Report bugs here. Please share your general feedback. You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here. You can also find out more about Emerald Engage. Visit emeraldpublishing. Answers to the most commonly asked questions here. He was convinced that a major European war with Germany as a main aggressor was bound to occur, no matter what the British government did to appease Berlin.
In Italy, beginning in the s public opinion also contributed to the creation of a pro-imperialist and expansionist mood. The Liberal Party had thus far been unable to form a homogenous nation state, although the unification of the country had already started in the s. The creation of an Italian empire in Africa seemed to be a means both of distracting critics at home from discussing domestic problems and of creating a unifying feeling.
However, this failed when the Italian colonial army suffered a disastrous and humiliating defeat by the independent state of Ethiopia in According to Paul Kennedy, economic imperialism and the Anglo-German trade rivalry were crucial factors leading to the emergence of the Anglo-German antagonism, which contributed to the outbreak of World War I.
One has to distinguish between the objective figures on the one hand and the perceived situation on the other. In relative terms, in the two decades before one can talk about a British decline and a German rise in export economies. For British Social Darwinists and nationalists, this development was identical to decline.
However, this view did not capture the reality of economic developments. Germany remained an important market for British goods and vice versa.
In Germany was in fact the second biggest market for British exports and re-exports. Especially in imperial affairs, German and British traders and bankers often cooperated quite successfully; at the same time, German banks had to compete with other German firms, while British banks had to deal with British competition. Unlike the British or French colonies, economically the German colonial empire was not important for the mother country. It was also of little significance for the rising tensions between the European Great Powers prior to the First World War.
In Neo-Rankean terminology, used both by contemporary diplomats and by diplomatic historians, states acted as subjects and consequently the economy was nationalized.
However, economic imperialism followed its own rules, which in some cases fit with the respective national political interests but did not necessarily have to. The intricate diplomatic and political problems caused by economic expansion are illustrated by the example of the famous Baghdad Railway project. Since the late s German banks, especially the Deutsche Bank, had been active in Turkish affairs and in financing several Turkish railway enterprises.
At the turn of the century the position of German firms was so strong that one can refer to certain regions of Turkey as parts of a German economic informal empire. The government of the Ottoman Empire tried to persuade the German bankers to extend the already existing railway lines to Baghdad and the Persian Gulf, mainly for strategic reasons.
However, as mentioned above, in these ideas met with British resistance, as this line would have been the fastest route to India and would have been controlled by German firms. Before financial imperialism very often remained multinational despite governmental attempts to nationalize it. Banks viewed these projects as commercial opportunities and were unconcerned with national prestige. Governments acted within the frame of the nation state or empire and often tried to further national expansion.
Multinational firms and banks, however, were confronted with the challenge of economic globalization and had to act internationally if they wanted to expand overseas. Until London remained the financial clearing center of the world and the London stock exchange was the most important place for all kinds of transactions. The gold standard guaranteed stable exchange rates, and internationally the pound sterling was the most accepted currency for bills of exchange.
In private a banker or trader could have been a hardcore nationalist, but if he wanted to earn money he had to act internationally. In a couple of cases economic investments could spur imperial conflicts. Governments could claim to protect or defend investments that were threatened by an indigenous state or an imperial competitor. Examples include the bankruptcies of Egypt and the Ottoman Empire and the Venezuelan debt crisis, which started at the end of the 19 th century.
For European firms this classical form of financial imperialism was much more effective than direct rule.
During the s and s in Egypt, several disputes between the French and the British caused tensions. For the British, the German support was crucial. After internal uprisings and civil war, the Venezuelan government was unable to pay back its foreign debts. A British-German-Italian naval blockade escalated as German cruisers provoked skirmishes.
These military events alarmed the United States, which feared that the Monroe Doctrine would be violated. However, even if informal and financial imperialism contributed to the worsening of relations between certain states during this first wave of globalization between the s and , during this period close economic ties and global financial networks were also created.
They were convinced that countries would not risk destroying the global economic system. They strongly believed that the destruction of the close connections in finance and trade, which would be the result of a great war among the European powers, would lead to a global economic disaster.
As World War I showed, this opinion was correct. Between and the British government tried to improve Anglo-German relations through economic imperialism. After the failure of the famous Haldane Mission in , British statesmen looked for objectives outside of Europe for which there could be compromise solutions with Germany.
The extremely difficult negotiations for the Baghdad Railway were successfully finished in the spring of Additionally, in the treaty partitioning the Portuguese colonies , the British accepted huge German colonial acquisitions in Africa at the expense its traditional ally, Portugal.
In the same year German banks and firms created economic zones of interest using railway projects and chartered companies in southern Angola and in the north of Mozambique. By the summer of , economically the two regions were firmly in the hands of the Germans and could have been annexed under the pretext of a violation of German interests by Portuguese authorities.
This example shows that both Africa and smaller European states like Portugal were simply pawns for the European Great Powers. At the same time, economic imperialism could be used as a means to defuse political tensions.
Even if in some cases a strong British-German trade rivalry existed, the reaction of leading bankers and economists interested in imperial projects showed that they were not interested in going to war with one another. Karl Helfferich — was one of the most nationalist German bankers and as a director of the Deutsche Bank was responsible for the Baghdad Railway. I suppose Germany, our best customer, will be beaten.
And what then? The third part of this article deals with diplomacy and imperialism. This term remains popular but is misleading. The European orchestra played without a conductor and without clearly accepted rules of international law.
If there was anything like a system it was organized and held together by the governments of the Great Powers, which followed their own interests and jealously prevented other states from becoming too strong or reaching a hegemonic position.
Since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, disputes over colonial or imperial issues had not escalated to the point where peace in Europe was threatened. This was in large part because conflicts did not touch on interests that the European powers regarded as vital. A few exceptions, such as the Fashoda Crisis of , which nearly led to war between France and Britain, and the Second Moroccan Crisis , which will be discussed later, prove the rule.
