Nationalism & imperialismUnit 18: Nationalism and imperialism in the Late Nineteenth Century
FC118Disease and the Decline of the Hapsburg Empire in the Late 1800's
While the multi-ethnic nature of the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires is often cited as the primary reason for their declines in the nineteenth century, other factors also entered into the equation. One factor that seems to have played a major role in determining the nature of Hapsburg rule and society as well as its decline was disease. In order to understand this we need to look at German expansion into Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages.
As the German people expanded into Central and Eastern Europe and established themselves and the ruling class in such areas as Bohemia, they tended to settle and concentrate in towns and cities from which they could rule the countryside. However, both the crowded and unsanitary conditions in cities then led to serious problems with disease. As a result, the ruling German class could rarely sustain its own population, let alone expand its numbers. Fortunately, there was a gradual influx of native Slavic migrants to the cities to replenish their populations. Since this migration was gradual, the ruling German classes could maintain their dominance until these newcomers had absorbed German culture and values, even adopted German names, and been accepted into the ruling classes. For centuries this pattern of gradual absorption of Slavic migrants served to maintain German cultural and political, if not ethnic, dominance of the cities and power in the empire.
However, two things upset this delicate balance in the later 1800's. One was a cholera epidemic that severely depleted the Germanized populations in Hapsburg cities. The other was industrialization, which created a need for a large factory work force. Together these triggered a huge influx of Slavic migrants into the cities. This much larger Slavic population in the cities proved too much for the Germanized ruling classes to absorb as they had before. It also generated a fear that Slavic culture would overwhelm German culture. This created a growing conservative backlash against the Slavs. That in turn led to growing resistance by Slavic nationalist groups against the Germanized ruling classes which merely caused more conservative reactions and so on.
As this cycle repeated itself, Hapsburg society became progressively polarized between the growing restiveness of its Slavic nationalities and ethnic groups on the one hand and the siege mentality of its increasingly isolated and reactionary ruling classes on the other. Therefore, by the early twentieth century, the Hapsburg Empire was on the verge of collapse. World War I would push it over the edge.
FC119Nationalism and its Impact in Europe (1848-1914)
Introduction
As we have seen, the French Revolution and Napoleon spread the ideas of liberalism and nationalism across Europe. These ideas took root and gave rise to several outbreaks of revolution in the 1820's, 1830's, and 1840's, the most severe being the revolutions of 1848. Although most of these revolutions failed, they continued the spread of liberal & nationalist ideas and also gave reformers a more realistic appreciation of what it would take to achieve their goals. The revolutions of 1848 especially influenced the peoples of Eastern Europe under Hapsburg and Ottoman rule as well as the peoples of Italy and Germany in Central Europe.
Eastern Europe
, especially the Balkans in the southeast, saw national independence from foreign rule, rather than national unity, as the critical issue. The spread of nationalist ideas among the various Slavic peoples there after the revolutions of 1848 combined with the steady decay of the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires to create a particularly volatile situation. These generated growing nationalist movements that destabilized the already crumbling Hapsburg and Ottoman empires. To complicate matters even further, Russia became increasingly involved in Balkan politics, posing as the champion of Slavic liberties and nationalism against the Slavs' Turkish and Austrian masters. This heightened tensions between Austria, Turkey, and Russia and would provide the spark to set off World War I.Central Europe
, Germany and Italy in particular, had been broken into numerous states, a situation which had invited centuries of foreign intervention, conquests, and wars in both countries. Here also, the revolutions of 1848 combined with German and Italian frustration over this situation to generate strong sentiments for national unification in both countries. The middle classes in Italy and Germany especially supported national unification by strong governments that could end internal tolls, build national railroads, and support new industries.Both Italy and Germany were lucky to have brilliant prime ministers to lead them through unification: Camillo Cavour for the Italian state of Sardinia and Otto von Bismarck for the German state of Prussia. Both men skillfully combined strong internal developments of their respective states with opportunistic diplomacy and warfare to unify Italy and Germany by 1871. Both nations would also strive to industrialize in the latter 1800's. Germany proved especially successful in this endeavor. However, the presence of two unified nations in place of a multitude of little states, especially that of a strongly industrialized Germany, seriously upset the balance of power in Europe, which would also lead to World War I.
