Modern europe assignment of imperialism theories that affected world war 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE – II (ASSIGNMENT)SUBMITTED BY: G. ROHITCOURSE: B HISTORY HONSSEMESTER & YEAR: 6TH SEM (3RD YEAR)BATCH: 2019-2022 BATCHROLL NO: 0619001SUBMITTED TO: VANDANA JOSHI MAMQ) How far was imperialism responsible for the outbreak of First World War? In what ways did theories of i...

Description

HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE – II (ASSIGNMENT)

SUBMITTED BY: G. ROHIT COURSE: B.A HISTORY HONS SEMESTER & YEAR: 6TH SEM (3RD YEAR) BATCH: 2019-2022 BATCH ROLL NO: 0619001 SUBMITTED TO: VANDANA JOSHI MAM

Q) How far was imperialism responsible for the outbreak of First World War? In what ways did theories of imperialism connect to the causes of the outbreak of First World War? To understand the impact of imperialism on the outbreak of the First World War, it is important to know what imperialism is and what are its theories? The term imperialism is derived from a Latin word “imperium” which means to command and dominate. It is a course of expanding control by one state over the other by keeping an incomparable rule over unfamiliar grounds and individuals. Existed in the era of capitalism, it shows the political sovereignty asserted by force over the subject peoples independent of their will or consent through the manifestation of wars, conquest and exploitation which makes imperialism a state centric concept. The imperialism which existed during the late nineteenth century was a new phenomenon which is distinctive from its earliest forms of conquest and political domination. The new phenomenon of imperialism was an endeavor of great controllers of industry who by seeking foreign markets and investments widened the channel for their flow of surplus 1

wealth and capital to take off the goods and capital which they couldn’t sell or use at home. Imperialism arose during an era of competition between the economies of the nations and rival industrial capitalists. This kind of system was new where the finance capitalism and protective tariff replaced the industrial capitalism and free trade. This period was unforeseeable because of the cut throat competition and rivalry. The ruling classes started demanding tariff, expansion and intervention of the state in the economic affairs to protect and procure markets. By its scope, long range consequences and intensity made the new imperialism of the late 19th differ from the earlier types. It transformed economy, culture and the states. There was the territorial division of the world among the great capitalist powers into a set of formal and informal colonies as the new imperialism had economic roots in a specific new phase of capitalism. The rivalries among the capitalist powers was one of the reason which brought the world on the threshold of war. European imperialism was not a new phenomenon and can be traced back to the 15th century.1 ‘New imperialism’ of the 19th century however was a qualitative departure from the earlier forms of imperialism in terms of intensity, scope as well as consequence. The expansion of Europe overseas in the 19th century, which gathered force in the 1870s following the unifications of Italy and Germany and the defeat of Napoleon III, led to new imperialist rivalries among the great powers and to the belief that the balance of power had to be regarded as a worldwide question and not one limited to Europe alone. The movement of imperial expansion has been explained in a number of different ways, and different theories give varying importance to economic, social, cultural and strategic factors. The

1

Porter, Andrew. European Imperialism 1860-1914. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994. Pg. 2.

2

earlier theories of imperialism linked it with economic factors and saw it as coming out of modern capitalism. JA Hobson, a British liberal economist, first to formalize Marxist view of imperialism as inherent result of capitalism as profit-seeking enterprise to expand to new markets using surplus value extracted by bourgeoisie from working classes, economic impetus requiring political maintenance through military conquest and colonial state.2 In a pamphlet named Imperialism (1902) contended that the principle intention in colonialism was finance private enterprise. As indicated by him, progressed entrepreneur social orders in the West were set apart by an inconsistent appropriation of riches and this concentrated excess capital would apply strain on their separate home state run administrations to look for outlets abroad for speculation roads. This could turn into a political power for colonization. According to Lenin, Imperialism acted as highest form of capitalism, so rivalries for economic influence in African colonies and elsewhere led to start of WWI as imperialist, predatory war and even the aftermath with creation of colonial mandate showed purpose of WWI as to partition global imperial capitalist spheres of influence. Lenin too argued that with the industrial development of Europe and the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, financers were finding it ever more difficult to invest their money profitably. 3The European market was saturated and thus it became crucial for find new fields of speculation abroad. This need, as indicated by Lenin constrained the European powers to split the world between them in a battle for new modern business sectors and new

2

Hobson, J.A. Imperialism - A Study, London, 1968. Pg. 80-82.

