European Expansion, pp.13-34

European Expansion, pp.13-34 - colonialism ——...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–18. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: colonialism —— Britannica Onlinc Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchcckcd/topic/ 126237/colonialism/25... military assistance. Overseas, the British triumphed completer over France, aided by Spain in the last years of the war. The French at first had the upper hand in both India and America, but the turning point came after William Pitt the Elder, r earl of Chatham, assumed direction of the British war effort. In 1757 Clive won victory at Plassey over the Nawa ' I l, an enemy of the British company; Sir Eyre Coote’s victory at Wandewash in 1760, over the French governor Th ally, was followed by the capture of Pondichery. In America, thanks Iarg Frontenac, Duquesne, and Ca Louisbourg in 1758, Quebec in 17 French colony. Meanwhile, Adm. Edwar Bay in 1759. Spanish intervention in the war he vigorous policy of Pitt, the British won repeated victories. The French forts l in 1758 and 1759. British generals Sir Jeffrey Amherst and James Wolfe took Montreal in 1760, and the surrender of Montreal included that of the entire , e destroyed or immobilized the principal French line fleet at Quiberon is merely enabled the British to seize Havana and Manila. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 gave Britain all North Ame t of the Mississippi, including Spanish Florida. France ceded the western Mississippi Valley to Spain as compensa " the loss of Florida. Besides having a clear path to domination of India in the Old World, Great Britain also gained A " k Senegal. In the West Indies, it returned Martinique and Guadeloupe to France for the sake of peace but rema sily second to Spain there in importance. The first great era of colonial conflict had ended, and the British Empire, a can d a half old, had become the world’s foremost overseas domain. Though exceeded in size by that of Spain, it wa ‘ ealthiest, backed by the overwhelming naval power of Great Britain. British prestige had reached a new height, 9 erhaps than it would ever attain again. Charles E. Nowell European expansion since 1763 The global expansion of western Europe between the 17603 and the 18703 differed in several important ways from the expansionism and colonialism of previous centuries. Along with the rise of the Industrial Revolution, which economic historians generally trace to the 17603, and the continuing spread of industrialization in the empire—building countries came a shift in the strategy of trade with the colonial world. Instead of being primarily buyers of colonial products (and frequently under strain to offer sufficient salable goods to balance the exchange), as in the past, the industrializing nations increasingly became sellers in search of markets for the growing volume of their machine—produced goods. Furthermore, over the years there occurred a decided shift in the composition of demand for goods produced in the colonial areas. Spices, sugar, and slaves became relativer less important with the advance of industrialization, concomitant with a rising demand for raw materials for industry (e.g., cotton, wool, vegetable oils, jute, dyestuffs) and food for the swelling industrial areas (wheat, tea, coffee, cocoa, meat, butter). This shift in trading patterns entailed in the long run changes in colonial policy and practice as well as in the nature of colonial acquisitions. The urgency to create markets and the incessant pressure for new materials and food were eventually reflected in colonial practices, which sought to adapt the colonial areas to the new priorities of the industrializing nations. Such adaptation involved major disruptions of existing social systems over wide areas of the globe. Before the impact of the Industrial Revolution, European activities in the rest of the world were largely confined to: (1) occupying areas that supplied precious metals, slaves, and tropical products then in large demand; (2) establishing white-settler colonies along the coast of North America; and (3) setting up trading posts and forts and applying superior military strength to achieve the transfer to European merchants of as much existing world trade as was feasible. However disruptive these changes may have been to the societies of Africa, South America, and the isolated plantation and white-settler colonies, the social systems over most of the Earth outside Europe nevertheless remained much the same as they had been for centuries (in some places for millennia). These societies, with their largely self-sufficient small communities based on subsistence agriculture and home industry, provided poor markets for the mass-produced goods flowing from the factories of the technologically advancing countries; nor were the existing social systems flexible enough to introduce and rapidly expand the commercial agriculture (and, later, mineral extraction) required to supply the food and raw material needs of the empire builders. The adaptation of the nonindustrialized parts of the world to become more profitable adjuncts of the industrializing nations embraced, among other things: (1) overhaul of existing land and property arrangements, including the introduction of private property in land where it did not previously exist, as well as the expropriation of land for use by white settlers or for plantation agriculture; (2) creation of a labour supply for commercial agriculture and mining by means of direct forced labour and indirect measures aimed at generating a body of wage-seeking labourers; (3) spread of the use of money and exchange of commodities by imposing money payments for taxes and land rent and by inducing a decline of home industry; and (4) where the precolonial society already had a developed industry, curtailment of production and exports by native producers. The classic illustration of this last policy is found in India. For centuries India had been an exporter of cotton goods, to such an extent that Great Britain for a long period imposed stiff tariff duties to protect its domestic manufacturers from 13 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/l26237/colonialism/25... Indian competition. Yet, by the middle of the 19th century, India was receiving one—fourth of all British exports of cotton piece goods and had lost its own export markets. Clearly, such significant transformations could not get very far in the absence of appropriate political changes, such as the development of a sufficiently cooperative local elite, effective administrative techniques, and peace—keeping instruments that would assure social stability and environments conducive to the radical social changes imposed by a foreign power. Consistent with these purposes was the installation of new, or amendments of old, legal systems that would facilitate the operation of a money, business, and private land economy. Tying it all together was the imposition of the culture and language of the dominant power. The changing nature of the relations between centres of empire and their colonies, under the impact of the unfolding Industrial Revolution, was also reflected in new trends in colonial acquisitions, While in preceding centuries colonies, trading posts, and settlements were in the main, except for South America, located along the coastline or on smaller islands, the expansions of the late 18th century and especially of the 19th century were distinguished by the spread of the colonizing powers, or of their emigrants, into the interior of continents. Such continental extensions, in general, took one of two forms, or some combination of the two: (1) the removal of the indigenous peoples by killing them off or forcing them into specially reserved areas, thus providing room for settlers from western Europe who then developed the agriculture and industry of these lands under the social system imported from the mother countries, or (2) the conquest of the indigenous peoples and the transformation of their existing societies to suit the changing needs of the more powerful militarily and technically advanced nations. At the heart of Western expansionism was the growing disparity in technologies between those of the leading European nations and those of the rest of the world. Differences between the level of technology in Europe and some of the regions on other continents were not especially great in the early part of the 18th century. In fact, some of the crucial technical knowledge used in Europe at that time came originally from Asia. During the 18th century, however, and at an accelerating pace in the 19th and 20th centuries, the gap between the technologically advanced countries as» and technologically backward regions kept on increasing despite the diffusion of modern technology by the colonial powers. The most important aspect of this disparity was the technical superiority of Western armaments, for this superiority enabled the West to impose its will on the much larger colonial populations. Advances in communication and transportation, notably railroads, also became important tools for consolidating foreign rule over extensive territories. And along with the enormous technical superiority and the colonizing experience itself came important psychological instruments of minority rule by foreigners: racism and arrogance on the part of the colonizers and a resulting spirit of inferiority among the colonized. Naturally, the above description and summary telescope events that transpired over many decades and the incidence of the changes varied from territory to territory and from time to time, influenced by the special conditions in each area, by what took place in the process of conquest, by the circumstances at the time when economic exploitation of the possessions became desirable and feasible, and by the varying political considerations of the several OCCupying powers. Moreover, it should be emphasized that expansion policies and practices, while far from haphazard, were rarely the result of long-range and integrated planning. The drive for expansion was persistent, as were the pressures to get the greatest advantage possible out of the resulting opportunities. But the expansions arose in the midst of intense rivalry among major powers that were concerned with the distribution of power on the continent of Europe itself as well as with ownership of overseas territories. Thus, the issues of national power, national wealth, and military strength shifted more and more to the world stage as commerce and territorial acquisitions spread over larger segments of the globe. In fact, colonies were themselves often levers of military power—sources of military supplies and of military manpower and bases for navies and merchant marines. What appears, then, in tracing the concrete course of empire is an intertwining of the struggle for hegemony between competing national powers, the manoeuvring for preponderance of military strength, and the search for greatest advantage practically obtainable from the world’s resources. European expansion since 1763 » European colonialractivity (1763—c. 1875) Stages of history rarely, if ever, come in neat packages: the roots of new historical periods begin to form in earlier eras, while many aspects of an older phase linger on and help shape the new. Nonetheless, there was a convergence of developments in the early 1760s, which, despite many qualifications, delineates a new stage in European expansionism and especially in that of the most successful empire builder, Great Britain. It is not only the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain that can be traced to this period but also the consequences of England’s decisive victory over France in the Seven Years’ War and the beginnings of what turned out to be the second British Empire. As a result of the Treaty of Paris, France lost nearly all of its colonial empire, while Britain became, except for Spain, the largest colonial power in the world. European expansion since 1763 » European colonial activity (1763—c. 1875) » The second British Empire The removal of threat from the strongest competing foreign power set the stage for Britain’s conquest of India and for operations against the North American Indians to extend British settlement in Canada and westerly areas of the North American continent. In addition, the new commanding position on the seas provided an opportunity for Great Britain to 14 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchcckcd/topic/I26237/colonialism/25... probe for additional markets in Asia and Africa and to try to break the Spanish trade monopoly in South America. During this period, the scope of British world interests broadened dramatically to cover the South Pacific, the Far East, the South Atlantic, and the coast of Africa. The initial aim of this outburst of maritime activity was not so much the acquisition of extensive fresh territory as the attainment of a far-flung network of trading posts and maritime bases. The latter, it was hoped, would serve the interdependent aims of widening foreign commerce and controlling ocean shipping routes. But in the long run many of these initial bases turned out to be steppingstones to future territorial conquests. Because the indigenous populations did not always take kindly to foreign incursions into their homelands, even when the foreigners limited themselves to small enclaves, penetration of interiors was often necessary to secure base areas against attack. The path of