One of the results of the Franco-Prussian War was the establishment of the Second German Empire, following the first created under Charlemagne. The constitution, adopted on 14 April 1871, was simply a remodeled version of the constitution of the North German Confederation, which had also been a creation of Bismarck. The empire was composed of twenty-five formerly independent states (four kingdoms; eighteen duchies, grand duchies, and principalities; and three free cities) plus the “imperial territory” of Alsace-Lorraine. The imperial government had principal responsibility for military and foreign affairs but also exerted its authority in economic, social, and religious matters. It possessed a bicameral legislature and an imperial cabinet, or chancellery, for the exercise of its functions.
As with Italy, the unification of Germany was achieved by the extension of the power of one of the states, and the new constitution of the Second Empire was adapted from the constitution of the North German Confederation to the new circumstances. The office of emperor was hereditary in the person of the King of Prussia who controlled the armed forces and could declare a defensive war, could veto legislation, and dissolve the body of elected representatives in the Reichstag, the lower house of the Imperial Diet. This legislative body gave the regime its semblance of democracy. Representatives were elected by universal manhood suffrage, but there was no secret ballot and the lack of payment of members until 1906 discriminated against lower class and more radical representatives. The powers of the body were severely limited, however, since it was excluded from review of military expenditures and foreign treaties. In certain circumstances, the imperial government could dispense with approval of the budget by the Reichstag, and ministers were not responsible to this body. All legislation from the Reichstag had to be agreed to by the Bundesrat or federal council, which consisted of the personal representatives of the ruling princes and in which Prussia could always command a majority, since there were 25 states represented in the Bundesrat, with their number of votes ranging from 1 to the 17 of Prussia. The imperial chancellor, appointed by the emperor, served as president of the Bundesrat, but he was responsible neither to it nor to the Reichstag. Under these conditions the Reichstag functioned mainly as a register of public opinion, which the government might follow or not, while Bismarck as Chancellor sought to preserve the power of Prussia in Germany.
The first major domestic problem faced, and provoked, by the new government concerned its relations with the Roman Catholic Church. The issue was the supremacy of church or state in the areas where their interests overlapped, especially with respect to authority over the individual. The name given to the issue, Kulturkampf, meaning struggle for civilization, signified Bismarck’s intention that there should be no divided loyalties within the empire. As recently as 1864 in the Syllabus of Errors, the Church had declared it an “error,” and therefore a sin to believe that the civil authority of the state should be superior to or separated from the Roman Catholic Church, and in 1870, the Church had laid down the doctrine of papal infallibility in questions of faith and morals. It was perhaps even more important from Bismarck’s point of view that the traditionally Catholic south German states resented domination by Protestant Prussia, for political and cultural as well as religious reasons, and it was they who provided the strength and leadership of the Roman Catholic Centre party in opposition to Bismarck. The 40 percent Catholic minority tended to oppose militarism, Protestantism and liberalism associated with unification, and the Roman Catholic Church was especially strong among the Polish and French minorities, and the Papal Decree of Infallibility could be seen as an incentive to disloyalty, and in 1871, the Centre party won 70 seats in the Reichstag. More likely, what Bismarck wanted was a convenient scapegoat to divert public attention from other problems and to arouse popular sentiment in favor of the empire.
Between 1871 and 1875, Bismarck undertook a number of measures designed to harass, weaken, and even destroy the Catholic Church in Germany as a result of the belief that national unity was incomplete so long as the Germans were divided in religion. In July 1871, Bismarck abolished the Catholic section of the Prussian Ministry of ecclesiastical and educational affairs, depriving Catholics of their voice at the highest level. The system of strict government supervision of schools was applied only in Catholic areas; the Protestant schools were left alone. Other measures included imposing criminal penalties for “political sermons,” the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1872, the severance of diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1872, the law making civil marriage compulsory in 1875. The May Laws, or Falk Laws, of 1873 gave responsibility for the training and appointment of clergy to the state, which resulted in the closing of nearly half of the seminaries in Prussia by 1878. The Congregations Law of 1875 abolished religious orders, stopped state subsidies to the Catholic Church, and removed religious protections from the Prussian constitution. In spite of intense persecution, the Catholics showed no sign of wavering and in some respects actually throve on it. Priests and bishops who resisted this Kulturkampf were arrested or removed from their positions. By the height of anti-Catholic legislation, half of the Prussian bishops were in prison or in exile, a quarter of the parishes did not have a priest, half the monks and nuns had left Prussia, a third of the monasteries and convents were closed, 1800 parish priests were imprisoned or exiled, and thousands of laypeople were imprisoned for helping the priests. At length Bismarck realized the futility of his policy; when the more diplomatic and conciliatory Leo XIII succeeded Pius IX in 1878, Bismarck relaxed his campaign and eventually called it off altogether. By 1883, the Kulturkampf was at an end.