3

Lenin, V.l. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Moscow, 1966. Pg. 30.

3

regions in which to contribute. The outcome was expanded contention, so that as indicated by him, government fundamentally prompted war. Lenin accepted that German imposing business model capital was behind German international strategy. 4

According to Rosa Luxemburg Advanced industrialized powers

mopped up markets of non-industrialist ones while not developing their industry at all, leading to unequal division of labour with colonized countries doomed to remain primary producers forever and have surplus value extracted, same relation between colonizers and colonized as bourgeoisie and proletariat, so imperialist rivalries and anti-colonial movements could lead to war and upheaval. Some like Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish revolutionary, argued in ‘The Accumulation of Capital’ (1913) that the nature of modern industrial capitalism inevitably led to rivalries, which would lead to imperialism, which in turn would lead to war. Karl Kautsky however argued against the claim of inevitability and believed that imperialism could be avoided if governments chose to democratize their institutions. 5Rudolph Hilfirding, an Austrian Marxist in Finance Capital (1910) too saw no inevitable link between finance capitalism and war believed that the government could allow surplus capital to be absorbed by the economy.

With decline of Britain by late 19th century

and industrialized growth in nations like USA and Germany, transition from industrial to finance capital driven by banks and monopoly capitalists who used imperial expansion to bring new areas under control, derive raw materials, safeguard capital investment and guarantee markets for their output, but eventually leading to capitalist regeneration and upheaval of

4 5

Brewer, Anthony. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. London and New York: Routledge, 2001. Pg. 71. Ibid. pg. 147.

4

old agrarian relations in peripheral countries that developed new modern unity through anti-colonial movements. As per JA Schumpeter, Imperialism was pre-capitalist political drive of domination by feudal elite like Spanish landlords, British aristocracy, German Junkers, remained separate from modern capitalist processes driven by bourgeoisie since market expansion didn’t always require acquisition of territory, hence cases of informal colonialism through forced laissez-faire like Ottoman Turkey and Manchu China.6 JA Schumpeter denies any link that capitalism may have with imperialism as he said that imperialism was an atomistic phenomenon pre-capitalist in nature. The link between the two can also be questioned when we see that two of the most aggressively imperialist countries of the late 19th century – Russia and Italy were severely capital deficit. Indeed, even among France and Germany, it was France that was more settler in any event, when it was falling behind Germany as far as industrialization. We can see thusly that private enterprise assumed an urgent part in colonialism however its belongings can't be summed up and certainly no inescapable causative connection between the two can be laid out. Imperialism has additionally been found as far as extra-economic origins. CJH Hayes emphasized the political climate of Europe, which was one of mass-based nationalism. He also refers to the importance of public opinion and nationalist sentiment. Others have emphasized military and strategic factors, such as the need to secure defensible frontiers. Military factors

however

cannot

be

seen

as

divorced

from

economic

considerations of even questions of national prestige.

6

Schumpeter, J.A. Imperialism and Social Classes, New York, 1966. Pg. 72.