FC120The Unification of Italy (1848-1871)
Italy
had last been unified under the Byzantine emperor, Justinian, some 1300 years before. Since then it had been a patchwork of states under Byzantine, Lombard, Norman, German, French, Spanish, and Austrian rulers. Political fragmentation brought economic and cultural fragmentation as well. Without standard gauges, railroads did not cross state boundaries, while numerous tolls and dialects also hindered trade.Italy's reunification, or Risorgimento (literally meaning resurrection), was largely the work of Camillo Cavour, prime minister of the north Italian state of Sardinia (also known as Piedmont). Although not a fiery or charismatic revolutionary leader, he was a cool and clear-headed diplomat and brilliant organizer, one of those realistic politicians who emerged from the failed revolutions of 1848. Cavour skillfully gathered popular support throughout the peninsula by exploiting Sardinia's position as one of the few native ruled states in Italy.
He also saw that Sardinia must be developed internally before it could make any moves against the Austrians, who controlled most of northern Italy, and the Bourbons, who ruled the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the south. To that end he reorganized Sardinia's treasury, tax system, and bank system, and then got foreign loans, especially from Britain, in order to build railroads and industries. Careful management of these loans allowed him to turn a profit and pay off the loans, thus expanding Sardinia's credit for larger loans to further develop the economy and so on. By the mid 1850's Sardinia was the most highly developed state in Italy.
Cavour was now ready for the diplomatic offensive to unify Italy. His main opponent was Hapsburg Austria, against whom he realized he needed outside help. Oddly enough, in order to get this, he attacked Russia. This was during the Crimean War (1854-56), one of the more senseless and futile conflicts in history. It mainly involved French and British efforts to stop Russian aggression to the south against the Ottoman Turks. The fighting centered in the Crimean peninsula on the Black Sea where the British and French fleets could supply armies by sea better than Russia could supply its troops by land. It was a bloody and diseased affair, but it played into Cavour's hands, because Austria had angered France and Britain by refusing to help them against Russia. By sending Sardinian troops to help the French and British, Cavour won Napoleon III's friendship and the promise of French aid if he could make Austria appear the aggressor in a war.
Cavour had no trouble in stirring up rebellions against Austria and drawing it into attacking Sardinia. In the resulting War of 1859, Napoleon III sent 120,000 French troops to Italy by railroad, the first mass movement of soldiers by rail in history. The French won two battles, but suffered such heavy casualties that Napoleon III quickly pulled out, leaving Sardinia in the lurch. Despite this betrayal, the north and central Italian states of Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and Romagna rebelled against their rulers and unified with Sardinia, giving it about half of Italy's population. Events now moved quickly toward unifying the rest of Italy.
The price of Napoleon's aid against Austria was the transfer of Savoy and Nice to French control. This infuriated Giuseppe Garibaldi, a long time revolutionary leader who was as fiery and impulsive as Cavour was cool and calculating. Garibaldi had led the defense of the Republic of Rome in 1848 against French troops who still occupied it. Now the French were taking over Garibaldi's birthplace of Nice, and he intended to attack them there. But Cavour, still needing French diplomatic support, managed to divert Garibaldi and his army of 1000 "Red Shirts" to Sicily in order to overthrow the Bourbon dynasty. Garibaldi's tiny army met with incredible success and swept the Bourbons from Sicily in six weeks. They then crossed to southern Italy and swept the Bourbons from there as well. Practically overnight, southern Italy and Sicily had been liberated, but the question was for whom: Sardinia, who had sent Garibaldi, or Garibaldi himself who bore the title of dictator of southern Italy and Sicily while still wearing a Sardinian uniform?