conquest and territorial growth was far from orderly. It was frequently diverted by the renewal or ification of rivalry between, notably, England, France, Spain, and the Low Countries in colonial areas and on the n continent. The most severe blow to Great Britain’s 18th—century dreams of empire, however, came from the e 13 American colonies. These contiguous colonies were at the heart of the old, or what is often referred to ~ritish Empire, which consisted primarily of Ireland, the North American colonies, and the plantation est Indies. Ironically, the elimination of this core of the first British Empire was to a large extent psurge of empire building after the Seven Years’ War. Great Britain harvested from its victory in nse of territory about equal to its prewar possessions on the North American continent: French and the territory between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi River. The assimilation of the I of the Indians and settlement of the trans-Allegheny region, and the opening of new trade problems for the British government. Not the least of these were the burdensome costs to of a huge national debt accumulated during the war. To cope with these problems, new y the mother country: raising (for the first time) revenue from the colonies; tightening rm measures against smuggling (an important source of income for colonial the way of New England’s substantial trade with the West Indies. The strains intensified the hardships of large sections of the colonial population and, in f interests that had been built up between the mother country and important factors, not unrelated to the enlargement of the British Empire, fed the dependence (1775—83): first, a lessening need for military support from re removed from the continent and, second, support for the American who had much to fear from the enhanced sea power and colonies of influenced by that war a new Canada, the Flori French Canadians, c channels created a hos carry out this program on imperial policies were adop mercantile restrictions, imposi merchants), and putting obstacle generated by these policies create addition, disrupted the relative harmo elite groups in the colonies. Two additio onset and success of the American War 0 the mother country once the menacing Fren ' Revolutionary forces from the French and Sp expansionism of the British. The shock of defeat in North America was not the o roblem confronting British society. Ireland—in effect, a colonial dependency—also experienced a revolutionary " surge, giving added significance to attacks by leading British free traders against existing colonial policies and even a es against colonialism itself. But such criticism had little effect except as it may have hastened colonial administrati eforms to counteract real and potential independence movements in dependencies such as Canada and Ireland. European expansion since 1783 » European colonial activity (1763—0. 1875) » The second Britis 4 re » Conquest of India Apart from reforms of this nature, the aftermath of American independe to other areas—the beginning of the settlement of Australia being a case significance of results, however, the pursuit of conquest in India took first control over the province of Bengal (after the Battle of Plassey, 1757) and as French influence from the Indian Ocean, the British waged more or less continuo and took over more and more of the interior. The Marathas, the main source of res decisively defeated in 1803, but military resistance of one sort or another continued u century. The financing and even the military manpower for this prolonged undertaking ca British sovereignty spread, new land—revenue devices were soon instituted, which reSUIted w finance the consolidation of power in India and the conquest of other regions, breaking up th self-sufficient and self-perpetuating villages and supporting an elite whose self-interests woul rule. as a diversion of British imperial interests oint. In terms of amount of effort and e. Starting with the assumption of ially after the virtual removal of arfare against the Indian people ce to foreign intrusion, were he middle of the 19th mainly from India itself. As aising the revenue to d system of monize with British European expansion since 1763 » European colonial activity (1763—c. 1875) » The second British Empire » Global expansion Except for the acquisition of additional territory in India and colonies in Sierra Leone and New South Wal important additions to British overseas possessions between the Seven Years’ War and the end of the Nap came as prizes of victory in wars with rival European colonial powers. In 1763 the first British Empire primarily on North America. By 1815, despite the loss of the 13 colonies, Britain had a second empire, one that straddled globe from Canada and the Caribbean in the Western Hemisphere around the Cape of Good Hope to India and nic era tred 15 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBcheckcd/topic/l26237/colonialism/25... century, the United States remained alert to the danger of enclrclement by Europeans, but in addition the search for more fertil nd, pursuit of the fur trade, and desire for ports to serve commerce in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans nourished t ' e to penetrate the American continent. The most pressing points of tension with European nations were eliminate ‘ he first half of the century: purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803 gave the United States contr he heartland of the continent; settlement of the War of 1812 ended British claims south of the 49th parallel up to th Mountains; Spain’s cession of the Floridas in 1819 rounded out the Atlantic coastal frontier; and Russia’s (1824) an - at Britain’s (1846) relinquishment of claims to the Oregon territory gave the United States its window on the Pacific. Th sion of the United States, however, was not confined to liquidating rival claims of overseas empires; it also invo 'ng territory from neighbouring Mexico. Settlers from the United States wrested Texas from Mexico (1836), and war Mexico (184648) led to the US. annexation of the southwestern region between New Mexico and Utah to the Pa ean. Diplomatic and military victories over the European nation exico were but one precondition for the transcontinental expansion of the United States. In addition, t ' n tribes sooner or later had to be rooted out to clear the new territory. At times, treaties were arranged with India by which vast areas were opened up for white settlement. But even where peaceful agreements had been rea . persistent pressure of the search for land and commerce created recurrent wars with Indian tribes that were seeki -- - etain their homes and their land. Room for the new settlers was obtained by forced removal of natives to as yet no ' —settled land—a process that was repeated as white settlers occupied ever more territory. Massacres during wars, 3 I, tibility to infectious European diseases, and hardships endured during forced migrations all contributed to the i in the Indian population and the weakening of its resistance. Nevertheless, lndian wars occupied the US. A ttention during most of the 19th century, ending with the eventual isolation of the surviving Indians on reservations * 'de by the European expansion since 1763 » The ne erialism (c 1875-1914) » Reemergence of colonial rivalries Although there are sharp differences of opinion over the reasons for, and the significance of, the "new imperialism,” there is little dispute that at least two developments in the late 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century signify a new departure: (1) notable speedup in colonial acquisitions; (2) an increase in the number of colonial powers. European expansion since 1763 » The new imperialism (0. 18754914) » Reemergence of colonial rivalries » New acquisitions The annexations during this new phase of imperial growth differed significantly from the expansionism earlier in the 19th century. While the latter was substantial in magnitude, it was primarily devoted to the consolidation of claimed territory (by penetration of continental interiors and more effective rule over indigenous populations) and only secondarily to new acquisitions. On the other hand, the new imperialism was characterized by a burst of activity in carving up as yet independent areas: taking over almost all Africa, a good part of Asia, and many Pacific islands. This new vigour in the pursuit of colonies is reflected in the fact that the rate of new territorial acquisitions of the new imperialism was almost three times that of the earlier period. Thus, the increase in new territories claimed in the first 75 years of the 19th century averaged about 83,000 square miles (215,000 square kilometres) a year. As against this, the colonial powers added an average of about 240,000 square miles (620,000 square kilometres) a year between the late 18703 and World War I (1914—18). By the beginning of that war, the new territory claimed was for the most part fully conquered, and the main military resistance of the indigenous populations had been suppressed. Hence, in 1914, as a consequence of this new expansion and conquest on top of that of preceding centuries, the colonial powers, their colonies, and their former colonies extended over approximately 85 percent of the Earth’s surface. Economic and political control by leading powers reached almost the entire globe, for, in addition to colonial rule, other means of domination were exercised in the form of spheres of influence, special commercial treaties, and the subordination that lenders often impose on debtor nations. European expansion since 1763 » The new imperialism (c. 1875-1914) » Reemergence of colonial rivalries » New colonial powers This intensification of the drive for colonies reflected much more than a new wave of overseas activities by traditional colonial powers, including Russia. The new imperialism was distinguished particularly by the emergence of additional nations seeking slices of the colonial pie: Germany, the United States, Belgium, Italy, and, for the first time, an Asian power, Japan. Indeed, this very multiplication of colonial powers, occurring in a relatively short period, accelerated the tempo of colonial growth. Unoccupied space that could potentially be colonized was limited. Therefore, the more nations there were seeking additional colonies at about the same time, the greater was the premium on speed. Thus, the rivalry among the colonizing nations reached new heights, which in turn strengthened the motivation for preclusive occupation of territory and for attempts to control territory useful for the military defense of existing empires against rivals. The impact of the new upsurge of rivalry is well illustrated in the case of Great Britain. Relying on its economic preeminence in manufacturing, trade, and international finance as well as on its undisputed mastery of the seas during most of the 19th century, Great Britain could afford to relax in the search for new colonies, while concentrating on consolidation of the empire in hand and on building up an informal empire. But the challenge of new empire builders, 19 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannicacom/EBchcckcd/topic/126237/colonialism/25... backed up by increasing naval power, put a new priority on Britain’s desire to extend its colonial empire. On the other hand, the more that potential colonial space shrank, the greater became the urge of lesser powers to remedy disparities in size of empires by redivision of the colonial world. The struggle over contested space and for redivision of empire generated an increase in wars among the colonial powers and an intensification of diplomatic manoeuvring. European expansion since 1763 » The new imperialism (c. 1875—1914) » Reemergence of colonial rivalries » Rise of new industrialized nations Parallel with the emergence of new powers seeking a place in the colonial sun and the increasing rivalry among existing colonial powers was the rise of industrialized nations able and willing to challenge Great Britain’s lead in industry, finance, and world trade. in the mid—19th century Britain’s economy outdistanced by far its potential rivals. But, by the last quarter of that century, Britain was confronted by restless competitors seeking a greater share of world trade and finance; the industrial Revolution had gained a strong foothold in these nations, which were spurred on to increasing industrialization with the spread of railroad lines and the maturation of integrated national markets. Moreover, the major technological innovations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries improved the competitive potential of the newer industrial nations. Great Britain’s advantage as the progenitor of the first industrial Revolution diminished substantially as the newer products and sources of energy of what has been called a second Industrial Revolution began to dominate industrial activity. The late starters, having digested the first Industrial Revolution, now had a more equal footing with Great Britain: they were all starting out more or less from the same base to exploit the second industrial Revolution. This new industrialism, notably featuring mass—produced steel, electric power and oil as sources of energy, industrial chemistry, and the internal-combustion engine, spread over western Europe, the United States, and eventually Japan. European expansion since 1763 » The new imperialism (c. 1875—1914) » Reemergence of colonial rivalries » A world