The next episode in Bismarck’s domestic policies that was calculated at preserving the power of the state was the persecution of the socialists. In the elections of 1878, almost all the opposition parties made gains at the expense of the National Liberals. This development prompted Bismarck to “build a bridge” between the agrarian protectionists in the Conservative party and the industrialists in the National Liberal party, who had begun to demand protection for their own products, by effecting the protective tariff law of 1879, which would protect the home markets for landowners and industrialists at the expense of free trade, and securing a source of revenue for the national government that was independent from the states. Simultaneously he initiated a campaign against the socialist party that was formed in 1875, and was the weakest and most vulnerable of the opposition parties, having won 10 percent of the votes in 1877. His justification came from two recent attempts to assassinate the emperor. Although the socialists were in no way involved with either attempt, he used them as a pretext for outlawing the Social Democratic party. Although the Reichstag refused to unseat the socialist members, and several were re-elected as independents with trade union support, the party itself was forced underground, and many of its leaders were imprisoned or sought refuge abroad.
When it appeared likely that this policy, too, might backfire, Bismarck resolved to win the workers away from socialism with a carrot-and-stick technique. In 1883 he sponsored a compulsory sickness insurance plan for workers, followed in 1884 by an accident insurance plan, and in 1889 by a pension plan for the aged and permanently disabled. These measures were consolidated and extended by Bismarck’s successors and gave Germany the first and most comprehensive system of social insurance and labour protection dealing specifically with the new problems created by modern industrial society. They accepted these benefits, but it did not abate their socialist convictions. After 1881, each succeeding election showed an average gain of about 750,000 socialist votes, and would therefore remain an active in the national government. They did not constitute a threat to the regime, but to its credit, the social legislation would serve as an example for other countries to follow.
The domestic situation in Germany was also to change after 1888, when the emperor William I died, and then Frederick III, his son and successor, survived him by only three months. The new emperor, William II, lost no time in coming into conflict with the venerable Bismarck, who for so long had had things his own way while William intended to assert himself and was unwilling to take second place to Bismarck in governing the empire. The differences between the two were not merely differences of policy, or even of personality, although these counted for much. Fundamentally, they were differences between their generations. The immediate sources of friction involved both foreign and domestic policy. William objected to Bismarck’s conciliatory gestures to Russia. At the same time he favoured the conciliation of the working-class population at home and allowed the antisocialist laws to lapse. Even more revealing of their basic differences, William objected to Bismarck’s practice of sitting in on interviews between the emperor and his other ministers. At the beginning of 1890, William suggested to Bismarck that he should “ask permission to resign.” Bismarck refused, but William persisted and soon drove him from the chancellery. William’s dismissal of Bismarck thereafter made it clear that he intended to serve in effect as his own chancellor.
Bismarck’s departure had more serious consequences for international affairs than for domestic politics. It was in foreign policy that he had achieved his greatest success, and this was precisely the arena in which his successors were least able and successful as government decision-making became increasingly dominated by military and foreign affairs toward World War I. Having created a powerful German state, Bismarck decided that the best policy for Germany as well as the rest of Europe was for Germany to use its leverage to maintain peace on the continent while following a determined and consistent purpose in domestic and foreign policy: to preserve the empire and his own place within it. The empire had been created by force, and it might be destroyed by force, and therefore he had to prevent war that would not disturb the consolidation of the new state.
First, he wanted to prevent France from getting revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, and therefore wanted to isolate France by allowing it to have as few allies as possible. In addition, Bismarck wanted to keep Eastern Europe as stable as possible, while Austria-Hungary and Russia had separate interests in the Balkans, especially with the weakening of the Ottoman Empire and growing unrest among the Slav subjects of the Ottoman Empire and Austria. Together with the development of Pan-Slavism in Russia, by which there was a belief that a Russia uncontaminated by the west had a mission to bring together the Slavs of Europe, Slav nationalism could threaten Balkan stability and Austrian-Russian relations. Bismarck thus created the League of Three Emperors in 1873 to achieve the goal of stability while also maintaining good relations between these three states, and also prevent a two-front war should conflict arise with France. This informal agreement stated that they were to support each other in the event of an unprovoked attack, but could hardly be maintained in practice while merely being a cordial understanding.