5

James Joll has emphasized the idea of sub-imperialism. He contended that whenever settlements were sent off, they took on their own energy and created personal stakes which pushed for imperialism. Governments occupied areas in order to stop other governments from moving in; the strategic needs of existing colonies demanded the safeguarding of their boundaries and of the routes them, with the goal that the radical powers felt obliged to get a more territory. The case of the French colonization of Algiers where the considerations of the French military administrators in Algeria pushed for the colonization of Morocco is a good example. Many have additionally seen social variables in the ascent of imperialism, as far as the role of religion. In the 19th century, many colonial ventures began as missionary activity. The desire of Christian missionaries to convert the heathen led to the establishment of centres of European influence in remote parts of the world. This was connected likewise to the European feeling of predominance and these thoughts related to the humanizing mission of the Christian confidence filled in as a legitimization for imperialism. These thoughts were utilized to make a typical 'size of human advancement' and served the interests of European colonialist aspirations. This can be connected with the ideas of the White Man's Burden and the ethical basic for domain. A desire for logical disclosure and investigation of obscure domain likewise assisted with opening up Africa. It ought to obviously be noticed that exchange, evangelist movement and investigation were inseparably engaged with one another. Imperialism anyway should be considered in its particular setting, which shifted from one country to another and time to time. Imperialism was a powerful cycle, and there was communication between the imperialists and the colonies. 6

According to Jack Gallagher and R.E Robinson, Imperialism of free

7

trade was due to imperialism affecting capitalism rather than vice-versa, with conquests of Asia and Africa through European power politics and ideas like mutual deterrence in regions like China, with aim of occupying vacant spaces to prevent later eco-political advantages to rivals, with empire-building driven by aristocratic cabinets of polities like British Empire having limited influence of bourgeoisie till late 19 th century. Peter J. Cain and Anthony G. Hopkins say that the New Imperialism 1870 onwards saw rise of new form of industrially motivated but nationally sponsored form of imperialism meant to source the raw materials, markets and labour for the continuation of gentlemanly capitalism by aristocratic bourgeoisie of Britain and other industrial powers that began to gradually control free trade regimes both at home and abroad, especially with colonization of untouched continents like Africa. As regards to Sevket Pamuk in New Imperialism free trade may have become more regulated by Great Powers, political liberties were often allowed, with start of new forms of informal or semi-colonialism in 19th century as seen through extraterritorial trading enclaves of Great Powers in Manchu China, Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) in Persia, laissez-faire trade regime in Ottoman Turkey that led to new form of economic control over foreign markets, epitomized by US domination of Latin American economies through primary product monopolies of sugar plantations in Cuba or banana fruit companies in Guatemala. In the 1870s, imperialism was focused mainly in Africa and East Asia. In 1885 Bismarck coordinated a Conference at Berlin, which finished in the Treaty of Berlin where it was concluded that the Great Powers would

7

Robinson, R. & Gallagher, J. Africa and the Victorians, London, 1961. Pg. 33.

7

now have 'authoritative reaches', in Africa and China and domains would be separated calmly. The effect of this settlement was promptly felt in Africa prompting the 'Scramble for Africa'. In about 15 years, practically the whole the mainland except for Liberia, Ethiopia and the two Boer Republics was split between the European powers. By the mid twentieth century settler competitions among the European powers were abundantly clear. England was in struggle with France over Egypt, with Germany in South Africa, and with Russia over Persia. In the Pacific Russia was in struggle with Japan. There was likewise the FrancoGerman competition over Morocco lastly Russia and Germany were in struggle over the Balkans, the region which was to give the quick foundation to World War I. A lot has been expounded on the German craving in this period to achieve a Great Power status and to be a functioning bulwark against upset and a majority rules system. On account of Germany the craving for a pilgrim domain was one part of a profound feeling of disquiet and disappointment about Germany's spot in the world toward the finish of the nineteenth century. Bismarck, in spite of the fact that he had incidentally supported the colonialist entryway for his domestic or discretionary closures, he was generally unbiased in frontier extension. Weltpolitik implied for the Germans during the 1890s the development of another world mission for Germany deserving of her modern, mechanical, social and military strength. Germany started the development of a monstrous naval force and this before long made Britain dubious. Konne Zilliacus contended that no European country did battle in 1914 because of deal commitments, moral issues or the privileges of little countries, however to guard colonialist interests, which comprised of the private interests of money and imposing business model capital. However, 8