Between Sardinia and Garibaldi lay the Papal States and Rome, the spiritual capital of Italy and still under French troops. Napoleon III, much preferring Cavour to Garibaldi, told the Sardinians to take the Papal states before Garibaldi got there, but to leave Rome to the French. Sardinia's king, Victor Emmanuel, did this and moved south to meet Garibaldi. In a dramatic meeting on October 26, 1860, Garibaldi turned his conquests over to Victor Emmanuel. The Kingdom of Italy was born.
Two important pieces of the puzzle remained to complete Italy's unification: Venice and Rome, held by Austria and France respectively. In each case, Italy's alliance with Prussia, then in the process of unifying Germany, proved to be valuable. In 1866, Italy won Venice by helping Prussia against Austria in the Austro-Prussian War. Likewise, Italian help in the Franco-Prussian War earned it Rome (except for the Vatican which remained an independent state inside of Rome). By 1871, Italy was unified.
But, as one politician put it, "Italy is made. We still have to make the Italians." After centuries of disunion huge cultural, political, and economic differences existed in this nation of 22 million people. The biggest gap was between the urban north and agricultural south. The Bourbons in southern Italy and Mafia in Sicily fanned discontent into revolts and violence exceeding that seen in the actual process of unification.
The new government did three things to pull Italy together. It built a national railroad system to physically links its parts. It established a national educational system to give its people a similar cultural outlook and loyalty. And it formed a national army to enforce its policies and also unify men from all over Italy in a common cause. However, 1300 years of disunity were a lot to overcome in a few years, and Italy's efforts at forging a nation met with limited success. Despite this, a patchwork of little Italian states had been unified into a new nation, a nation with ambitions to become a great power. Such ambitions would help lead to World War I.
FC121The Unification of Germany (1848-1871)
Not by speeches and majority resolutions are the great questions of the day decided—that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by blood and iron.— Otto von Bismarck
Germany had been fragmented into as many as 300 separate states ever since the Investiture Struggle in the Middle Ages had wrecked the power of the German emperors. In the following centuries, it had suffered repeatedly from foreign wars and aggression, most recently Napoleon's rule. However, Napoleon had inadvertently done Germany two favors in the process of his rule. Besides instilling a sense of nationalism in its people, he had also consolidated Germany into 38 states, a giant step toward unification. Since Napoleon's defeat two states had competed for leadership of Germany: Austria and Prussia. Most people would have expected Austria, with its longer imperial tradition and larger territory to dominate. But it was Prussia, with its better organization and more progressive reforms (e.g., its customs union known as the Zollverein), which was destined to unify Germany.
The man who would lead Prussia in Germany's unification was its chancellor (prime minister), Otto von Bismarck (1815-94). He was a man of massive size and strength, brilliant mind, and iron will. Childhood stories of Germany's heroes had inspired him with a sense of German nationalism, while stories of foreign conquerors, especially Napoleon, angered him and instilled in him a desire for a unified nation. Bismarck's early career was rather undistinguished, although he did see foreign diplomatic service, which gave him experience in that field. He also witnessed Austrian arrogance toward Prussia in the German Diet (parliament), which set his mind to earn his country respect both inside Germany and outside of it. In 1862, he got his chance.
In 1858, Wilhelm I had succeeded Frederick William IV. The new king wanted to build up and reform the Prussian army. But one obstacle stood in the way: the Prussian Reichstag (parliament), formed as a result of the revolutions of 1848, refused to grant Wilhelm the needed money. In 1862, Wilhelm, on the verge of abdicating, appointed Bismarck as his chancellor.
Bismarck, among other things, was no lover of democracy, including the Prussian Reichstag, which he said bogged itself down in speeches and resolutions. He believed only clear-sighted decisive policies of "blood and iron" could build a German nation. He figured that once the nation was successfully built, German liberals, inspired by the reality of the long sought for German nation, would come around to his way of thinking. Therefore, he simply ruled without parliament and rammed through his own reforms. Prussia got its army and Bismarck could now turn to unifying Germany. Bismarck was an excellent diplomat who brilliantly manipulated alliances and played different powers off against one another. He was also a master of limited objectives, using each diplomatic step to set up the next one. He started with a revolt in Poland.