economy To operate efficiently, the new industries required heavypcapital investment in large-scale units. Accordingly, they encouraged the development of capital markets and banking institutions that were large and flexible enough to finance the new enterprises. The larger capital markets and industrial enterprises, in turn, helped push fonNard the geographic scale of operations of the industrialized nations: more capital could now be mobilized for foreign loans and investment, and the bigger businesses had the resources for the worldwide search for and development of the raw materials essential to the success and scourity of their investments. Not only did the new industrialism generate a voracious appetite for raw materials, but food for the swelling urban populations was now also sought in the far corners of the world. Advances in ship construction (steamships using steel hulls, twin screws, and compound engines) made feasible the inexpensive movement of bulk raw materials and food over long ocean distances. Under the pressures and opportunities of the later decades of the 19th century, more and more of the world was drawn upon as primary producers for the industrialized nations. Self—contained economic regions dissolved into a world economy, involving an international division of labour whereby the leading industrial nations made and sold manufactured products and the rest of the world supplied them with raw materials and food. European expansion since 1763 » The new imperialism (c. 1875—1914) » Reemergence of colonial rivalries » New militarism The complex of social, political, and economic changes that accompanied the new industrialism and the vastly expanded and integrated world commerce also provided a setting for intensified commercial rivalry, the rebuilding of high tariff walls, and a revival of militarism. Of special importance militarily was the race in naval construction, which was propelled by the successful introduction and steady improvement of radically new warships that were steam driven, armour-plated, and equipped with weapons able to penetrate the new armour. Before the development of these new technologies, Britain’s naval superiority was overwhelming and unchallengeable. But because Britain was now obliged in effect to build a completely new navy, other nations with adequate industrial capacities and the will to devote their resources to this purpose could challenge Britain’s supremacy at sea. The new militarism and the intensification of colonial rivalry signalled the end of the relatively peaceful conditions of the mid-19th century. The conflict over the partition of Africa, the South African War (the Boer War), the Sine-Japanese War, the Spanish—American War, and the Russo-Japanese War were among the indications that the new imperialism had opened a new era that was anything but peaceful. The new imperialism also represented an intensification of tendencies that had originated in earlier periods. Thus, for example, the decision by the United States to go to war with Spain cannot be isolated from the long-standing interest of the United States in the Caribbean and the Pacific. The defeat of Spain and the suppression of the independence revolutions in Cuba and the Philippines gave substance to the Monroe Doctrine: the United States now became the dominant power in the Caribbean, and the door was opened for acquisition of greater influence in Latin America. Possession of the Philippines was consistent with the historic interest of the United States in the commerce of the Pacific, as it had already manifested by its long interest in Hawaii (annexed in 1898) and by an expedition by Commodore Matthew Perry to Japan (1853). wfiuzgflgailfigmanslmmsineedlfifiatl. new!!!Retalismaistasmewtitlifittiétfifitfiig‘éiifiigififiébate 20 of 40 5/27/08 1 1:07 AM colonialism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126237/colonialism/25... European expansion since 1763 » The new imperialism (c. 1875—1914) » Historiographical debate » Noneconomic imperialism Perhaps the most systematic alternative theory of imperialism was proposed by Joseph Alois Schumpeter, 0 best known economists of the first half of the 20th century. His essay “Zur Soziologie des Imperialismus” (“ Sociology of Imperialism”) was first published in Germany in the form of two articles in 1919. Although Schu probably not familiar with Lenin’s Imperialism at the time he wrote his essay, his arguments were directed Marxist currents of thought of the early 20th century and in particular against the idea that imperialism out of capitalism. Unlike other critics, however, Schumpeter accepted some of the components of t and to a certain extent he followed the Marxist tradition of looking for the influence of class forces J as major levers of soci . hange. in doing so, he in effect used the weapons of Marxist thoughtt of Marxist theory. inst the ws naturally v arxist thesis, " class interests but the essence lude that there are onquest, often producing ’man. They evolved from on; the warrior mentality and al need for wars and [by the domestic interests of in economically and socially from ept away into the dustbin of history mperialism: it thrives best with peace / groups do emerge that benefit from banks and cartels creates a powerful and d protectorates, for the sake of higher profits. with the earliest days of written history, led Schumpeter to ‘ erialism: (1) At root is a persistent tendency to war an sound utilitarian aim. (2) These urges are not innat classes were molded into warriors to avoid exti 'wever, and influence events even after th and conquest is sustained and conditi ‘ those individuals who have most to d,,imperialism would have bee A survey of empires, beginn three generic characteristics 0 nonrational expansions that hav critical experiences when peoples the interests of warrior classes live 0 conquests disappears. (3) The drift to ruling classes, often under the leadersh war. But for these factors, Schumpeter be as capitalist society ripened; for capitalism in and free trade. Yet despite the innate peacefu " ohtrol in colonie of monopoly and that of Lenin and other Marxists, ame of reference is a natural outgrowth of the peter, it is an artificial graft on the more natural the residue from the preceding feudal society. ros’per under the protection of high tariff walls; els or other monopolistic arrangements. Because _ ‘a natural economic process that promotes those features that blend the heritage of the ideas along with capitalist interests—that the I in modern times is affected by capitalism, " er’s analysis, however, imperialism is not an a crucial difference does remain. Monopoly capitalism l previous stage of competitive capitalism. But according competitive capitalism, made possible by the catalytic eff Schumpeter argued that monopoly capitalism can only gr monopoly. Therefore, it is in the nature of the sta previous autocratic state, the old war machine, cause of imperialism will be discovered. The p and capitalism itself is modified by the impe ' inevitable product of capitalism. ular formbf imperl . st experienCe. ln Schu European expansion since 1763 » The new imperial‘ . 1875—1914) » Historiographical debate » Quest for a at theory of imperialism The main trend of academic thou t in the Western world is to follow Schumpet conclusion—that modern imperialism is not a product of pitalism—withotJt paying close attention to Schu ‘ er’s sophisticated sociological analysis. Specialized studie ve produced aztIariety of interpretations of the origin " \reawakening of the new imperialism: for France, bol ng of national‘inrestige after its defeat in the Franco—G an War (1870—71); for Germany, Bismarck’s des 0 stay in power when threatened by political rivals; for En d, the desire for greater military security in the iterranean andi-“lndia. These reasonsualong with other frequen entioned contributing causes, such as the m of national and racial superiority and the drive for power—are st atters of controversy with respect to spe cases and to the problem of fitting them into a general theory of impe 'sm. For example, if it is found that a ne olony was acquired for better military defense of existing colonies, the qu‘ ns still remain as to why the existin onies were acgtiired in the first place and why it was considered necessary than to give up. Similarly, {explanations in terms of the search for power still have to accoun \ relationship een power an_d"’wealth, because in the real world adequate economic resources are. on to its powerr,“ let alone to increase it. Conversely, increasing a nation’s wealth often re , . cteristic of historical phenomena, imperialist expansion is conditioned by a nation’s previou situation preceding each expansionist move. Moreover, it is carried forth in the midst of a com military, economic, and psychological impulses. It would seem, therefore, that the attempt to arri European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » Russia’s eastward expansion European nations and Japan at the end of the 19th century spread their influence and control throughout the continent of Asia. Russia, because of its geographic position, was the only occupying power whose Asian conquests were 22 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Onlinc Encyclopedia http://wwwbritannica.com/EBchecked/topic/ 126237/colonialism/25... overland. In that respect there is some similarity between Russia and the United States in the forcible outward push of their continental frontiers. But there is a significant difference: the United States advance displaced the indigenous population, with the remaining Indians becoming wards of the state. On the other hand, the Russian march across Asia resulted in the incorporation of alien cultures and societies as virtual colonies of the Russian Empire, while providing room for the absorption of Russian settlers. Although the conquest of Siberia and the drive to the Pacific had been periodically absorbing Russia’s military energies since the 16th century, the acquisition of additional Asian territory and the economic integration of previously acquired territory took a new turn in the 19th century. Previously, Russian influence in its occupied territory was quite limited, without marked alteration of the social and economic structure of the conquered peoples. Aside from looting and exacting tribute from subject tribes, the major objects of interest were the fur trade, increased commerce with China and in the Pacific, and land. But changes in 19th—century Russian society, especially those coming after the Crimean War (1853—56), signaled a new departure. First, Russia’s resounding defeat in that war temporarily frustrated its aspirations in the Balkans and the Near East; but, because its dynastic and military ambitions were in no way diminished, its expansionist energies turned with increased vigour to its Asian frontiers. Second, the emancipation of the serfs (1861), which eased the feudal restrictions on the landless peasants, led to large waves of migration by Russians and Ukrainians—first to Siberia and later to Central Asia. Third, the surge of industrialization, foreign trade, and railway building in the post—Crimean War decades paved the way for the integration of Russian Asia, which formerly, for all practical purposes, had been composed of separate dependencies, and for a new type of subjugation for many of these areas, especially in Central Asia, in which the conquered societies were “colonized” to suit the political and economic needs of the conqueror. This process of acquisition and consolidation in Asia spread out in four directions: Siberia, the Far East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. This pursuit of tsarist ambitions for empire and for warm-water ports involved numerous clashes and conflicts along the way. Russian expansion was ultimately limited not by the fierce opposition of the native population, which was at times a stumbling block, but by the counterpressure of competitive empire builders, such as Great Britain and Japan. Great Britain and Russia were mutually alarmed as the distances between the expanding frontiers of Russia and India shortened. One point of conflict was finally resolved when both powers agreed on the delimitation of the northern border of Afghanistan. A second major area of conflict in Central Asia was settled by an Anglo-Russian treaty (1907) to divide Persia into two separate spheres of influence, leaving a nominally independent Persian nation. As in the case of Afghanistan and Persia, penetration of Chinese territory produced clashes with both the native government and other imperialist powers. At times China’s preoccupation with its struggle against other invading powers eased the way for Russia’s penetration. Thus, in 1860, when Anglo-French soldiers had entered Peking, Russia was able to wrest from China the Amur Province and special privileges in Manchuria (Northeast Provinces) south of the Amur River. With this as a stepping—stone, Russia took over the seacoast north of Korea and founded the town of Vladivostok. But, because the Vladivostok harbour is icebound for some four months of the year, the Russians began to pay more attention to getting control of the Korean coastline, where many good year—round harbours could be found. Attempts to acquire a share of Korea, as well as all of Manchuria, met with the resistance of Britain and Japan. Further thrusts into China beyond the Amur and maritime provinces were finally thwarted by defeat in 1905 in the Russo—Japanese War. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » The partitioning of China The evolution of the penetration of Asia was naturally influenced by a multiplicity of factors—economic and political conditions in the expanding nations, the strategy of the military officials of the latter nations, the problems facing colonial rulers in each locality, pressures arising from white settlers and businessmen in the colonies, as well as the constraints imposed by the always limited economic and military resources of the imperialist powers. All these elements were present to a greater or lesser extent at each stage of the fowvard push of the colonial frontiers by the Dutch in Indonesia, the French in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), and the British in Malaya, Burma, and Borneo. Yet, despite the variety of influences at work, three general types of penetration stand out. One of these is expansion designed to overcome resistance to foreign rule. Resistance, which assumed many forms ranging from outright rebellion to sabotage of colonial political and economic domination, was often strongest in the border areas farthest removed from the centres of colonial power. The consequent extension of military control to the border regions tended to arouse the fears and opposition of neighbouring states or tribal societies and thus led to the further extension of control. Hence, attempts to achieve military security prompted the addition of border areas and neighbouring nations to the original colony. A second type of expansion was a response to the economic opportunities offered by exploitation of the colonial , interiors. Traditional trade and the free play of market forces in Asia did not produce huge supplies of raw materials and food or the enlarged export markets sought by the industrializing colonial powers. For this, entrepreneurs and capital from abroad were needed, mines and plantations had to be organized, labour supplies mobilized, and money economies created. All these alien intrusions functioned best under the firm security of an accommodating alien law and order. 23 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism -— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchccked/topic/126237/colonialism/25... The third type of expansion was the result of rivalry among colonial powers. When possible, new territory was acquired or old possessions extended in order either to preclude occupation by rivals or to serve as buffers for military security against the expansions of nearby colonial powers. Where the crosscurrents of these rivalries prevented any one power from obtaining exclusive control, various substitute arrangements were arrived at: parts of a country were chipped off and occupied by one or more of the powers; spheres of influence were partitioned; unequal commercial treaties were imposed—while the countries subjected to such treatment remained nominally independent. The penetration of China is the outstanding example of this type of expansion. In the early 19th century the middle part of eastern Asia (Japan, Korea, and China), containing about half the Asian population, was still little affected by Western penetration. By the end of the century, Korea was on the way to becoming annexed by Japan, which had itself become a leading imperialist power. China remained independent politically, though it was already extensively dominated by outside powers. Undoubtedly, the intense rivalry of the foreign powers helped save China from being taken over outright (as India had been). China was pressed on all sides by competing powers anxious for its trade and territory: Russia from the north, Great Britain (via India and Burma) from the south and west, France (via Indochina) from the south, and Japan and the United States (in part, via the Philippines) from the east. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » The partitioning of China » The Opium wars The first phase of the forceful penetration of China by western Europe came in the two Opium Wars. Great Britain had been buying increasing quantities of tea from China, but it had few products that China was interested in buying by way of exchange. A resulting steady drain of British silver to pay for the tea was eventually stopped by Great Britain’s ascendancy in India. V\fith British merchants in control of India’s foreign trade and with the financing of this trade centred in London, a three—way exchange developed: the tea Britain bought in China was paid for by India’s exports of opium and cotton to China. And because of a rapidly increasing demand for tea in England, British merchants actively fostered the profitable exports of opium and cotton from India. An increasing Chinese addiction to opium fed a boom in imports of the drug and led to an unfavourable trade balance paid for by a steady loss of China’s silver reserves. In light of the economic effect of the opium trade plus the physical and mental deterioration of opium users, Chinese authorities banned the opium trade. At first this posed few obstacles to British merchants, who resorted to smuggling. But enforcement of the ban became stringent toward the end of the 18305; stores of opium were confiscated, and warehouses were closed down. British merchants had an additional and longstanding grievance because the Chinese limited all trade by foreigners to the port of Canton. In June 1840 the British fleet arrived at the mouth of the Canton River to begin the Opium War. The Chinese capitulated in 1842 after the fleet reached the Yangtze, Shanghai fell, and Nanking was under British guns. The resulting Treaty of Nanking—the first in a series of commercial treaties China was forced to sign over the years_provided for: (1) cession of Hong Kong to the British crown; (2) the opening of five treaty ports, where the British would have residence and trade rights; (3) the right of British nationals in China who were accused of criminal acts to be tried in British courts; and (4) the limitation of duties on imports and exports to a modest rate. Other countries soon took advantage of this forcible opening of China; in a few years similar treaties were signed by China with the United States, France, and Russia. The Chinese, however, tried to retain some independence by preventing foreigners from entering the interior of China. With the country’s economic and social institutions still intact, markets for Western goods, such as cotton textiles and machinery, remained disappointing: the self—sufficient communities of China were not disrupted as those in India had been under direct British rule, and opium smuggling by British merchants continued as a major component of China‘s foreign trade. Western merchants sought further concessions to improve markets. But meanwhile China’s weakness, along with the stresses induced by foreign intervention, was further intensified by an upsurge of peasant rebellions, especially the massive 14—year Taiping Rebellion (1850—64). The Western powers took advantage of the increasing difficulties by pressing for even more favourable trade treaties. culminating in a second war against China (1856—60), this time by France and England. Characteristically, the Western powers invading China played a double role: in addition to forcing a new trade treaty, they also helped to sustain the Chinese ruling establishment by participating in the suppression of the Taiping Rebellion; they believed that a Taiping victory would result in a reformed and centralized China, more resistant to Western penetration. China’s defeat in the second war with the West produced a series of treaties, signed at Tientsin with Britain, France, Russia, and the United States, which brought the Western world deeper into China’s affairs. The Tientsin treaties provided, among other things, for the right of foreign nationals to travel in the interior, the right of foreign ships to trade and patrol on the Yangtze River, the opening up of more treaty ports, and additional exclusive legal jurisdiction by foreign powers over their nationals residing in China. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » The partitioning of China » Foreign privileges in China Treaties of this general nature were extended over the years to grant further privileges to foreigners. Furthermore, more and more Western nations—including Germany, Italy, Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and 24 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchccked/topic/l26237/colonialism/25... Austria-Hungary—took advantage of the new opportunities by signing such treaties. By the beginning of the 20th century, some 90 Chinese ports had been opened to foreign control. While the Chinese government retained nominal sovereignty in these ports, de facto rule was exercised by one or more of the powers: in Shanghai, for example, Great Britain and the United States coalesced their interests to form the Shanghai International Settlement. In most of the treaty ports, China leased substantial areas of land at low rates to foreign governments. The consulates in these concessions exercised legal jurisdiction over their nationals, who thereby escaped China’s laws and tax collections. The foreign settlements had their own police forces and tax systems and ran their own affairs independently of nominally sovereign China. These settlements were not the only intrusion on China’s sovereignty. In addition, the opium trade was finally legalized, customs duties were forced downward to facilitate competition of imported Western goods, foreign gunboats patrolled China’s rivers, and aliens were placed on customs—collection staffs to ensure that China would pay the indemnities imposed by various treaties. In response to these indignities and amid growing antiforeign sentiment, the Chinese government attempted reforms to modernize and develop sufficient strength to resist foreign intrusions. Steps were taken to master Western science and technology, erect shipyards and arsenals, and build a more effective army and navy. The reforms, however, did not get very far: they did not tackle the roots of China’s vulnerability, its social and political structure; and they were undertaken quite late, after foreign nations had already established a strong foothold. Also, it is likely that the reforms were not wholehearted because two opposing tendencies were at play: on the one hand, a wish to seek independence and, on the other hand, a basic reliance on foreign support by a weak Manchu government beset with rebellion and internal opposition. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » The partitioning of China » The Open Door Policy In any event, preliminary attempts to Westernize Chinese society from within did not deter further foreign penetration; nor did the subsequent revolution (1911) succeed in freeing China from Western domination. Toward the end of the 19th century, under the impact of the new imperialism, the spread of foreign penetration accelerated. Germany entered a vigorous bid for its sphere of influence; Japan and Russia pushed forward their territorial claims; and US. commercial and financial penetration of the Pacific, with naval vessels patrolling Chinese rivers, was growing rapidly. But at the same time this mounting foreign interest also inhibited the outright partition of China. Any step by one of the powers toward outright partition or sizable enlargement of its sphere of influence met with strong opposition from other powers. This led eventually to the Open Door Policy, advocated by the United States, which limited or restricted exclusive privileges of any one power vis-a—vis the others. It became generally accepted after the antiforeign Boxer Rebellion (1900) in China. V\fith the foreign armies that had been brought in to suppress the rebellion now stationed in North China, the danger to the continued existence of the Chinese government and the danger of war among the imperialist powers for their share of the country seemed greater than ever. Agreement on the Open Door Policy helped to retain both a compliant native government and equal opportunity for commerce, finance, and investment by the more advanced nations. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » Japan’s rise as a colonial power Japan was the only Asian country to escape colonization from the West. European nations and the United States tried to “open the door,” and to some extent they succeeded; but Japan was able to shake off the kind of subjugation, informal or formal, to which the rest of Asia succumbed. Even more important, it moved onto the same road of industrialization as did Europe and the United States. And instead of being colonized it became one of the colonial powers. Japan had traditionally sought to avoid foreign intrusion. For many years, only the Dutch and the Chinese were allowed trading depots, each having access to only one port. No other foreigners were permitted to land in Japan, though Russia, France, and England tried, but with little success. The first significant crack in Japan’s trade and travel barriers was forced by the United States in an effort to guarantee and strengthen its shipping interests in the Far East. Japan’s guns and ships were no match for those of Commodore Perry in his two US. naval expeditions to Japan (1853, 1854). The Japanese, well aware of the implications of foreign penetration through observing what was happening to China, tried to limit Western trade to two ports. In 1858, however, Japan agreed to a full commercial treaty with the United States, followed by similar treaties with the Low Countries, Russia, France, and Britain. The treaty pattern was familiar: more ports were opened; resident foreigners were granted extraterritorial rights, as in China; import and export duties were predetermined, thus removing control that Japan might otherwise exercise over its foreign trade. Many attempts have been made to explain why a weak Japan was not taken over as a colony or, at least, did not follow in China’s footsteps. Despite the absence of a commonly accepted theory, two factors were undoubtedly crucial. On the one hand, the Western nations did not pursue their attempts to control Japan as aggressively as they did elsewhere. In Asia the interests of the more aggressively expanding powers had centred on India, China, and the immediately surrounding areas. When greater interest developed in a possible breakthrough in Japan in the 18503 and 18605, the leading powers were occupied with other pressing affairs, such as the 1857 Indian mutiny, the Taiping 25 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchcckcd/topic/l26237/colonialism/25... Rebellion, the Crimean War, French intervention in Mexico, and the US. Civil War. international jealousy may also have played a role in deterring any one power from trying to gain exclusive control over the country. On the other hand, in Japan itself, the danger of foreign military intervention, a crisis in its traditional feudal society, the rise of commerce, and a disaffected peasantry led to an intense internal power struggle and finally to a revolutionary change in the country’s society and a thoroughgoing modernization program, one that brought Japan the economic and military strength to resist foreign nations. The opposing forces in Japan’s civil war were lined up between the supporters of the ruling Tokugawa family, which headed a rigid hierarchical feudal society, and the supporters of the emperor Meiji, whose court had been isolated from any significant government role. The civil war culminated in 1868 in the overthrow of the Tokugawa government and the restoration of the rule of the Emperor. The Meiji Restoration also brought new interest groups to the centre of political power and instigated a radical redirection of Japan’s economic development. The nub of the changeover was the destruction of the traditional feudal social system and the building of a political, social, and economic framework conducive to capitalist industrialization. The new state actively participated in the turnabout by various forms of grants and guarantees to enterprising industrialists and by direct investment in basic industries such as railways, shipbuilding, communications, and machinery. The concentration of resources in the industrial sector was matched by social reforms that eliminated feudal restrictions, accelerated mass education, and encouraged acquisition of skills in the use of Western technology. The ensuing industrialized economy provided the means for Japan to hold its own in modern warfare and to withstand foreign economic competition. Soon Japan not only followed the Western path of internal industrialization, but it also began an outward aggression resembling that of the European nations. First came the acquisition and colonization of neighbouring islands: Ryukyu Islands (including Okinawa), the Kuril Islands, Bonin islands, and Hokkaido. Next in Japan’s expansion program was Korea, but the opposition of other powers postponed the transformation of Korea into a Japanese colony. The pursuit of influence in Korea involved Japan in war with China (1894—95), at the end of which China recognized Japan’s interest in Korea and ceded to Japan Taiwan, the Pescadores, and southern Manchuria. At this point rival powers interceded to force Japan to forgo taking over the southern Manchuria peninsula. While France, Britain, and Germany were involved in seeking to frustrate Japan’s imperial ambitions, the most direct clash was with Russia over Korea and Manchuria. Japan’s defeat of Russia in the war of 1904—05 procured for Japan the lease of the Liaotung Peninsula, the southern part of the island of Sakhalin, and recognition of its “paramount interest” in Korea. Still, pressure by Britain and the United States kept Japan from fulfillment of its plan to possess Manchuria outright. By the early 20th century, however, Japan had, by means of economic and political penetration, attained a privileged position in that part of China, as well as colonies in Korea and Taiwan and neighbouring islands. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » P rt't' f Afr'ca By the turn of the 20th century, the map of Africa looked like a huge jigsaw puzzle, with most of the boundary lines having been drawn in a sort of game of give-and-take played in the foreign offices of the leading European powers. The division of Africa, the last continent to be so carved up, was essentially a product of the new imperialism, vividly highlighting its essential features. in this respect, the timing and the pace of the scramble for Africa are especially noteworthy. Before 1880 colonial possessions in Africa were relatively few and limited to coastal areas, with large sections of the coastline and almost all the interior still independent. By 1900 Africa was almost entirely divided into separate territories that were under the administration of European nations. The only exceptions were Liberia, generally regarded as being under the special protection of the United States; Morocco, conquered by France a few years later; Libya, later taken over by itaiy; and Ethiopia. The second feature of the new imperialism was also strongly evident. it was in Africa that Germany made its first major bid for membership in the club of colonial powers: between May 1884 and February 1885, Germany announced its claims to territory in South West Africa (now South West Africa/Namibia), Togoiand, Cameroon, and part of the East African coast opposite Zanzibar. Two smaller nations, Belgium and itaiy, also entered the ranks, and even Portugal and Spain once again became active in bidding for African territory. The increasing number of participants in itself sped up the race for conquest. And with the heightened rivalry came more intense concern for preciusive occupation, increased attention to military arguments for additional buffer zones, and, in a period when free trade was giving way to protective tariffs and discriminatory practices in colonies as well as at home, a growing urgency for protected overseas markets. Not only the wish but also the means were at hand for this carving up of the African pie. Repeating rifles, machine guns, and other advances in weaponry gave the small armies of the conquering nations the effective power to defeat the much larger armies of the peoples of Africa. Rapid railroad construction provided the means for military, political, and economic consolidation of continental interiors. With the new steamships, settlers and materials could be moved to Africa with greater dispatch, and bulk shipments of raw materials and food from Africa, prohibitively costly for some products in the days of the sailing ship, became economically feasible and profitable. Penetration of lsiamic North Africa was complicated, on the one hand, by the struggle among European powers for control of the Mediterranean Sea and, on the other hand, by the suzerainty that the Ottoman Empire exercised to a greater or lesser extent over large sections of the region. Developments in both respects contributed to the wave of partition toward the end of the 19th century, First, Ottoman power was perceptiny waning: the military balance had tipped decisively in favour of the European nations, and Turkey was becoming increasingly dependent on loans from 26 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —~ Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBcheckcd/topic/126237/colonialism/25... European centres of capital (in the late 1870s Turkey needed half of its government income just to service its foreign debt). Second, the importance of domination of the Mediterranean increased significantly after the Suez Canal was opened in 1869. France was the one European nation that had established a major beachhead in Islamic North Africa before the 18803. At a time when Great Britain was too preoccupied to interfere, the French captured the fortress of Algiers in 1830. Frequent revolts kept the French Army busy in the Algerian interior for another 50 years before all Algeria was under full French rule. While Tunisia and Egypt had been areas of great interest to European powers during the long period of France’s Algerian takeover, the penetration of these countries had been informal, confined to diplomatic and financial maneuvers. Italy, as well as France and England, had loaned large sums to the ruling beys of Tunisia to help loosen that country’s ties with Turkey. The inability of the bays to service the foreign debt in the 18703 led to the installation of debt commissioners by the lenders. Tunisia’s revenues were pledged to pay the interest due on outstanding bonds; in fact, the debt charges had first call on the government’s income. With this came increased pressure on the people for larger tax payments and a growing popular dissatisfaction with a government that had “sold out” to foreigners. The weakness of the ruling group, intensified by the danger of popular revolt or a military coup, opened the door further for formal occupation by one of the interested foreign powers. When Italy’s actions showed that it might be preparing for outright possession, France jumped the gun by invading Tunisia in 1881 and then completed its conquest by defeating the rebellions precipitated by this occupation. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » Partition of Africa » The Europeans in North Africa The course of Egypt’s loss of sovereignty resembled somewhat the same process in Tunisia: easy credit extended by Europeans, bankruptcy, increasing control by foreign-debt commissioners, mulcting of the peasants to raise revenue for servicing the debt, growing independence movements, and finally military conquest by a foreign power. In Egypt, inter—imperialist rivalry, mainly between Great Britain and France, reached back to the early 19th century but was intensified under the circumstances of the new imperialism and the construction of the Suez Canal. By building the Suez Canal and financing Egypt’s ruling group, France had gained a prominent position in Egypt. But Britain’s interests were perhaps even more pressing because the Suez Canal was a strategic link to its empire and its other Eastern trade and colonial interests, The successful nationalist revolt headed by the Egyptian army imminently threatened in the 1880s the interests of both powers. France, occupied with war in Tunisia and with internal political problems, did not participate in the military intervention to suppress the revolt. Great Britain bombarded Alexandria in 1882, landed troops, and thus obtained control of Egypt. Unable to find a stable collaborationist government that would also pay Egypt’s debts and concerned with suppressing not only the rebellion but also a powerful anti~Egyptian Mahdist revolt in the Sudan, Britain completely took over the reins of government in Egypt. The rest of North Africa was carved up in the early 20th century. France, maneuvering for possession of Morocco, which bordered on her Algerian colony, tried to obtain the acquiescence of the other powers by both secret and open treaties granting Italy a free hand in Libya, allotting to Spain a sphere of influence, and acknowledging Britain’s paramountcy in Egypt. France had, however, overlooked Germany’s ambitions, now backed by an increasingly effective army and navy. The tension created by Germany led to an international conference at Algeciras (1906), which produced a short—lived compromise, including recognition of France’s paramount interest, Spanish participation in policing Morocco, and an open door for the country’s economic penetration by other nations. But France’s vigorous pursuit of her claims, reinforced by the occupation of Casablanca and surrounding territory, precipitated critical confrontations, which reached their peak in 1911 when French troops were suppressing a Moroccan revolt and a German cruiser appeared before Agadir in a show of force. The resulting settlements completed the European partition of North Africa: France obtained the lion's share of Morocco; in return, Germany received a large part of the French Congo; Italy was given the green light for its war with Turkey over control of Tripoli, the first step in its eventual acquisition of Libya; and Spain was enabled to extend its Rio de Oro protectorate to the southern frontier of Morocco. The more or less peaceful trade-«offs by the occupying powers differed sharply from the long, bitter, and expensive wars they waged against the indigenous peoples and rulers of Islamic North Africa to solidify European rule. European expansion since 1763 » Penetration of the West in Asia and Africa » Partition of Africa » The race for colonies in sub-Saharan Africa The partition of Africa below the Sahara took place at two levels: (1) on paper—in deals made among colonial powers who were seeking colonies partly for the sake of the colonies themselves and partly as pawns in the power play of European nations struggling for world dominance—and (2) in the field—-in battles of conquest against African states and tribes and in military confrontations among the rival powers themselves. This process produced, over and above the ravages of colonialism, a wasp’s nest of problems that was to plague African nations long after they achieved independence. Boundary lines between colonies were often drawn arbitrarily, with little or no attention to ethnic unity, regional economic ties, tribal migratory patterns, or even natural boundaries. Before the race for partition, only three European powers—France, Portugal, and Britain—had territory in tropical Africa, located mainly in West Africa. Only France had moved into the interior along the Sénégal River. The other French colonies or spheres of influence were located along the Ivory Coast and in Dahomey (now Benin) and Gabon. 