However, disputes at the so-called periphery could strongly influence the competition between the Great Powers in Europe and could lead them to redefine their interests in Europe. The reasons for the acceleration of European expansion during the s are still being debated, but this article concentrates on the diplomatic processes and consequences of imperial expansion.
This surprising step led to serious tensions with Italy, which was also interested in this territory. The French annexation had direct repercussions for the European system; fearing further French aggressions, the Italian government joined the German-Austrian-Hungarian military defensive alliance. In the next year, following nationalist uprisings, the British navy attacked Alexandria. The Suez Canal was the shortest route between Europe and India, and the British government regarded control as vital.
Although Egypt formally remained a part of the Ottoman Empire, the British consul-general Evelyn Baring, Earl of Cromer exercised the real power and British officials occupied key positions in the government.
Nearly all the Great Powers with the exception of Austria-Hungary and Russia and even one smaller European country Belgium , were interested in acquiring territories in Africa. However, their governments quickly recognized that the scramble for Africa could have undesired diplomatic repercussions in Europe.
Indeed, before the turn of the century no imperialist crisis occurred that led to serious or lasting tensions between London and Berlin. By Kissinger Diktat Bismarck had formulated the basic ideas for his foreign policy.
He believed it was necessary to promote and support the aggressive tendencies among the European Great Powers, but that these tendencies should be directed towards the periphery. Consequently, at the beginning of the s German diplomats encouraged the French government to expand in Africa, hoping for conflicts between the French, Italians, and British.
In the West Africa Conference took place in Berlin. Its aim was to keep conflicts arising from the scramble for Africa under the control of the Great Powers. During this conference the participants set up certain rules for future expansion. The concept of effective control was introduced. This meant that it was no longer enough simply to plant a flag somewhere in the African soil; rather, visible institutions such as police stations, trading posts, or missions had to be established.
The result was an enormous acceleration of European colonial expansion and sub-imperialism. Even territories that were of no use for European states were quickly occupied because of the fear that they would be taken by another country. The Congo Basin became a zone of free trade under the protection of Leopold II, King of the Belgians , who established one of the most brutal and repressive colonial regimes ever seen in Africa.
When Leo von Caprivi became Chancellor in , the Berlin government returned to a strictly anti-imperialist policy. A precise and concise analysis of German trade relations and capital investments worldwide showed that Germany was already an export-oriented nation and that German strength would grow even if exports were promoted by an active foreign policy.
Consequently, Caprivi initiated a policy of free trade. Treaties including the most-favored-nation clause were signed with a growing number of countries. Consequently, Caprivi was not interested in imperial expansion or in the acquisition of colonies, which would only create problems. Until the orientation of German foreign policy remained strictly continental.
During several cabinet reshuffles, more and more politicians who favored an expansionist policy reached leading positions in the state bureaucracy. Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz proclaimed that a strong battle fleet was to be built.
Emperor Wilhelm II, who had been a naval enthusiast since his youth, openly supported Tirpitz as well, and a powerful military-industrial complex Krupp grew from the armament programs. The German battle fleet was unable to defend German overseas interests, having been built only to stop Great Britain.
The German admirals were aware of the fact that a full victory in a naval battle would be impossible, but as an Anglo-German war would be too risky for Britain, she would be forced to maintain good relations with Germany and to grant colonial compensations.
The navy was thus built to put pressure on Great Britain. It also forced the British government to reduce colonial rivalries elsewhere, for example by settling differences with France. This in turn led to more cordial relations between the two countries and paved the way for the future Entente Cordiale. He demanded expansion with the aim of uniting and reconciling the German people and minimizing social conflicts at home.
It was therefore less important in which part of the world colonies were acquired; rather, expansion became an end in itself. A contemporary observer, Joseph Schumpeter , described this policy as imperialism without objects. The protests, however, had almost no effect but was welcomed by much of the German public, as it was now clear that Germany could act as a veto-power in East Asian affairs. They wanted to do business in China with no artificially constructed spheres or boundaries to limit the extent of their trade, but without the territorial entanglements or legislative responsibilities that anti-imperialists opposed.
With the blessing and assistance of Secretary of State John Hay, several American businessmen created the American Asiatic Association in to pursue greater trade opportunities in China.
These notes, if agreed to by the other five nations maintaining spheres of influences in China, would erase all spheres and essentially open all doors to free trade, with no special tariffs or transportation controls that would give unfair advantages to one country over another.
Specifically, the notes required that all countries agree to maintain free access to all treaty ports in China, to pay railroad charges and harbor fees with no special access , and that only China would be permitted to collect any taxes on trade within its borders. While on paper, the Open Door notes would offer equal access to all, the reality was that it greatly favored the United States. Free trade in China would give American businesses the ultimate advantage, as American companies were producing higher-quality goods than other countries, and were doing so more efficiently and less expensively.
Although the foreign ministers of the other five nations sent half-hearted replies on behalf of their respective governments, with some outright denying the viability of the notes, Hay proclaimed them the new official policy on China, and American goods were unleashed throughout the nation. China was quite welcoming of the notes, as they also stressed the U. The notes were invoked barely a year later, when a group of Chinese insurgents, the Righteous and Harmonious Fists—also known as the Boxer Rebellion—fought to expel all western nations and their influences from China.
The United States, along with Great Britain and Germany, sent over two thousand troops to withstand the rebellion. The troops signified American commitment to the territorial integrity of China, albeit one flooded with American products. Despite subsequent efforts, by Japan in particular, to undermine Chinese authority in and again during the Manchurian crisis of , the United States remained resolute in defense of the open door principles through World War II.
0コメント