the point to be noted however is that virtually all these rivalries had been dealt with before 1914, and therefore one cannot make a direct link between imperialist rivalries and the First World War. It should also be noted that there was no linear one-to-one relationship between colonial rivalries and cooperative alliances. Britain and French relations inside and outside the European mainland show this division well. James Joll composes that there were three manners by which the settler development straightforwardly impacted the relations between the European states and added to the environment which made war conceivable. First and foremost, the global arrangements took on over frontier questions regularly cut across the example of worldwide relations that had arisen in Europe itself in the years after the Franco-Prussian war. Besides, explicit settlements on specific pilgrim questions in some cases prompted a more broad understanding, as on account of Britain's settlement of extraordinary provincial debates with France and Russia. Thirdly, the pioneer contentions and weapons contest which went with them impacted the entire of worldwide life, empowering teachings of racial prevalence and giving help over the rough transformative hypotheses which deciphered the relations between states as far as the battle for endurance, by then broadly acknowledged as overseeing the world of nature. Hence assuming we search for a connection between colonialist competitions and World War I, we see that it was just backhanded. With the quick development of pioneer realms in the late nineteenth century, patriotism itself came to be characterized as far as pilgrim resources and imperialism. Collusions possibly became an integral factor when the last clash emitted in 1914. Between 1870 and 1914, all parts of Asia and Africa had become colonial possessions of one European power or the other.

The world 9

had been divided up between various European powers and more colonies could be gained only at the expense of another power. Imperialism as apolitical force transformed to become neo-imperialism wherein imperialism was accompanied by armed might and a search for wealth. It is contested by several scholars, that it was Imperialist rivalries between the various European powers that caused the I World War. The newly unified nations Germany, and Italy, were late entrants on the scene of scramble for colonies, and this added a new element of tension within the existing one.

Italy, France’s equal in power, desired control over

Eritrea and Somaliland in Africa, France wanted to control Morocco and her cotton resources whereas Russia, like all other European powers coveted the states under the declining Ottoman Empire. Germany’s ambitions of a Berlin-Baghdad railway line thus naturally alarmed the other European powers. The Moroccan crisis of 1904, the 2 Balkan wars only served to antagonize the powers further. It has been argued that the second industrial revolution, believed to be a Pan-European phenomena, caused capital to grow in excess of the market in most economies of Europe. The need to export capital abroad and then the subsequent compulsion to secure one’s investment by gaining political control has been termed as colonialism. Lenin, declared in 1916, that ‘Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism’ implying that the War was caused due to imperial rivalries that caused capitalist

businessmen to seek new markets and encouraged

governments to support economic interests. He emphasizes the German responsibility again, by claiming that German monopoly capital was behind the expansionist German foreign policy. It remains difficult to find convincing evidence of the involvement of capitalistic business interest in the formulation of foreign policies.

10

J.A Hobson claims that the exodus of capital form Britain which occurred due to lack of investment opportunities at home due to lesser real wages of the consumers (industrial workers) was the real problem. He perceives capitalism as an intrinsically selfish system. Norman Angell claims that since the mercantilist notion of wealth being in a limited stock does not hold good, the imperialist nations fought over what was available in abundance. He argues, that it isn’t capitalism but capitalists that are inherently disposed to causing war.

He seeks to justify

colonialism by claiming that colonies were merely administered and not exploited. H.N. Brailford believed that imperialism, as a political and economic ideology, benefits not a minority, but a plutocracy. However, a rejection of the Marxist stand should not lead to a general rejection of the importance of economic reasons for the outbreak of the war. Diplomat historian Paul Kennedy has recently suggested that ‘economic interests’ are a key ‘reality behind diplomacy’. While the political decisions are made independent of reference to economic interest groups, the success of these decisions is ultimately determined by the resources at the disposal of the nations. Thus, while politicians have primacy of political decisions during war, they have no control over the economic consequences of such decisions. However, one cannot view the factors leading to the First World War in isolation of the general prevailing ideological climate. In 1914, prevalent ideology and ...