The Polish revolt against Russia in 1863 gained a great deal of popular support in Europe. But Bismarck was more interested in power than popular support (unless it was a means to gaining power). He clearly saw that the Czar would put down the revolt, and therefore helped Russia in crushing the rebels. This secured his eastern flank and gained an ally against Austria who had refused to help Russia in the Crimean War even after Russia had helped the Hapsburgs suppress their uprisings in 1848.
With his eastern border secure, Bismarck next championed the liberties of Germans in Schleswig and Holstein, whose Danish ruler was incorporating them more tightly into the Danish state. The resulting Danish War (1864) accomplished three things for Bismarck. First of all, it won him useful popular support among the Germans since he appeared to be defending German liberties. Secondly, it gave the reformed Prussian army valuable combat experience. Finally, it dragged Austria into the war on Prussia's side, since it could not afford to let Prussia be the sole champion of German liberties. This served Bismarck's purpose, since it got Prussia and Austria hopelessly entangled by their joint occupation of Schleswig and Holstein and helped set up a showdown between the two powers: the Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Bismarck laid the diplomatic groundwork for this war with typical thoroughness. Russia, already Prussia's friend and still mad at Austria, was effectively neutral, which suited Bismarck fine. Bismarck kept France out of the war by making vague promises of Rhineland territories if he won. And Italy, wanting to get Venice into its fold, allied against the common Austrian enemy. Prussia's military preparations were equally thorough. The Prussian army was better trained, organized and equipped than the Austrian army. A new breech loading rifle, the "needle gun", gave Prussian soldiers four times the firepower of their Austrian counterparts. A combination of using Prussia's railroad system for rapid movement of its armies with the telegraph to coordinate those movements allowed the Prussians to converge at the point of attack with unprecedented precision and overwhelming force. As a result, the Seven Weeks War, as this was also known, was a rapid and total victory for Prussia, in stark contrast to the drawn out conflict of the Seven Years War a century earlier
Bismarck's settlement looked forward to the eventual unification of Germany. His treatment of Austria was fairly lenient, taking only Venice and giving it, as promised, to Italy. But he also excluded Austria from German affairs, thus clearing the way for Prussian dominance. For Prussia itself, he took Schleswig and Holstein as well as the lands dividing Prussia from its holdings along the Rhine in the West. Bismarck also unified the north German states into a confederation under Prussian leadership, while expecting the south German states to follow Prussia's leadership in war. The confederation was organized along democratic lines to gain popular support, but the real power rested with the Prussian king and chancellor.
Bismarck's next move was to galvanize German support against a common enemy. He found that cause by going to war with France. Napoleon III of France had his motives for war as well. Sagging popularity at home and concern over Prussia's growing power helped drive him on a collision course with Bismarck that erupted into the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1). Once again, Bismarck had laid firm diplomatic foundations. Russia was still Prussia's friend. Italy allied with Prussia in order to get Rome out of French hands. Austria, still licking its wounds from its recent struggle with Prussia, was neutralized. The one big question mark was: what would Britain do? Bismarck took care of that by taking out a full-page ad in the London Times claiming France wanted to annex Belgium. Public opinion was outraged and Britain left France to its fate.
Few people then would have given Prussia any chance to beat the French, anyway, since France was still considered the foremost military power in Europe. The Franco-Prussian War proved that assumption wrong. Prussian training, equipment, leadership, and organization quickly smashed French armies in rapid succession. Within six weeks the Prussians had surrounded Napoleon III’s army at Sedan. After a day of desperate but suicidal assaults against the Prussian positions, Napoleon III was forced to surrender along with 120,000 men. The French mounted sporadic local resistance, especially in Paris whose besieged inhabitants survived on elephant meat from the zoo. In the end, it was too little too late and France had to ask for terms.
