Nation-building at the expense of the Ottoman Empire went hand in hand with processes of decolonization. Moreover, to a growing extent ethnic cleansing became a weapon used against civilians. However, in these multilingual and multi-religious regions it was impossible to define territorial borders according to nationalities.
In a newly formed coalition of Balkan states started a war of aggression against the Ottoman Empire. Within a couple of weeks the Turkish army collapsed.
Some of the Great Powers were drawn into the struggle against their wishes and were forced to define their interests. On several occasions, leading officers of the Central Powers demanded a preemptive war. However, even if some Russian intellectuals and young officers supported a pan-Slavic ideology, it hardly influenced the decisions of the Russian government.
However, in the situation in the Balkans was still dangerous, as the Great Powers were unable to control the strong revisionist and nationalist tendencies. Especially in Austria-Hungary, influential politicians and the general staff were pushing for a great war in order to realize far-reaching imperial ambitions. Unlike other imperial powers, who saw war as a threat to the integrity of their imperial domains, the Young Turks regarded war as a chance for national and imperial renewal.
Even if imperialism was one of the crucial factors that led to World War I, it is striking that by early all colonial disputes between Germany and Britain had been solved. After long and difficult debates and diplomatic maneuvers, the agreements concerning the Baghdad Railway had resulted in compromise solutions in which all parties except the Ottoman Empire profited.
British diplomacy stopped resisting the German-Turkish project of building a railway from Constantinople to the Persian Gulf. However, the Germans agreed that the last section of the line would be built only by British investors and would be under sole British political and economic control.
A compromise was also found in the question of the Mesopotamian oil fields. The secret Anglo-German treaty of concerning the partition of the Portuguese colonies was a German success as well.
Britain agreed to act against the political interests of its traditional ally, Portugal, and used the question of the colonies to appease Germany. From this perspective, World War I began as a European war but then had global and imperial consequences because of the nature of the states that took part in it. Barth, Boris: Imperialism , in: online.
International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. DOI : Version 1. By Boris Barth. Imperialism was responsible for reforming the European alliances. Imperialist expansion played a major role in the growing tensions between Germany and Great Britain after the turn of the century. The growing imperialist rivalry was responsible for the slow formation of an anti-German alliance system in Europe. Because of the increasing imperial competition and the naval race, the British decided to work with France and to sign the Entente Cordiale in , thus putting an end to long-standing Franco-British colonial rivalries.
German diplomacy was based on the conviction that the Anglo-Russian antagonism would remain a central factor for Great Power diplomacy no matter how Germany acted. In Eyre Crowe formulated his famous memorandum predicting that Germany, not Russia, would become the most dangerous threat for Britain. In the same year the Anglo-Russian treaty on the partition of Persia was signed, ending any major imperial rivalry between the two countries.
Neither of these treaties was a military alliance, but they shaped British foreign policy, as the British continued to view Germany as the only dangerous international competitor. Between and the British concluded that relations with the aggressive Wilhelmine state had to be improved to avoid the danger of a major European war.
After the failure of the famous Haldane Mission, British statesmen looked for initiatives in imperial affairs for which compromise solutions with Germany could be found. The difficult negotiations for the Baghdad Railway were successfully finished in the spring of Additionally, with the treaty partitioning the Portuguese colonies, the British allowed Germany to acquire territory in Africa at the cost of its traditional ally Portugal.
As a result, by the summer of the period of Anglo-German imperial rivalry had ended. By the end of the Second Moroccan Crisis most of the colonial disputes between Berlin and Paris had also disappeared. The French colonial administration focused on penetrating and stabilizing its newly acquired African territories. In the Balkans, however, the combination of conflicting Austro-Hungarian, Italian, and Russian imperialist aspirations, the breakdown of the European region of the Ottoman Empire, and aggressive processes of nation building in Greece , Bulgaria , Serbia , Romania had been an increasing threat since Ultimately, the explosive combination of these events contributed to the constellation of the July Crisis in Imperiale Weltverbesserung seit dem Jahrhundert, Konstanz The Advocacy of War and Rearmament , London Roger: Imperialism.