27 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism ~— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchccked/topic/l26237/colonialism/25... Portugal held on to some coastal points in Angola, Mozambique (Mocambique), and Portuguese Guinea (now Guinea-Bissau). While Great Britain had a virtual protectorate over Zanzibar in East Africa, its actual possessions were on the west coast in the Gambia, the Gold Coast, the Sierra Leone, all of them surrounded by African states that had enough organization and military strength to make the British hesitate about further expansion. Meanwhile, the ground for eventual occupation of the interior of tropical Africa was being prepared by explorers, missionaries, and traders. But such penetration remained tenuous until the construction of railroads and the arrival of steamships on navigable waterways made it feasible for European merchants to dominate the trade of the interior and for European governments to consolidate conquests. Once conditions were ripe for the introduction of railroads and steamships in West Africa, tensions between the English and French increased as each country tried to extend its sphere of influence. As customs duties, the prime source of colonial revenue, could be evaded in uncontrolled ports, both powers began to stretch their coastal frontiers, and overlapping claims and disputes soon arose. The commercial penetration of the interior created additional rivalry and set off a chain reaction. The drive for exclusive control over interior areas intensified in response to both economic competition and the need for protection from African states resisting foreign intrusion. This drive for African possessions was intensified by the new entrants to the colonial race who felt menaced by the possibility of being completely locked out. Perhaps the most important stimulants to the scramble for colonies south of the Sahara were the opening up of the Congo River basin by Belgium’s king Leopold II and Germany’s energetic annexationist activities on both the east and west coasts. As the dash for territory began to accelerate, 15 nations convened in Berlin in 1884 for the West African Conference, which, however, merely set ground rules for the ensuing intensified scramble for colonies. It also recognized the Congo Free State (now Congo [Kinshasa]) ruled by King Leopold, while insisting that the rivers in the Congo basin be open to free trade. From his base in the Congo, the king subsequently took over mineral-rich Katanga region, transferring both territories to Belgium in 1908. In West Africa, Germany concentrated on consolidating its possessions of Togoland and Cameroon (Kamerun), while England and France pushed northward and eastward from their bases: England concentrated on the Niger region, the centre of its commercial activity, while France aimed at joining its possessions at Lake Chad within a grand design for an empire of contiguous territories from Algeria to the Congo. Final boundaries were arrived at after the British had defeated, among others, the Ashanti, the Fanti Confederation, the Opobo kingdom, and the Fulani; and the French won wars against the Fon kingdom, the Tuareg, the Mandingo, and other resisting tribes. The boundaries determined by conquest and agreement between the conquerors gave France the lion’s share: in addition to the extension of its former coastal possessions, France acquired French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa, while Britain carved out its Nigerian colony. ln southern Africa, the intercolonial rivalries chiefly involved the British, the Portuguese, the South African Republic of the Transvaal, the British—backed Cape Colony, and the Germans. The acquisitive drive was enormously stimulated by dreams of wealth generated by the discovery of diamonds in Griqualand West and gold in Matabeleland. Encouraged by these discoveries, Cecil Rhodes (heading the British South Africa Company) and other entrepreneurs expected to find gold, copper, and diamonds in the regions surrounding the Transvaal, among them Bechuanaland, Matabeleland, Mashonaland, and Trans—Zambezia. in the ensuing struggle, which involved the conquest of the Nbele and Shona peoples, Britain obtained control over Bechuanaland and, through the British South Africa Company, over the areas later designated as the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. At the same time, Portugal moved inland to seize control over the colony of Mozambique. It was clearly the rivalries of stronger powers, especially the concern of Germany and France over the extension of British rule in southern Africa, that enabled a weak Portugal to have its way in Angola and Mozambique. The boundary lines in East Africa were arrived at largely in settlements between Britain and Germany, the two chief rivals in that region. Zanzibar and the future Tanganyika were divided in the Anglo-German treaty of 1890: Britain obtained the future Uganda and recognition of its paramount interest in Zanzibar and Pemba in exchange for ceding the strategic North Sea island of Heligoland (Helgoland) and noninterference in Germany’s acquisitions in Tanganyika, Rwanda, and Urundi. Britain began to build an East African railroad to the coast, establishing the East African Protectorate (later Kenya) over the area where the railroad was to be built. Rivalry in northeastern Africa between the French and British was based on domination of the upper end of the Nile. Italy had established itself at two ends of Ethiopia, in an area on the Red Sea that the ltalians called Eritrea and in Italian Somaliland along the lndian Ocean. Italy’s inland thrust led to war with Ethiopia and defeat at the hands of the Ethiopians at Adwa in 1896. Ethiopia, surrounded by ltalian and British armies, had turned to French advisers. The unique victory by an African state over a European army strengthened French influence in Ethiopia and enabled France to stage military expeditions from Ethiopia as well as from the Congo in order to establish footholds on the Upper Nile. The resulting race between British and French armies ended in a confrontation at Fashoda in 1898, with the British army in the stronger position, War was narrowly avoided in a settlement that completed the partition of the region: eastern Sudan was to be ruled jointly by Britain and Egypt, while France was to have the remaining Sudan from the Congo and Lake Chad to Darfur. 28 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.brilannica.com/EBcheckcd/topic/l26237/colonialism/25... Germany’s entrance into southern Africa through occupation and conquest of South West Africa touched off an upsurge of British colonial activity in that area, notably the separation of Basutoland (Lesotho) as a crown colony from the Cape Colony and the annexation of Zululand. As a consequence of the South African (Boer) War (1899—1902) Britain obtained sovereignty over the Transvaal and the Afrikaner Orange Free State. Harry Magdoff European expans r l and the interwar period (1914—39) » Postwar r After World War I the Allied powers partitioned among themselves both the German overseas colonial holdings vast Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire. They carried out this operation through the League of Nations, which awarded mandates under varying conditions. Great Britain received as mandates Iraq and Palestine (which it promptly split into Transjordan and Palestine proper); the Palestine mandate obligated Britain to respect its contradictory wartime commitments to both Jews and Arabs. France assumed a mandate over both Syria and Lebanon. In Africa the two powers divided Togo and Cameroon between them, Britain acquired Tanganyika (with a few thousand German settlers), Belgium took Rwanda—Urundi, and South Africa received German South West Africa. Italy, as compensation for not sharing in the award of mandates, obtained from Britain the Juba (Giuba) Valley on the Kenya-Somali frontier, and France eventually ceded to Italy a desert area that rounded out Libya’s southern frontiers. The interwar years marked the apex of colonial empires throughout the world, and indirect forms of colonial penetration grew with the development of the petroleum industry. Nevertheless, most colonial systems began to show clear signs of strain and even revolt. The Russian Revolution, the Nationalist and Communist successes in China during the 19205 and ’303, the radical nationalism of Kemal Atattirk—all contributed to the rise of political movements opposed to colonialism. The very process of economic modernization, however—with the rise of factories, coordination with the world market, and mass urbanization—did more than any political or cultural factor, taken in itself, to undermine the paternal-militaristic forms of direct colonial domination. European expansion since 1763 » World Warl and the interwar period (1914—39) » The British Empire Britain tended toward a decentralized and empirical type of colonial administration, in which some degree of partial decolonization could prepare the way for eventual self-rule. Realizing that direct rule over ancient civilized lands could not last indefinitely, Britain worked for a continued British presence in areas where the empire conferred self—government. European expansion since 1763 » World Warl and the interwar period (1914—39) » The British Empire » Middle East At the outset of World War l, Britain had proclaimed a protectorate over Egypt, annulling Ottoman sovereignty; afterward, Egyptian nationalist leaders finally brought the British to recognize Egypt as an independent kingdom in 1922. In 1936—37 Egypt received control over its own economic development, and British military forces were confined to the Suez Canal area. Britain granted Iraq independence in 1932 but retained a military power base in the new kingdom. Both the world strategic balance and the British petroleum industry ruled out any possibility of a real British withdrawal from either of these Middle Eastern states. In Palestine the political claims of Arabs and Jews proved to be irreconcilable, and insurrection, terrorism, and occasional guerrilla warfare marked the whole period of British rule. Finally, in 1939, with war looming, the British decided to limit and eventually terminate the flow of Jewish refugees into Palestine, though not proposing to force the more than 500,000 Jewish inhabitants to live under an Arab national regime. Transjordan, detached from Palestine, became a British protectorate. European expansion since 1763 » World War I and the interwar period (1914-39) » The British Empire » India In India Britain faced a powerful adversary, the Indian National Congress, uniting businessmen and working classes, Hindus of high and low caste, in a common drive toward independence. The Congress never, however, succeeded in bridging the gap that separated the country’s Hindu and Sikh majority from its 90,000,000 Muslims. The British met the Indian anticolonial movement half way. In 1919—23 a series of measures gave the Indians a certain degree of self-rule in a “dyarchy” in which elected Indian ministers governed together with British administrators. These constitutional reforms, however, failed to bring the princely states into line with the new trend toward self-rule. Though Mahatma Gandhi denounced the new system as a “whited sepulchre," Congress in fact began to participate in the governmental process. Under the constitution granted in 1935—37, the British maintained separate voting rolls for the Muslim minority, in order to ensure its proportional representation; in 1939 relations between Britain and the Congress Party were tense, but India was clearly headed for independence in some form. In 1937 the British gave a separate constitution to Burma. Ceylon (renamed Sri Lanka in 1972) had been separate and self-governing from 1931. 