was de facto independent state with no Soviet military and no Soviet economic aid, it simply does not qualify.
79.101.226.34 ( talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
How exactly does a satellite state differ from a Satellite nation? FerralMoonrender 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Originally located at Talk:Sattelite nation and moved here Should this page be combined with/absorbed into the "Satellite State" page? I'm not an expert, but I don't see the difference between the two. FerralMoonrender 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree I'm learning about this right now in US Studies and I'm positive they are the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.139.183 ( talk) 13:38, April 5, 2007
I agree Stevecudmore 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. I'll go about doing it then since it's been long enough time. That-Vela-Fella 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Lebanon count as a satellite state? Even though Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon after former prime minister Hariri's assassination in 2004 after international pressure, it still wields enormous power over the country politically, especially through its local Lebanese supporters Hizbollah and other Lebanese groups and parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.148.55 ( talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mosedschurte! Not sure why you reverted my edit to satellite state. "term not in article" isn't very self-explanatory - I was trying to expand the article to cover more of what it is trying to describe. The edits I made were in keeping with NPOV and were relevant to the article. I am therefore restoring the edits I made. If you object to them, let's discuss. Thanks! -- Zen Swashbuckler -- ( talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The {{ NPOV}} tag was placed on this article in 2008 by an editor who wanted it to cover usage of U.S. examples. I have added a section that does so, based on what (limited) sources I could find. I have removed the tag. Chick Bowen 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
what with east germany under soviet influence? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.181.99.185 (
talk)
10:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
theis countries should be listed as satilite states the firt two of the soviet union the latter two of vietnam-- J intela ( talk) 18:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There are circles of states around major powers in ancient and medieval times, notably in Asia. For these 'client state' won't work. The description takes it too far, and the term satellite is probably better, in view of the archaeological and epigraphic evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverDingbat ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The article ignores changes in Warsaw Pact states. Poland was a puppet state but had some independence 1956-1970. Rumania was quite independent under Causescu. Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria were sovereign members of the Axis. Hungary joined the Axis due to receiving considerable land, and received more after joining, Romania joined to recover land and eventually even gained new land (Transistria) while Bulgaria also joined and got substantial land gains. Joining the Axis was mainly the decision of these countries, in order to get/recover land they saw as theirs. Romania and Bulgaria especially, they changed sides. Where have you seen a satellite to change sides of its own volition? Also there is no such thing as willing satellite, the point of a satellite is the predominant will of a superior power, which was not the case here. The Germans even put some of their units under Romanian command (Army Group Antonescu and Army Group Dumitrescu), all Axis forces in Romania were nominally under Romanian control. Calling the 3 "minor" Axis Powers "satellites" is just a wrong substitute for the term "partners", which should be applied to them, but people find that hard to do simply because they were not Great Powers. I am getting sick and tired of this stupid trope: if a country that is not a Great Power allies itself with a Great Power, then its automatically a satellite, no matter if they have common enemies, common aims, or what the non-Great Power country does for a contribution. 82.79.45.107 ( talk) 07:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satellite state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would anyone (in the U.S.) ever describe a state as a U.S. "satellite state"? -- user:Daniel C. Boyer, June 24, 2002
The neutrality of this page is seriously undermined unless it is edited to include the plethora of examples of U.S. satellite states, in particular, since it is arguably one of the largest coordinators of satellite states in the 20th century. I don't have time to do it right now but I may come back and edit, but anyone who wants to add this feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus206 ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-- I concur, albeit I likewise am short on time to do the research. R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In its usual sense (Warsaw Pact) the term seems inaccurate - the Warsaw Pact nations were nothing more than puppet states controlled from Moscow. To me the term 'satellite state' would suggests a country internally independent but part of an involuntary alliance - such as Prussia and Austria in 1810 (at the height of Napoleon's power), or Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria during World War II which supported the Nazis out of fear.
Immediately after the American Civil War, some of the former Confederate States were under the control of élites (however benign, and in my opinion the Reconstruction governments would have been better for most of the people of the Southern states than what followed) whose accession to power was facilitated with the aid of the Union Army.