The situation in the Balkan Peninsula was complicated by the development of nationalism among the Balkan peoples. Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, Bulgars, Albanians and Turks began to be influenced by European ideas of national self-determination during the course of the nineteenth century, and each people developed the ambition to create a new or enlarged state that would include all of their fellow nationals, which conflicted with one another while there were supporters for their causes among foreign powers. There was resentment at the 1867 agreement in Austria-Hungary that gave Germans and Hungarians preferential treatment, the independent Slav state of Serbia set an example and focus on nationalism in the Balkans, and Pan-Slavist propaganda from Russia endangered the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
An outbreak of rebellion in Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Ottoman empire led to further revolt in Bulgaria. Serbia and Montenegro then declared war on the Ottoman empire in June 1876, which in turn then sparked the outbreak of a regional conflict. The Austro-Hungarian emperor Francis I met tsar Alexander II of Russia and their respective foreign ministers met to negotiate about their respective interests in this matter at Reichstadt in Bohemia on 8 July, where they reached an informal agreement about partitioning Ottoman possessions in the northern Balkans among them. It was understood that Austria-Hungary would annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Russia would annex Bessarabia, and Bulgaria would become independent. During this time, Britain sought to maintain the territorial integrity of the Ottoman empire as a counterweight to French and Russian influence. However, Turkish oppression of Bulgarian Christians aroused outrage in Britain, leading Russian authorities to believe British authorities would be dissuaded about resisting Russian intervention. A military convention was signed between Russia and Austria-Hungary in Budapest on 15 January 1877, in which Austria-Hungary pledged benevolent neutrality, in exchange for occupying Bosnia-Herzegovina in the event of a Russian peace settlement with the Ottoman empire. Austria-Hungary agreed to Russia annexing Bessarabia and the broader frontier that had been lost in the Crimean War peace settlement in 1856, Albania, Bulgaria and Rumelia becoming independent states, and Constantinople becoming an independent city.
Turkish suppression of revolts in Bulgaria led to Russia declaring was on 24 April 1877 on behalf of the Bulgars. The Austro-Hungarian emperor had initially been complacent about the Russian successes in this conflict, as he had signed a treaty with the Russian Tsar in which he had agreed to maintain neutrality, which was subject to the final territorial agreements in the peace settlement would not be inimical to Austrian interests, and provided that Austria-Hungary was to be receive the Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There was later suspicion that Russia as the protector of Slavic nations would not adhere to this agreement, and planning for the future Bulgarian states would extend to the Adriatic Sea. This anticipated extension of Bulgaria would certainly be under Russian influence, and would encroach upon Austrian territorial interests since having lost territory in Italy, while Austria-Hungary planned to extend its political influence along the Albanian coast through future territorial expansion.
Great Britain likewise opposed an extensive influence of Russia toward the Dardanelles straights that would threaten its Mediterranean interests. The sudden collapse of the Ottoman empire that appeared to cease to exist as a military power on 20 January as a result of the surrender of Adrianople, opening the way to Constantinople, caused great consternation in the British government. A large British fleet was posted at the Dardanelles, British army regiments were ordered from India to Palestine, and the prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, dispatched an ultimatum to the Russian foreign minister, Alexander Gorchakov, threatening Russia with war if their forces occupied Constantinople, following pausing their advance at Adrianople, which would result in threatening Russian hegemony in the Near East.