A Short History, Princeton Sir Charles Addis, , London , p. Barth, Boris: Die deutsche Hochfinanz und die Imperialismen. Banken und Aussenpolitik vor , Stuttgart Steiner. Bayly, Christopher A. Global connections and comparisons , Malden Blackwell.
Bentley, Jerry H. Cain, Peter J. Chickering, Roger: We men who feel most German. Hobson, Rolf: Imperialism at sea. Naval strategic thought, the ideology of sea power, and the Tirpitz Plan, , Boston Brill Academic Publishers.
Kennedy, Paul M. Louis, William Roger ed. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. Morris, A. Anthony: The scaremongers. A theoretical overview , Princeton; Kingston M. Wiener; Ian Randle Publishers. A short history , Princeton Princeton University Press. Porter, Andrew N. The nineteenth century , volume 3, Oxford Oxford University Press. British Protestant missionaries and overseas expansion, , Manchester Manchester University Press. Rosenberg, Emily S.
Citation Barth, Boris: Imperialism , in: online. Metadata Subjects. Author Keywords. GND Subject Headings. LC Subject Headings. Rameau Subject Headings. Regional Section s. Very gradually, a few British social clubs admitted the occasional Indian.
Strikingly, however, Indians began to imitate British culture by creating their own clubs. Again, as in the case of language and sports, the Indian adoption of clubs exemplifies a wider phenomenon in which Indians co-opted British culture, in essence accepting its desirability.
In short, language, sport, and social clubs reinforced British dominance over Indians by asserting British primacy in areas of culture. These were ways in which the British both implicitly and explicitly made known to Indians that British culture was superior and the correct way for civilized people to act. As the British defined the culture, it put them in a position of power over Indians who were interested in becoming more British or finding the favor of the imperial regime.
The British method of colonialism in India and around the world was relatively hands-off. In comparison, the French took a much more active role in their colonies.
More French people settled there, there was a stronger military presence, and the French colonists made a much more overt attempt to entrench their colonial superiority.
A large influx of French settlers into Algeria formed the backbone of the imperializing effort. Much of the colony was organized along French administrative lines and run by Frenchmen; this contrasted sharply with the British method of rule in which they relied heavily on local leaders.
French efforts to make the Algerians French were the most direct of all the colonial powers. Algerian Muslims could become citizens of France, but only if they accepted the full French legal code, which contained clauses regarding marriage and inheritance that contradicted Muslim law. They could, however, serve in the French army or the colonial bureaucracy without becoming citizens of France. In either case, the implication was clear that French culture, values, and administration were superior.
While the French did attempt to make the Algerians French, sometimes they furthered the gulf between the colonizers and the colonized. To a certain extent, the French attempted to create a colony for their settlers that existed separate from the already established Algerian communities.
Many of the French and European colonists were poor — most came from peasant backgrounds — but they considered themselves better than any Algerians. Because of these feelings of superiority, in the main cities the French chose to live in physically separate areas from the Algerians. Quickly, however, the locals left and were replaced almost entirely by French, Italian, and Maltese colonists who established their own Europeanized city. Such orientalism, Said argued, was part of an overall European attempt to belittle non-European cultures and replace them with European ideals.
Other historians have subsequently shown that such derogatory views provided a further motivation for French imperialists to assimilate the Algerians into their own culture. The French believed that their culture was more advanced and more civilized; it made sense to them, therefore, to propose that the Algerians adopt French culture so that they, too, could eventually make themselves more civilized as well.
As first Americans and later Canadians began to settle further west, however, they began to consider how to deal with the Native Americans. In both countries, the solution was cultural assimilation. American and Canadian policies regarding the Native Americans are examples of the most naked assimilationist imperialism of the nineteenth century.
As the populations of both countries moved westward, they steadily dispossessed Native Saylor URL: www. In both countries, Native American tribes were coerced into signing treaties to move them off land that settlers wanted. Sometimes, because of the nature of Native American understandings of property, they did not realize that they were signing away their land.