The "Republic of Hawaii" that the United States eventually annexed in 1898 looks much like a classic example of a puppet state. -- Paul from Michigan 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This article should be merged with Satellite country. -- Hcheney 03:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Satellite country now redirects to this article. However see below about merge with Satellite nation FerralMoonrender 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's bad to have a dangling clause before the definition and China is not the article we should link to when referring to the People's Republic of China. I don't think those changes were controversial. Don't revert them. -- Jia ng 13:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The expression was used in the US corporate media
The expression "satellite state" is now used by historians, journalists and common people all over the world. For example, it is also used in Poland. The suggestion that the usage of that expression was restricted to the US corporate media is misleading and, frankly, sounds somewhat paranoiac.
Central and
Eastern European countries of the
Warsaw pact during the
Cold War, which they accused of being politically tightly controlled by the
Soviet Union (from
1945 until
1989).
It's not a matter of accusation. The countries of the Warsaw Pact were tightly controlled by the Soviet Union. There is a lot of evidence proving that - Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, consulatations with the Soviet rulers before making any major political decision in the satellite states, etc.
Italy, France and West Germany, countries under the tight political control of the US.
Italy, France and West Germany were not under the tight political control of the US (except for the after-war period). If someone looks for satellite states of the US, in my opinion they should look for them in Latin America. Soviet Union, however, exercised considerably tighter control over some Central European countries than did the US over Latin America countries. Boraczek 16:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The expression is used by anti-communists to describe the Central and Eastern European countries of the Warsaw pact
Not only anti-communists used and use this expression in this sense. In fact, it was also used by Yugoslavian communists.
Anti-communists claim these countries were controlled by the Soviet Union
This is not what anti-communists claim. These are simply well-known facts (admitted by some communists as well).
The Eastern bloc noted the independence of the socialist republics, which like Yugoslavia were free to do as they will
Socialist republics of the Eastern bloc were not free to do as they will. Yugoslavia was not a satellite state. The Eastern bloc did not always note the independence of Yugoslavia. In early 19550s the Eastern bloc accused Yugoslavia of being a servant of capitalist countries. Boraczek 14:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You didn't substantiate the statement that people who describe the Eastern bloc countries as satellite states are anti-communists. I wonder if you could do it. Boraczek 08:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article. Is it acceptable to you now? Or do you have some objections? Boraczek 17:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would just like to say that I have never heard any U.S. ally referred to as a "satellite state." I have heard of places like Panama referred to as banana republics, but that's about it. In contrast, the term is employed constantly in reference to the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites -- cuz that's what they were, satellites for a buffer zone and an extension of Communist influence. The term "satellite" doesn't make much sense for U.S.-supported governments, usually referred to by detractors as puppets or, as i said in the case of Central America, banana republics. J. Parker Stone 06:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
MT is making an analogy between puppet states and satellite states -- the two are not synonymous, as i mentioned above. J. Parker Stone 01:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
what is this? it's a factual term used to refer to Eastern Europe post-WWII, not "perjorative." just because anti-communists have made use of the term doesn't make it biased in nature -- i'm sure you could get some critics of U.S. Cold War policy to refer to them as Soviet satellites. J. Parker Stone 02:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any major objections about content as is. The tag can be removed if agreed. -- TJive 23:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here so please be patient with me if I happen to break some code of ethic which I am not aware of, but I have a couple of questions concerning the article.
I was just wondering why are the only Satellite states given as examples happen to be under Soviet control. I think that this might give the wrong impression to people because if the definition used is: "Satellite state is a political term that refers to a country which is formally independent but is primarily subject the domination of another, larger power". The problem is that even though there are probably hundreds of examples out there from throughout all of human history the only ones given were under Soviet control or at least implied Soviet control. The change I am hoping for would be that another example be given like in South America during the Cold War, Carthage after the 2nd Punic War or the Italian states that were under Austria following the Congress of Vienna. James 1789 04:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Satellite states have the formality of independence (thus they are distinct from protectorates or colonies) but practical dependency.
Frequent interventions in countries in Central and South America by the United States demonstrate the lack of complete independence of those countries. Thus a freely-elected government (Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile) that suddenly chooses to act contrary to the interests of American corporate investors is in deep trouble. Inclusion of communists in the government in such countries is not good for the survival of a government. Some countries are obliged to act as "banana republics" in a manner analogous to central planning from elsewhere.