The Austro-Hungarian foreign minister, Gyula Andrássy conferred with the German and British governments about issuing a circular note to the European powers on 5 February 1878, which recommended convening a general congress to reach an agreement on introducing modifications to treaties affecting Balkan conditions while peace negotiations between Russia and Turkey were underway, which he advised subjecting to European arbitration. A provisional end of the war was announced on 3 March 1878 with the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano. This settlement created the new autonomous state of Bulgaria as a tributary of Turkey, with very broad boundaries extending from the Danube to Thessaly, which included most of Albania, Macedonia and Thrace. Turkey was also obliged to recognize the complete independence of Russia’s allies, Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania, and making substantial territorial concessions to Serbia and Montenegro. Romania was compelled to cede Bessarabia along the Black Sea shore to Russia in exchange for Dobruja. Turkey was also compelled to pay a war indemnity, which was partly paid by Russia seizing considerable amounts of territory in Asia Minor, leaving only a narrow strip across the peninsula from Constantinople to the Adriatic Sea. These terms caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in international circles, as they only benefited Russia and the newly-created Bulgaria, with only Slav interests in view, while also thwarting certain ambitions of the smaller Balkan states, and extending the Bulgarian boundary as had been previously stated would place Constantinople in continual danger from any Greek and Macedonian uprising Andrássy and Disraeli declared these terms gave advantages to Russia that were incompatible with the peace of Europe, while Bismarck advocated for Russia to mitigate these peace conditions.
This settlement precluded Serbian aims for a state that would encompass all Serbian-speaking peoples that would involve expanding its boundaries to the south and west, while this territory was incorporated into the new Bulgaria. Greece looked forward to restoring all of the territory that had composed it in its ancient history, which was likewise blocked by including the northern coast of the Aegean Sea and central Macedonia into Bulgaria. The Romanians expressed opposition to Russia having demonstrated ingratitude for their contributions to the war effort by Russia acquiring the large Bessarabian region in exchange for the marshy Dobrudja region. While Russia’s strength could overcome the objections of these small states, the Russians could not dismiss the interests of the great and powerful European nations. A fundamental element of Austro-Hungarian policy was preventing Russian influence in the Balkans, which the execution of the Treaty of San Stefano would block by very likely making Russian influence throughout them, as well as check Austro-Hungarian expansion to the southeast. Great Britain also sought to prevent Russia expanding toward the Mediterranean Sea by reducing Turkey’s territory and power, as well as making a large Bulgaria a Russian vassal state, and consequently agreed to the principles of holding a European congress over the Treaty of San Stefano, and recalled troops from India and dispatched a fleet to Turkey to prepare for a potential conflict. Russia was forced to consent to this demand for congress on the face of these demands, military preparations, and being in a weakened state as a result of the Russian-Turkish war.
A congress of diplomats convened in Berlin between 13 June and 13 July 1878 to reach an amenable peace settlement for the Russian-Turkish War. The purpose of this Berlin Conference, or the Congress of Berlin, was to regulate Balkan affairs through peaceful means as much as could be practicable. The representatives altered the boundaries of Bulgaria into three parts, in Turkey’s favour, by reducing Macedonia that remained in Turkey’s control, and creating an autonomous Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria. Serbia, Montenegro and Romania acquired complete independence. Austria established a civil administration over Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to maintain a military force in the Sanjak of Novi-Bazar that was subject to future occupation. Russia re-acquired Bessarabia in exchange for Romania receiving Dobrudja, and also received territorial concessions in Asia Minor, including the Armenian districts of Ardahan, Kars, and Batum established as a free port.
The representatives at this congress thus secured advantages for their own national interests, regardless of the rights, wishes or welfare of the Balkan peoples. Great Britain had reached an agreement with Turkey nine days before the congress met on 18 June to occupy the Turkish island of Cyprus with a pledge to maintain the integrity of Turkey’s remaining possessions in Asia, and also sanctioned Turkey maintaining Macedonian territory to help defend the Dardanelles Straights against future Russian encroachments. Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were largely inhabited by Serbians, to block Serbia’s designs for future annexation to allow for expansion to the sea. Russia acquired the rich province of Bessarabia, and annexed large and populous districts in Turkish Armenia, including the port of Batum. The interests of the Bulgarians were completely disregarded. This settlement also prepared the ground for future wars by causing future difficulties without addressing core issues, including the Russian state authorities being dissatisfied with their minimised gains, having had expected Bismarck to reciprocate the goodwill of Russian support that had been demonstrated during the Franco-Prussian War by allowing Germany to exercise a free hand with its peace settlement with France.
