Talk:Tripartite Convention

Untitled

Bismarck and the Berlin Treaty

Given that Bismarck died in 1898, *a year before this treaty*, and had in any case been removed from office in 1890, I rather think he wouldn't have had much use for the western Samoan islands. Have updated the article with Bulow instead, as the German foreign secretary at the time (and the one who did all the work given that Hohenlohe the chancellor was something of a non-entity at this time). 172.209.33.130 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, the sources I used did not mention those facts. I'm assuming they were left out because they were written by non-German authors who might have been more focused on the outcome of the Treaty rather than the leaders of Germany at the exact time that it was ratified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprocter (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonialist POV

"The lack of Samoan customs for electing a new king lead to the Samoan civil war in 1898. It was then obvious that the best solution would be a partitioning of Samoa between Germany, the United States, and England."

"Obvious"? Seriously? --Jfruh (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiction?

In my library on colonial matters I have found no reference to a Treaty of Berlin (1899). Therefore, it is my opinion that this page is dubious. There was an Anglo-German Agreement on Samoa negotiated at London and signed on 14 November 1899; followed by the Tripartite Convention (United States, Germany, Great Britain) which partitioned the Samoan Islands and was signed at Washington on 2 December 1899 with ratifications exchanged on 16 February 1900. In my view, the most exhaustive source covering these events is:

• Ryden, George Herbert. The Foreign Policy of the United States in Relation to Samoa. New York: Octagon Books, 1975. 634 pages. (Reprint by special arrangement with Yale University Press. Originally published at New Haven: Yale University Press, 1928.)

Unless an editor can cite a reputable source for something called “Treaty of Berlin (1899),” a review, renaming and rewrite to remove the blather seems to be in order.

--Gamahler (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No reaction. Will attempt the obvious for this page: rename, rewrite.--Gamahler (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

US sovereignty

The lead sentence of this article says, "The Tripartite Convention of 1899 resulted in the act that formally partitioned the Samoan archipelago into a German colony and a United States territory ...". However, the third paragraph in The Future of American Samoa, Foreign Affairs, October 1928 says, "... The tripartite convention of 1899 did not grant sovereignty to the United States. The three powers had previously acknowledged Samoa to be independent, and by this convention Great Britain and Germany merely renounced in favor of the United States all their 'rights and claims over and in respect to' the eastern islands. ...".

In the lead sentence of the article, should the words, "into a German colony and a United States territory" be changed to read, " be changed to read something like, "between Germany and the United States"? Should the words, "partitioned the Samoan archipelago" be changed to read, "partitioned interests in the Samoan archipelago"?Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)