The Prussian victory had two main results. First of all, Prussia annexed Alsace and Lorraine, a bone of contention between the two countries since the Treaty of Verdun in 843 A.D. This alone was enough to spark French bitterness. Secondly, Bismarck officially unified Germany by declaring the Second Reich (German Empire) and crowning Wilhelm as Kaiser (literally Caesar or emperor). Not only that, he did this at Versailles, for 200 years the symbol of French power and now the symbol of its humiliation. This newly unified Germany would become an economic superpower by rapidly industrializing. For example, German steel production doubled every decade between 1870 and 1910, even passing British steel production after 1900. Both Prussia's treatment of France and its unification and industrialization of Germany would upset the balance of power and trigger a system of interlocking alliances that kept Europe on a knife-edge of readiness for a war that nearly everyone expected to break out. That war, World War I, would be the beginning of the end of European supremacy.
Internally, Germany between 1870 and 1914 presented a picture of seemingly incompatible contrasts. While its economy forged ahead to make it the most advanced nation in Europe, its political structure resisted any liberalizing trends and remained conservative and autocratic. Likewise, it maintained an increasingly obsolete social structure of rich landowners who had mechanized their farms at the expense of the peasants and even richer capitalists making profits at the expense of a downtrodden working class and shrinking class of small shopkeepers and craftsmen. As the social and political systems lagged behind economic progress, tensions in the form of growing opposition parties (including socialists), protests, and strikes emerged more and more. Discontent was partially diverted away from the government by being focused against such groups as Catholics, socialists, and especially Jews. This and World War I only put off resolving these tensions. Unfortunately, the banner of discontent would be picked up by Adolph Hitler and the Nazis whose terrorist programs would plunge both Germany and the world into a much worse nightmare than even World War I proved to be.
FC122European Imperial Expansion in Africa (c.1870-1914)
Whatever happens we have got/The Maxim gun and they have not.— 19th century European poem
Introduction
Ever since the rise of a capitalist economy and strong nation states armed with efficient military machines (c.1500), Europe had steadily extended its power across the globe. By 1800, European and European derived colonies had extended the dominance of European culture over 35% of the globe. Up until this point, the usual explanation for European expansion was the "three G's": God, gold, and glory. Colonies in South America provided gold and silver. Those in the Caribbean produced sugar, a virtual "white gold", for European markets. West African colonies provided slaves for the Caribbean sugar plantations. And the North American colonies and India provided their governments with markets and raw materials.
In the nineteenth century the nature and motives for colonial imperialism changed dramatically. As with the Industrial Revolution, Britain also led the way in the late nineteenth century in a new wave of expansion (known as neo-imperialism) that would put European civilization in control of 85% of the globe. The classic argument explaining this phenomenon has focused on the Industrial Revolution's growing need for new resources and markets. However, this oversimplifies the case. If one looks at where European colonies expanded, in particular in Africa, one sees little economic sense in doing so. Instead, there were three interrelated causes driving Europeans to go out and virtually conquer the globe: growing economic competition as the industrial revolution spread, internal political stresses caused by industrialization, and rising international rivalries.
-
Economic causes. The 1860's were an economically unsettled time that came to a head with a depression in 1873. While all industrial countries were hurt, Britain especially was feeling the pinch. Its reliance on raw materials was damaging its balance of trade. And it was facing growing competition from newly industrializing nations, especially Germany, who had newer factories and cheaper labor.
-
Internal political stresses. Economic changes have always caused political problems, and Europe in the late 1800's was no exception. Britain in particular was seeing a transformation of the relatively unified political party system of the pre-industrial era into a more fragmented patchwork of special interest groups: labor unions, land owners, bankers, industrialists, etc. Politicians were desperate for some new cause or ideology to unify the voters behind them.
-
International tensions. In 1871 the fragile balance of power in Europe had been radically altered by the emergence of a strongly unified Germany and Italy, the equally destabilizing process of the rapid disintegration of Ottoman power in southeastern Europe and the Middle East, and the growing rebelliousness in Ireland against British rule. The British public was especially upset by these challenges to the stability of the world they had known and by Britain's apparent inability to act effectively.