Bismarck, who was elected president of the conference, had expressed his willingness to be an “honest broker” mediating between the separate powers with a vested interest in a peace settlement, without exerting German military power. Granting Austria-Hungary the civil administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a protectorate infuriated the Russians, which sought to protect Serbia’s interests, and caused a rupture in the friendship between Prussia and Russia. Bismarck chose to support Austria over Russia, perhaps since Russia was opposing most of the principal European powers who caused a diplomatic defeat, and primarily blamed Bismarck for not reciprocating the goodwill that Russia had shown Germany in its wars against Austria and France, regardless of the complexities involved in dealing with the diverse and antagonistic elements in the Balkans, which were reconstituted as a cordon of independent states, rather than being absorbed into the Russian sphere of influence, when Turkey could not resist external influences in a negotiated settlement involving Russia Germany in alliance with Russia would also have to oppose them, and would hereafter be made exceedingly dependent on Russia’s goodwill in the future, in addition to incurring specific advantages for Austria-Hungary. Transferring control over Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria leading to the presence of an Austrian army corps in the Balkans would serve to discourage local insurrections and rash political movements. It also secured a route from Hungary to Constantinople, which would enable Austrian forces to reach the Bosphorus Sea before Russian ones could be able to move into the Balkans, in addition to providing compensation for Austria for the loss of territory in 1866. Russian possession of Bessarabia and Bulgarian independence would provide them with a permanent effect on Austrian policy, which could benefit Germany in a future alliance. Bismarck recommending at the Berlin Conference that the French government should take possession of Tunis as compensation for France in the disposition of international benefits led to antagonism from Italy, which could likewise lead to forming an alliance with Germany.
Bismarck hereafter faced the new circumstances by moving toward a more formal system of alliances to escape temporary isolation, while being aware of Russia’s dissatisfaction. Bismarck forged a secret military alliance with Austria, the Dual Alliance, in 1879, which was intended to block any link between Austria and France, giving a mutual guarantee of neutrality in the event of an attack by another state, unless it was aided by Russia. Bismarck also revived the League of Three Emperors in 1881, by which if one of these three powers was at war with a fourth, the two other parties would preserve “benevolent neutrality.” No changes were to be made in the Balkans without agreement. Austria reserved the right to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina in the future, and Turkey was warned not to agree to the British claim to free passage at al times through the Dardanelles Straits. Russia therefore escaped isolation, and an attempt was made to limit the likelihood of conflict in the Balkans, but a war between Russia and its two allies remained possible.
Bismarck then enhanced German international prestige still further. During all the remaining years of his power, he succeeded in keeping the other great European states from forming a counter alliance, and thus kept France in an isolated position. At the same time, he tried to avoid misunderstanding with Great Britain, and renewed the connection with Russia with respect to its potential power, either in contributing to Germany’s defence, or not facing Russian aggression in conjunction with France. In 1881, despite recent difficulties, Bismarck succeeded in bringing about an agreement between the three emperors of Russia, Austria, and the German Empire that was a formal commitment between the three governments rather than the earlier informal understanding. If one of these three powers was at war with a fourth, the two other parties would preserve “benevolent neutrality.” This stipulation was also to apply in case of a war between one of the three parties and Turkey, in case an understanding about such a war had already been reached between the parties. This treaty thus committed them to consultation and joint action if there were any changes in the status quo in the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans. The agreement made special allowance for the alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany, and was thus more advantageous to Germany than to Russia.
Bismarck also hoped that an alliance with Italy could reduce antagonism with Austria, while Italy was also competing for colonies in Africa with France. While French conservatives regarded overseas acquisitions as a diversion from staging revenge on Germany, acquiring markets for surplus manufactured goods and missionary evangelism as well as acquiring international power status nevertheless composed impetus for colonisation. France invaded Tunisia from its presence in Algeria in 1881 with Bismarck’s encouragement to divert French interests from Europe and alienate Italy, before Italy could annex this country, to re-establish its rank as a great power while taking advantage of the crumbling Turkish empire influence in northern Africa. The Treaty of Bardo, or Treaty of Ksar Saïd, on 12 May 1881 established a French protectorate over Tunisia, and led to Italy allying itself with Austria-Hungary and Germany on 20 May 1882 to garner support against France, which thereby established the Triple Alliance. Austria and Germany would aid Italy if it were attacked by France. If one of these three states were attacked by two or more others, the others would provide support. If one of them went to war against a threatening state, the other two would maintain benevolent neutrality. Thus, Italy allied itself with an old enemy who only a few years before had been expelled from the peninsula and who still held many Italians as unwilling subjects, and against whom Italians cherished bitter hatred. The strong places on the border all remained in Austria’s hands, and Italy with weak and exposed frontier was always at the mercy of an Austrian attack. From this danger she was now freed by being associated with Austria-Hungary, and by being in some sort under German protection. Moreover, this alliance would protect Italy from potential French aggression. Napoleon III had supported the pope in maintaining his temporal power, and this was overthrown and unification of Italy completed only in 1870, when France could no longer interfere. Even after the Franco-German War, there was some fear that French intervention might restore to the pope what he had lost. Furthermore, Italy was a young and ambitious state, and wished ardently to appear as one of the greater powers. Meanwhile, the Triple Alliance was to a considerable extent defensive, it nevertheless raised the German Empire to be the controlling power in Europe.