Eventually, Native Americans throughout North America were moved to the land that the settlers did not want; these areas of land, most of which still exist, are called reservations. In some cases in the United States, the Native Americans rose up violently against the settlers, and they were invariably massacred.
Americans assumed that part of the reason Native Americans were uncivilized, or at least backwards, was because they had no concept of land ownership. The Dawes Act of attempted to rectify this backwardness.
Burns considers British and French relations about maritime issues, the war, Canadian rebellions in leading to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in He also mentions the fear of Canadians concerning a possible attack during the Civil War and the feelings of hatred many Americans had for the shelter Canadians offered to raiders. After several annexationist politicians with diverse agendas, the Washington Treaty in resolved several issues.
While from the s fur trade was the most important motive for the placement of settlers, Americans far outnumbered the British. Avoiding another war with the British, a compromise was reached to keep a balance between free and slave states in The area acquired a formal territorial status in but the author stresses centrality in the Second World War and Cold War.
Foregrounding another obscure area of American imperialism renders this historical study original and indispensable. Like the British, the author claims, Americans planned to benefit from Africa based on the 3Cs: Christianity, commerce, civilization.
Nonetheless, the U. The first Constitution promised strong black representation in its own government. Even though many politicians wanted an enhanced U. As a result, resettlement and annexation ideas were aborted altogether. This enlightening chapter also includes the case of the Guano islands, known for guano fertilizer. They are a very good example of U. Burns concludes the chapter with Cuba, which while it was occupied by the Spanish for centuries, it was divided in pro and anti-abolitionists in the s toying with the idea of a possible annexation by the Americans.
After a series of revolts, and an American invasion, Cuba declared independence in However the upheaval did not stop as the declaration was followed by a ten year war with Spain, the abolition of slavery and waves of refugees on American coasts. Discovered in , Hawaii had attracted American attention before other Pacific Islands for its ports, trade and missionaries, as Burns recalls In s British and French recognized Hawaiian independence.
With Reciprocity agreements and Constitution not signed until the mids, whites and king gained more power but the economic condition of the island worsened. The annexation did not occur until , a mystery for most historians, as Burns contends, with the author favoring American naval strategic concerns and the toll taken upon them by the Spanish-American war.
At this point it is fundamental to note how gracefully Burns manages to balance between the projection of facts and the interpretation of political motives and hidden agendas. Back to the chapter, Hawaii did not become a full state until along Alaska. The author thoroughly discusses the connection between Spanish-American war, and American imperialism characterizing the former as a major event for the creation of an empire. An intriguing point the author makes, connecting contemporary life and the historical past, regards the photographic coverage of this war which was the first ever.
Burns also discerns the increase of yellow journalism during military confrontations, which initiated a new era for the media. The author comments on the role of the anti-imperialist movement which took off in this War. Using as basic arguments that the Spanish-American war was un-American, and against ideals, Burns reflects on how anti-imperialists were so afraid of foreign influences and the alteration of American ideals to the point of becoming racists. The Republican Victory started this War and the re-election in re-enforced this change in political direction.
Burns underscores that the War was not about annexation but about Cuban freedom while the Teller Amendment assured of good American intentions.
Fact File. Student Activities. Table of Contents. Add a header to begin generating the table of contents. Key Facts And Information. Examples include ancient China, Greece and Rome. It reached unmatched heights with European powers in the 19th century. European imperialism played a significant role in sparking WWI. Territories claimed by imperialists nations was often by force and subjugation, although there are examples of peaceful colonisation.
These colonies were governed either directly by the imperial power, by a puppet government, or a local government of strategic individuals linked to the colonisers. Imperialism can be simply defined as the act of extending the power of a nation through acquisition.
This can be through direct territorial claims, or by gaining political and economic control of a region for the benefit of the motherland. Profits can be achieved through the supply of valuable raw materials and foodstuffs, precious minerals, and cheap labour.
0コメント