29 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism -— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126237/colonialism/25... European expansion since 1763 » World Warl and the interwar period (1914—39) » The British Empire » Africa In British Africa decolonization progressed more slowly, but London began to accept it as an ultimate outcome. In Kenya, for example, the British government refused to grant the 20,000 European settlers in the “white highlands" any kind of direct political power over the mass of tribal blacks who constituted the colony’s overwhelming majority. In British West Africa the passage from direct colonial government to self~rule by a black elite had started by 1939, there being no white settlers or Indian merchants (as there were in East Africa) to complicate matters. Only in the mining areas of Northern Rhodesia (the Copperbelt) and in Southern Rhodesia, where white farmer settlers enjoyed self—government and caste privileges over a disenfranchised black majority, did decolonization make no headway at all. European expansion since 1763 » World Warl and the interwar period (1914-39) » Overseas France France, in contrast to Britain, preferred centralized and assimilative methods in an effort to integrate its colonies into a greater Overseas France. It made no progress in colonial devolution and refused even to grant independence to Syria and Lebanon. In North Africa the French energetically implanted large agrarian capitalist enterprises as well as some industries connected with the area’s mineral wealth. These modern production centres and infrastructures were directed and financed by metropolitan French business and were staffed and operated by a large, politically aggressive European settler population. The Muslim majority was subordinate both politically and economically; North African peasants struggled to subsist on the margins. Overt resistance was strongest in Morocco, where a rural Muslim rebellion endangered both the French and the Spanish protectorates. Abd eI-Krim, a Berber Moroccan leader who combined tradition with modern nationalism, waged a brilliant five—year campaign till a combined French and Spanish force finally defeated him in 1926. After 1934, resistance to France revived in Morocco, this time in the cities. In Tunisia resistance was centred in Habib Bourguiba’s constitutional party; in Algeria the urban Muslim middle classes merely asked for true civil rights and integration. The French Communist Party did not move to mobilize the peasant masses in an anticolonial struggle, and, in consequence, future rebellion in the Maghrib was to be Arab nationalist and not Marxist in its leadership and doctrines. Matters were different in French Indochina, where the growth of a modern, French-directed agricultural economy had thrown masses of peasants into debt slavery. The circumstances favoured the formation of an independence movement much influenced by both the Chinese Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) and the Chinese Communist Party; the movement in the 1930s took the form of a Communist party under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh. French sub-Saharan Africa attracted no European settler population. The French colonial authorities promoted a shift from subsistence to market economies, and their methods, including labour conscription for public works, led to protest and questions in the French parliament. The results, guaranteed by a protective tariff linking the colonies to France, were solid but unspectacular. European expansion since 1763 » World War I and the interwar period (1914—39) » Axis Powers In the 19303 an aggressive new colonialism developed on the part of the Axis Powers, which developed a new colonial doctrine (“living space” in German geopolitics, the “empire” in Italian Fascist ideology, the “co~prosperity sphere” in Japan) aiming at the repartition of the world’s colonial areas, justified by the supposed racial superiority, higher birth rates, and greater productivity that the Axis Powers enjoyed as against the “decadent” West. To this the Japanese added a slogan of their own, “Asia for the Asians.” In fact, the three powers aimed at carving out for themselves vast, self-sufficient empires. Though intent on a new colonialism of their own, they had to use anticolonialism as a political instrument before and during World War II; in doing so, they helped in the process of world decolonization. Fascist Italy’s first colonial war was a long, bloody campaign in Cyrenaica that lasted until the early 19303, when Italy began developing Libya as a place of settlement for Italian peasants. Then a dispute over the border between Italian Somaliland and Ethiopia (1934) gave the Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, the opportunity to move against the African power that had routed Italian armies at Adwa. In October 1935 Italian troops from Eritrea moved into the Tigray province of northern Ethiopia, although war was never declared. Ethiopia, underequipped and feudal, could not long hold out in open combat, especially against Italian air attacks. In May 1936 Italian motorized columns reached Addis Ababa, and the Emperor went into exile. Mussolini proclaimed the Italian “empire” in East Africa. In reality, however, Ethiopian feudal chiefs continued violent resistance, even in the environs of the capital, while the Italians massacred hundreds of nobles, clergy, and commoners in an effort to repress Ethiopia by terror. In this their success was limited. The Italians built roads and kept control over all principal communication lines, but they never subdued the mountainous hinterland. The Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, Japan’s new order, amounted to a self-contained empire from Manchuria to the Dutch East Indies, including China, Indochina, Thailand, and Malaya as satellite states. Japan intended to exclude both European imperialism and Communist influence from the entire Far East, while ensuring Japanese political and industrial hegemony. European expansion since 1763 » World War I and the interwar period (1914—39) » The United States and the Soviet Union 30 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Onlinc Encyclopedia http://wva.britannica.com/EBchcckcd/topic/ 126237/colonialism/25... During World War I the United States purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark (1917), but it acquired no new colonies thereafter. In the 1920s the United States agreed to leave unfortified its possessions beyond Hawaii, in exchange for Japan’s accepting naval limitations. The Philippines, by the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, were to become independent on July 4, 1946. Until US—Japanese relations began to worsen, in 1939, US. possessions in the Pacific counted for little in world affairs. On the other hand, the United States established or continued virtual protectorates in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Panama during the Harding and Coolidge administrations (1921—29), a trend reversed under Hoover and Roosevelt, particularly under the Iatter’s Good Neighbor Policy toward Latin America The new Soviet Russian regime succeeded, after years of civil and foreign war, in regaining the Asian possessions of its tsarist predecessor. The Caucasus was repossessed step by step between 1919 and 1921; after the mountain areas and Azerbaijan were brought back under Soviet control, Armenia was partitioned between Russia and Turkey. Then Georgia, an independent parliamentary republic, was overrun by the Red Army. Russian Turkistan was subdued by 1922, and the khanates of Khiva and Bukhara were suppressed. By 1922, Outer Mongolia was also solidly linked to the Soviet state. Nevertheless, the Russian revolutionary government was ideologically opposed to colonialism, especially where it had no colonial interests that it cared to defend. In general, the Soviet authorities hesitated during the intenivar period between the alternatives of backing liberation movements of “national bourgeoisies” and supporting peasant revolutionary parties. In Central Asia the Soviet authorities followed a moderate line up to 1928, but with the advent of Stalin a new policy, consisting in purges of national leaders, increasing industrialization, and forced settlement of nomad populations, led to a great increase in the proportion of European settlers, mostly Russians and Ukrainians, to native Muslims. During the 1980s the Kazaks declined sharply in absolute numbers as well as in ratio to the Europeans in their areas. Other Muslim nationalities, especially the Uzbeks, stemmed the Slavic tide of settlement only by virtue of their birth rates, which greatly exceeded those of the Russians and Ukrainians. European expansron srnce 1763 » World 9 European expansion since 1763 » World War II (1939-45) » Asia Japan conquered its Greater East Asia Co—prosperity Sphere and arrived at the gates of India, displacing British, Dutch, and French colonial rulers as well as the Americans in Guam and the Philippines. The Japanese had to allow some margin of freedom to their satellite regimes in Burma and Indonesia in both of which preexisting local parties proved capable of creating sovereign states after the war. On August 17, 1945, Sukarno declared Indonesia independent. Indonesia had had a long history of Muslim, nationalist, and Communist agitation against the Dutch; with captured Japanese arms, Indonesia could resist reimposition of Dutch authority. In India the Congress Party, though totally unsympathetic to the Axis, tried to take advantage of Britain’s wartime extremity in order to secure immediate independence. The Muslim League supported the British administration during the war but demanded a sovereign Muslim homeland (Pakistan) as a postwar objective. By 1945 direct British rule in India was coming to an end, but the contest between Britain, the Congress Party, and the Muslim League clouded any final settlement. European expansion since 1763 » World War II (1939—45) » Middle East In the Middle East, Britain returned to forms of direct colonial control as Axis forces drew near, and in June—July 1941 it occupied Syria and Lebanon, under the guise of Free French administration. With Beirut and Damascus secured, the British supported Syrian and Lebanese independence from France; the two states were incorporated into the sterling area. Only US. and Soviet support guaranteed the independence of the two republics (1944) and their subsequent admission to the United Nations. In Egypt, when Axis forces in 1941 and 1942 came within striking distance of Alexandria, both the king, Farouk, and groups of dissident army officers were ready to welcome them and turn against the British. In February 1942 the British minister forced the king to appoint a government willing to cooperate with the Anglo-Americans; the defeat of the Germans in the Egyptian desert later that year put Egypt firmly in the Allied camp. Nevertheless much anti—British and anticolonial bitterness remained in Egypt, with postwar consequences. At the outset of World War II Iran was pro-German, and in August 1941 the Soviet Union and Britain jointly occupied the country, which then became the main supply line connecting the Soviet Union with the Western Allies. In 1942, in a three—power treaty, both Britain and the Soviet Union promised to leave Iran six months after the end of the war. Notwithstanding such commitments, the Soviet Union began to build spheres of influence in northern Iran; in 1944 the Soviet Union brought pressure to bear on Iran for an oil concession. During the final years of World War II the United States became vitally interested in the Middle East because of United 31 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Online Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBcheckcd/topic/l26237/colonialism/25... States petroleum ventures in Saudi Arabia and because of strategic considerations. By the end of the war it was clear to both the Soviet Union and Britain that the United States, as a world power, would support no imposition of direct colonial controls in the postwar Middle East. European expansion since 1763 » World War II (1939—45) » Africa During World War II Italy lost its entire colonial domain. Ethiopia was restored as an independent empire, and the other colonies eventually came under UN jurisdiction, in the first step toward decolonization in the African continent. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 In the first postwar years there were some prospects that (except in the case of the Indian subcontinent) decolonization might come gradually and on terms favourable to the continued world power positions of the western European colonial nations. After the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu (Vietnam) in 1954 and the abortive Anglo—French Suez expedition of 1956, however, decolonization took on an irresistible momentum, so that by the mid—19703 only scattered vestiges of Europe’s colonial territories remained. The reasons for this accelerated decolonization were threefold. First, the two postwar superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, preferred to exert their might by indirect means of penetration—ideological, economic, and military—often supplanting previous colonial rulers; both the United States and the Soviet Union took up positions opposed to colonialism. Second, the mass revolutionary movements of the colonial world fought colonial wars that were expensive and bloody. Third, the war—weary public of western Europe eventually refused any further sacrifices to maintain overseas colonies. . In general, those colonies that offered neither concentrated resources nor strategic advantages and that harboured no European settlers won easy separation from their overlords. Armed struggle against colonialism centred in a few areas, which mark the real milestones in the history of postwar decolonization. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 » British decolonization, 1945—56 General elections in India in 1946 strengthened the Muslim League. In subsequent negotiations, punctuated by mass violence, the Congress Party leaders finally accepted partition as preferable to civil war, and in 1947 the British evacuated the subcontinent, leaving India and a territorially divided Pakistan to contend with problems of communal strife. Far more damaging to Britain’s world position as a great power was the end of the Palestine mandate. The British would have favoured an Arab state in Palestine, tied to the British system in the Middle East, with Jews as a permanent minority. The Jewish national movement, however, succeeded in making this policy both costly and unpopular; in particular, the US. and Soviet governments began to see a Jewish state in Palestine as a necessary solution to the problem of Europe’s surviving Jewry. All Arab spokesmen expressed intransigent opposition to any two-nation solution. Britain, isolated internationally, threw the problem into the lap of the United Nations; in November 1947 the General Assembly voted for partition. Britain, exhausted both politically and financially, decided to leave by May 15, 1948. The Jewish national movement’s military branch succeeded in defeating the Palestine Arab terrorist and guerrilla bands step by step, and after British evacuation, and the declaration of Israel’s independence, the Arab states in turn suffered a series of military defeats. The new Jewish state, recognized by the United States, the Soviet Union, and France, reached an uneasy armistice with the Arabs in 1949, and Britain’s position in the Middle East began to crumble. The Arab chain reaction against Britain started in Egypt, where in July 1952 a group of army officers seized power. By the end of 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser had induced Britain to accept total withdrawal by June 1956 and set to work to undermine Britain’s position in Iraq and Jordan. In June 1956 the British troops quit Suez on schedule. At that point Britain’s Middle Eastern position, which depended on a chain of bases and friendly governments, was imperiled. Iran had moved close to the United States, warding off Soviet penetration and exprOpriating British oil holdings. Now Cyprus and the Persian Gulf oil ports remained the last outposts under British control in the Middle East. Nasser’s next move was to cut the link between them. On July 26, 1956, he nationalized the Suez Canal Company, ending the last vestiges of European authority over that vital watenNay and precipitating the most serious international crisis of the postwar era. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 » Wars in overseas France, 1945-56 The constitution of the French Fourth Republic provided for token decentralization of colonial rule, and cycles of revolt and repression marked French history for 15 years after the end of World War II. The first colonial war was in Indochina, where a power vacuum, caused by Japan’s removal after wartime occupation, gave a unique opportunity to the Communist Viet Minh. When in 1946 the French Army tried to regain the colony, the Communists, proclaiming a republic, resorted to the political and military strategies of Mao Tse—tung to wear down and eventually defeat France, 32 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism —— Britannica Onlinc Encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/ 126237/Colonialism/25... All chances for maintaining a semicolonial administration in Indochina ended when the Communists won the civil war in China (1949). Eventually, in 1954, when the French engaged the Communist armies in a pitched battle at Dien Bien Phu, the Communists won with the help of new heavy guns supplied by the Chinese. The Fourth Republic left Indochina under the terms of the Geneva Accords (1954), which set up two independent regimes. By 1954 French North Africa was beginning to stir; guerrilla warfare occurred in both Morocco (where the French had deposed and exiled Sultan Muhammad V) and Tunisia. On November 1, 1954, Algerian rebels began a revolt against France in which for the first time urban Muslims and Muslim peasants joined forces. In March 1956 France accorded complete independence to Morocco and Tunisia, while the army concentrated on a “revolutionary” counterinsurgent war in order to hold Algeria, where French rule had solid local support from about a million European settlers. The Muslim rebels depended on help from the Arab world, especially Egypt. Hence the French took the initiative, in October 1956, in forming an alliance with Nasser’s principal adversaries, Britain and Israel, to reclaim the Suez Canal for the West and overthrow the pan-Arab regime in Cairo. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 » The Sinai-Suez campaign (OctobermNovember1956) On October 29, 1956, Israel’s army attacked Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula, and within 48 hours the British and French were fighting Egypt for control of the Suez area. But the Western allies found Egyptian resistance more determined than they had anticipated. Before they could turn their invasion into a real occupation, US. and Soviet pressure forced them to desist (November 7). The Suez campaign was thus a political disaster for the two colonial powers. The events of November 1956 showed the decline of European colonialism to be irreversible. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 » Algeria and French decolonization, from 1956 Between 1956 and 1958 French army commanders in Algeria, politically radicalized, tried to promote a new Franco—Muslim society in preparation for Algeria’s total integration into France. Hundreds of thousands of rural Muslims ‘ were resettled under French military control, Algiers was successfully cleared of all guerrilla cells, French investments in Saharan petroleum grew, and, in a dramatic climax, a coalition of European settlers, colonial troops, and armed forces commanders in May 1958 refused further obedience to the Fourth Republic. Charles de Gaulle, first president of the Fifth Republic, thought that the effort of fighting colonial wars had prevented France from developing nuclear weapons and also came to realize that Algerian Muslims could not be converted to a French identity. He began to negotiate with the rebels; the negotiations culminated in a plebiscite, French evacuation, and proclamation of the independence of Muslim Algeria (July 1962). De Gaulle then proceeded to develop a nuclear striking force as the new foundation of France’s status as a great power. The Fifth Republic moved rapidly toward freeing the colonies of sub—Saharan Africa, and France‘s colonial realm became vestigial and insular. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 » British decolonization after 1956 During the 15 years after the Suez disaster, Britain divested itself of most colonial holdings and abandoned most power positions in Africa and Asia. In 1958 the pro—British monarchy in Iraq fell; during the 19603 Cyprus and Malta became independent; and in 1971 Britain left the Persian Gulf. Of the imperial lifelines, only Gibraltar remains. After 1956 Britain moved rapidly to grant independence to its black African colonies. One British colony, Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), broke away unilaterally in 1965. In Malaya the British fought a successful counterinsurgent war against a predominantly Chinese guerrilla movement and then turned over sovereignty to a federal Malaysian government (1957). In 1971 the Royal Navy left Singapore (an independent state since 1965), thus ending British presence in the Far East except (until 1997) at Hong Kong and (until 1983) at Brunei. Britain’s world position shrank, in effect, to membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Economic Community, with the postcolonial Commonwealth decreasing in importance. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 » Dutch, Belgian, and Portuguese decolonization After World War II the Dutch tried to regain some of their lost control in Indonesia. The Sukarno regime held fast through three years of intermittent war, however, and the Dutch found no allies and no international support. In 1950 Indonesia became a centralized, independent republic. ‘ The Belgian administration in the Congo had never trained even a small number of Africans much beyond the grade—school level. When Britain and France began to divest themselves of their colonies, Belgium was in no position to impose on the Congo a schedule of its own for gradual withdrawal. The abrupt granting of independence to the Belgian Congo in the summer of 1960 led to a series of civil wars, with intervention by the UN, European business interests employing white mercenaries, and other outside forces. In 1965 Joseph Mobutu (later Mobutu Sese Seko) gained control over the central government and created an independent African state; called Zaire from 1971, it was 33 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM colonialism -— Britannica Onlinc Encyclopedia http://www.britannicacom/EBchccked/topic/l26237/col0nialism/25... renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1997. Portugal, in the 20th century the poorest and least developed of the western European powers, was the first nation (with Spain) to establish itself as a colonial power and the last to give up its colonial possessions. ln Portuguese Africa during the authoritarian regime of Anténio de Oliveira Salazar, the settler population had grown to about 400,000. After 1961 pan-African pressures grew, and Portugal found itself mired in a series of colonial wars, while the development of mining in Angola and Mozambique revealed hitherto unknown economic assets. in 1974 the armed forces overthrew the successors to Salazar, and in the unstable political situation it became clear that Portugal would cut its colonial ties to Africa. Portuguese Guinea (Guinea-Bissau) became independent in 1974. In June 1975 Mozambique achieved independence as a people’s republic; in July 1975 3510 Tomé and Principe became an independent republic; and in November of the same year Angola, involved in a civil war between three rival liberation movements, also received sovereignty. European expansion since 1763 » Decolonization from 1945 » Conclusion Historians will long debate the heritage of economic development, mass bitterness, and cultural cleavage that colonialism has left to the world, but the political problems of decolonization are grave and immediate. The international community is laden with minute states unable to secure either sovereignty or solvency and with large states erected without a common ethnic base. The world’s postcolonial areas often have been scenes of protracted and violent conflicts: ethnic, as in Nigeria‘s Biafran war (1967—70); national—religious, as in the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the civil wars in Cyprus, and the clashes between lndia and Pakistan; or purely political, as in the confrontation between Communist and Nationalist regimes in the divided Korean Peninsula. The end of colonialism did not bring with it the spread of new, neatly divided nation-states throughout the world, nor did it abate or ease rivalry between the great powers. Richard A. Webster Additional Reading » General works Theories of imperialism are discussed in J.A. Hobson, Imperialism, 3rd. ed. (1938, reissued 1988); V.|. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, new, rev. trans. (1939, reissued 1988; originally published in Russian, 1917); Joseph A. Schumpeter, Imperialism and Social Classes, ed. by Paul M. Sweezy (1951, reissued 1991; originally published in German, 1919); AP. Thornton, Imperialism in the Twentieth Century (1977); and Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Theories of Imperialism (1980; originally published in German, 2nd ed., 1979). lmmanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World—System (1974— ), sketches the development of the capitalist world economy in a broadly neo-Marxist fashion. Additional Reading » European expansion before 1763 Otto Berkelbach van der Sprenkel et aI., Die L'iberseeische Welt und ihre Erschliessung (1959), is a collaborative work by specialists covering all areas and subjects included here. Romola Anderson and Roger C. Anderson, The Sailing Ship, 2nd ed. (1948, reissued 1980), offers a concise account of sailing technology until the advent of steam. \Mlbur Cortez Abbott, The Expansion of Europe, 2nd rev. ed, 2 vol. (1938), covers colonialism to 1815, with much attention to European backgrounds. J.H. Parry, The Age of Reconnaissance, 2nd ed. (1966, reissued 1981), a history of discovery and conquest to 1650, offers a good scientific and maritime survey. G.V. Scammell, The First Imperial Age: European Overseas Expansion, 0. 1400—1715 (1989), is probably the best one—volume survey of the topic from a European perspective. Louis Hartz, The Founding of New Societies (1964), presents a highly original series of essays on the colonization of Spanish and British America, Canada, and South Africa. Angus Calder, Revolutionary Empire: The Rise of the English-Speaking Empires from the Fifteenth Century to the 17803 (1981), is an excellent source of information and has a first-rate bibliography. K.R. Andrews, N.P. Canny, and P.E.H. Hair (eds), The Westward Enterprise: English Activities in Ireland, the Atlantic, and America, 1480~1 650 (1978), collects essays on a variety of topics that give a good idea of how the rest of the world was perceived by England. Edgar Prestage, The Portuguese Pioneers (1933, reprinted 1967), is a good work in English on Portuguese voyages. C.R. Boxer, The Portuguese Seabome Empire, 1415—1825, 2nd ed. (1991), covers the older Portuguese empire. Roger Bigelow Merriman, The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and the New, 4 vol. (1918434, 34 of 40 5/27/08 11:07 AM ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 18

European Expansion, pp.13-34 - colonialism ——...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 18. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online