The alliance between Germany, Austria and Russia was renewed in 1884, but in 1887, however, this was not done, for Austria had been steadily acquiring a more dominating influence in Bulgaria that became allied to Austria. Therefore, Russia was not willing to renew the agreement of 1881, but sought instead an alliance or agreement with Germany alone. Bismarck let it be understood that the alliance with Austria must stand. Nevertheless, the two signed an agreement nevertheless known as the “Reinsurance Treaty” in 1887. It provided that if one of the two contracting parties was at war with a third power, the other contracting party should maintain benevolent neutrality. However, this provision was not to apply in case of an attack made by one of the contracting powers on Austria or France. For example, if Russia was an aggressor against Austria or Germany, or Germany was the aggressor against France, the agreement would not apply. This agreement thus preserved the alliance with Austria, and safeguarding Russia’s relations with France. Other articles provided that Germany should recognise Russia’s rights in the Balkan Peninsula and assist it in maintaining them there. In 1879, Bismarck had insured Germany against attack by Russia. Now he got, as it were, insurance from the other side, for by this very secret agreement, he provided that France would not be supported by Russia if it attacked the German Empire. However, this complex alliance system depended very much on Bismarck’s skill to maintain it. After William II succeeded to the throne in 1888 and was not prepared to leave Bismarck to his own devices, Russia and Germany began to drift apart, and Russian links began to be forged in the form of French loans and supplies of rifles while there was sentiment in France for revenge against Germany, while knowing that the French could not go to war against Germany again without allies.
Besides the alliances system, another effect of the Berlin Congress in 1878 was marking the beginning of a more active German influence in the Balkan Peninsula, first economically and then politically. The result of German activity in the Ottoman Empire was to make the Turks shift by about the turn of the century from dependence on Great Britain to dependence on Germany. German traders and diplomats thus began to rival the older imperial powers in the Near East as well as in Africa, China and the Pacific. This beginning of German imperialism also had the effect of provoking a fundamental shift in the European balance of power, as the appearance of a newcomer had the effect of bringing together the other imperialist nations. There emerged a new grouping of France, Russia and Great Britain arrayed against Germany and its allies who became competitors in Europe, as well as on a world scale, with the advent of new imperialism.
Late nineteenth century imperialism had certain distinctive features. Firstly, the expansion was more rapid, better organised, and the penetration into alien societies was deeper than in previous imperialisms during earlier periods of European colonization worldwide. Second, imperialist conquest was directed chiefly toward tropical or semitropical areas. Third, imperialism was not accompanied by large-scale migrations from Europe to the areas of imperial control. Emigration occurred on the largest scale in history, but the emigrants went chiefly to self-governing nations and territories, such as the United States, Latin America, and the British dominions. Finally, the great burst of imperialist expansion after 1885 came after almost a century in which Europeans had generally manifested a striking lack of concern for imperial expansion, when colonies had been regarded as an unjustified expense, and formal political control was considered irrelevant when benefits could be enjoyed in an era of free trade.
Europe’s economy improved in the second half of the eighteenth century as railroads and factories were built in all of Europe, and the general living conditions improved. Europeans began to look elsewhere for new markets for its manufactured goods, new sources of raw materials and outlets for investments. Europeans profited from goods purchased or acquired in other parts of the world and from European-made goods sold in other parts of the world. Railroads facilitated fast movements of goods and also of people. The construction of railroads on other continents also allowed for European goods to be transported to markets away from port cities. The steam engine likewise allowed for faster and more efficient transportation of goods around the world. As engineers developed more streamlined ships and more fuel-efficient steam engines, the cost of shipping dropped tremendously. The drop in shipping prices made the transportation of inexpensive goods feasible for the first time.