So if some other country dictates the permissible range of government activity or regulates the composition of the government -- then the coerced country is likely a satellite state. If some other country dictates the economic activity in a country, then the coerced country is a satellite. If some country forces another country to co-ordinate its military or diplomatic policies with some other State, then the country whose basic policies are dictated is a satellite state. If one country is capable of enforcing repression of another then the repressor has control of a satellite state. (Note that repression of such blatant criminality as slave trafficking, drug-trafficking, or piracy doesn't count). That all says nothing of the political ideology of the country enforcing the satellite status of another country.
Do degrees of satellization exist? Of course. Vassal states have existed since there were empires. Some alliances are more equal than others. Some situations (Germany, Italy, Austria, or Japan immediately after World War II) necessitate control by the victors, however benign. Most creditors expect the payment of debts. -- Paul from Michigan 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the " artificial state" wikipedia entry redirected to this article. That technically isn't correct. I just wrote a quick starter article for " Artificial state". Help improving it to something worthy of wikipedia is appreciated.
rvv from Revision as of 06:59, 21 March 2007 168.184.241.253
I see a quote The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia is sometimes referred to as a Soviet satellite backed by some US "historians". Since it was de facto independent state with no Soviet military and no Soviet economic aid, it simply does not qualify.
79.101.226.34 ( talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
How exactly does a satellite state differ from a Satellite nation? FerralMoonrender 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Originally located at Talk:Sattelite nation and moved here Should this page be combined with/absorbed into the "Satellite State" page? I'm not an expert, but I don't see the difference between the two. FerralMoonrender 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree I'm learning about this right now in US Studies and I'm positive they are the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.139.183 ( talk) 13:38, April 5, 2007
I agree Stevecudmore 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. I'll go about doing it then since it's been long enough time. That-Vela-Fella 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Lebanon count as a satellite state? Even though Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon after former prime minister Hariri's assassination in 2004 after international pressure, it still wields enormous power over the country politically, especially through its local Lebanese supporters Hizbollah and other Lebanese groups and parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.148.55 ( talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mosedschurte! Not sure why you reverted my edit to satellite state. "term not in article" isn't very self-explanatory - I was trying to expand the article to cover more of what it is trying to describe. The edits I made were in keeping with NPOV and were relevant to the article. I am therefore restoring the edits I made. If you object to them, let's discuss. Thanks! -- Zen Swashbuckler -- ( talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The {{ NPOV}} tag was placed on this article in 2008 by an editor who wanted it to cover usage of U.S. examples. I have added a section that does so, based on what (limited) sources I could find. I have removed the tag. Chick Bowen 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
what with east germany under soviet influence? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.181.99.185 (
talk)
10:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
theis countries should be listed as satilite states the firt two of the soviet union the latter two of vietnam-- J intela ( talk) 18:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There are circles of states around major powers in ancient and medieval times, notably in Asia. For these 'client state' won't work. The description takes it too far, and the term satellite is probably better, in view of the archaeological and epigraphic evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverDingbat ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The article ignores changes in Warsaw Pact states. Poland was a puppet state but had some independence 1956-1970. Rumania was quite independent under Causescu. Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria were sovereign members of the Axis. Hungary joined the Axis due to receiving considerable land, and received more after joining, Romania joined to recover land and eventually even gained new land (Transistria) while Bulgaria also joined and got substantial land gains. Joining the Axis was mainly the decision of these countries, in order to get/recover land they saw as theirs. Romania and Bulgaria especially, they changed sides. Where have you seen a satellite to change sides of its own volition? Also there is no such thing as willing satellite, the point of a satellite is the predominant will of a superior power, which was not the case here. The Germans even put some of their units under Romanian command (Army Group Antonescu and Army Group Dumitrescu), all Axis forces in Romania were nominally under Romanian control. Calling the 3 "minor" Axis Powers "satellites" is just a wrong substitute for the term "partners", which should be applied to them, but people find that hard to do simply because they were not Great Powers. I am getting sick and tired of this stupid trope: if a country that is not a Great Power allies itself with a Great Power, then its automatically a satellite, no matter if they have common enemies, common aims, or what the non-Great Power country does for a contribution. 82.79.45.107 ( talk) 07:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satellite state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)