New imperialism thus took place beginning in the 1880s as a result of Europeans seeking natural resources abroad and the search for new markets for manufactured goods, and partly out of a sense of competition among the major European powers following the unifications of Italy and Germany, while Asians and Africans became vulnerable to Western imperialism. They were alike in three principal ways. In the first place, they were technologically backward. Second, they had weak, unstable governments, shifting political allegiances, and warring internal factions. A third similarity had no functional significance, yet it did have an important bearing on Western attitudes toward Asians and Africans: both had colored skins, in contrast to the predominantly fair-skinned Europeans.
These factors resulted in the colonization of Africa that coincided with each European power doing everything it could to enhance its status by establishing overseas empires that could enhance their material prosperity in different ways. Firstly, seeking new and profitable markets in view of the development of new manufacturing methods that enabled countries to outproduce domestic demand, and therefore increasing prosperity through controlling a market for surplus amounts of products. Secondly, modern manufacturing methods required more raw materials that could be procured with any one state, or was not available within a state in which manufacturing centres required them, and therefore could be acquired in colonies that were rich in natural resources that could be developed for domestic manufacturing requirements. Thirdly, certain states sought destinations for their surplus populations when there was a paucity of economic opportunities to accommodate them.
Most of Africa was divided among the European nations. In 1870, a tenth of the continent – mostly coastal colonies – was under European control after the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 established rules for the agreement on the doctrine of effective occupation, providing that a nation had to effectively occupy a territory in order to have its claim recognized, which led to an accidental chain reaction that became known as the “Scramble for Africa.” By 1900, only a tenth, composed of Ethiopia and Liberia, was left independent. In central Asia, the British pushed the frontier of their Indian possessions northward, and the Russians pressed their empire southward, until one a thin strip of Afghanistan separated the two from one another. Partly in compensation in the Crimea, Russian expansion also continued in the Caucasus and Turkestan throughout the 1860s to the 1880s. In Manchu China, where the general weakness of the rapidly failing central authorities of the state was recognised, European powers, including Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and also the United States and Japan competed for concessions, including special treaty ports with extraterritorial rights, spheres of influence, and long-term leases of Chinese territory.
In addition to different motives attributed to the imperialist nations, there were other factors that account for the actual timing of the expansion. Resources and attitudes that had not been present earlier were now in existence, which made the hitherto inaccessible tropical territories much more vulnerable to annexation and exploitation. One of them was new military technology. With the development of the breech-loading rifle and the machine gun and advances in the sphere of field artillery, European troops had an overwhelming advantage over most native forces. The railway, the steamship and the telegraph meant that troops, wealth and resources could be mobilized and deployed far more regularly and effectively, and to some extent the intention to improve communications became an actual end of imperial expansion. There were also new advances in tropical medicine, which meant the ability to prevent the spread of malaria. At the same time, there were intellectual causes, with there being a very obvious tendency to regard all non-European societies as backward, which had several aspects. Darwin’s theory of evolution was perverted to apply to humanity, by which it was argued that weaker societies were the ones considered greater. Meanwhile, war and conflict were considered the mechanism for purification of civilization, in addition to racist beliefs about white superiority, and conquest and alien rule were seen among liberals as necessary means to the extension of the benefits of civilization.
Other causes concerned mass politics. The escapism of foreign adventures through imperial expansion could also serve as a means of distracting the attention of the masses from real grievances and proper demands for better conditions, while the economic benefits of imperialism were also attractive. Another cause was the evangelical zeal of both Catholic and protestant missionaries that is beyond dispute. They did not typically ask for military protection from their homelands, or for territorial annexation. They were primarily on a spiritual mission that was detached from political interests. When they were subjected to persecution, torture, and even death by the people they sought to convert, the demands for retaliation came most often from journalists, military personnel, among others, who had reasons of their own for desiring imperial conquest. In short, in the imperial game as it came to be played in the late nineteenth century, arguments based on religion were simply convenient excuses, and missionaries were pawns in the game.
Buzz group discussion
1. Form separate groups
2. In addition to responding to responding to questions to consolidate the earlier questions, have separate groups generation questions or common ideas to be agreed on about the course readings thus far.
3. Shift group members to different groups to determine wider common ground, and form new groups who can agree on common solutions to problems or answers to questions.
4. Prepare written summaries to be presented as a class, and can be collected for evaluation for the class participation grade credit for all of the authors of separate summaries.
Leave a Reply