Therefore, Benjamin Disraeli, British prime minister in the 1870's, first pushed the idea of renewed imperial expansion as a way to protect vital British overseas markets, resources and jobs, enhance Britain's national prestige, and give it an edge against other European countries without colonies. Never mind the fact that these arguments were grossly exaggerated if not downright false. The lure of new markets was especially misleading since there were often few consumers in Africa and Asia who could even afford European goods. Granted, as Europe's industries diversified in the late 1800's, there was a growing need for certain resources not found in Europe, such as oil, rubber, and non-ferrous metal. However, many of the resources sought by Europeans were unnecessary luxury or consumer items like bananas, coffee, and African palm oil for soap. Despite that, Disraeli had found one issue he could exploit in order to unify the British voters behind him. The British public and even Queen Victoria (who was also Empress of India) came to believe in the need for colonies.
Of course, opposing politicians could not let Disraeli monopolize the imperialism issue and leave them in his dust. Conservatives and liberals alike also pushed for imperial expansion. Justifying these wholesale conquests was easy enough. Britons saw themselves as bringing the benefits of Christianity and European civilization to less developed peoples. The new ideas of Darwinism, in particular "survival of the fittest", were adapted, or distorted, into Social Darwinism. This claimed that human societies, just like some animals, are better adapted to survive than others. Therefore, it was the "white man's burden" to bring his superior civilization to the inferior cultures of Africa and Asia. Social Darwinism was really little more than a polite or pseudo-scientific term for racism.
The "Dark Continent"
Before 1870 Europeans had made little headway into Africa, either as conquerors or explorers, mainly because of their lack of resistance to the area's tropical diseases. This left Africa in a shroud of mystery that earned it the title of the "Dark Continent". After 1870, Europeans made rapid inroads into Africa thanks to the industrial revolution which gave them two new weapons: vaccines for combating the diseases and rifles and machine guns for combating the African natives.
Three lines of development got Europeans interested in Africa and triggered a virtual land rush there. First of all was a highly publicized expedition by the journalist, Henry Stanley to find the explorer David Livingston who had been missing for some time. Stanley's best selling account, mostly remembered for the quotation, "Dr. Livingston, I presume", especially interested King Leopold of Belgium who ruthlessly conquered and exploited the Congo (modern Zaire).
The other two lines of development concerned British expansion into Egypt and South Africa. In Egypt, the ruler's lavish lifestyle led to a growing debt and the eventual takeover of his shares of the Suez Canal by British bankers. The loss of revenue from the canal further disrupted Egypt's stability. Therefore, in order to protect the Suez Canal from native revolution, the British government took over Egypt in the 1880's. Control of Egypt led to near hysteria over the outlandish possibility that the government in Sudan could cut off the source of the Nile and turn Egypt into a desert. As a result, the British also conquered Sudan.
Britain had taken over South Africa from the Dutch in 1815 to secure their route to India. The Dutch settlers (known as Boers) were unhappy with Britain's abolition of slavery in 1832 and trekked inland to settle the Orange Free State and Transvaal. The Boers were left alone until the discovery of diamonds and gold prompted a rush of British prospectors into the Boer territories. Growing friction between the Boers and these newcomers eventually caused the British to take over the Boer Republic of Transvaal in order to protect British business interests there. This got the British into hostilities with various native peoples, most notably the Zulus. After some hard fighting, including the massacre of one British army by the Zulus and a desperately fought guerrilla war against the Dutch Boers at the turn of the century, the British successfully occupied the area.
In each case, one can see how involvement in one area led to involvement in other areas and so on. Even more important was that growing British colonial power alarmed other industrializing nations who wanted their own colonies so they could keep up with Britain. Therefore, Disraeli's strategy to mobilize British public opinion also dragged other European countries with economic and political problems similar to Britain's into imperial expansion. The result was a virtual scramble for colonies in Africa and Asia.
The German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, held the Congress of Berlin in 1884 to establish the ground rules for all the imperialist powers involved in this land rush. (No Africans or Asians were invited.) The participants agreed to give prior notice before claiming a new colony. However, mutual distrust between the European powers often led them to be more secretive and sneaky in claiming new colonies.
As stated above, largely the same forces drove the other powers in their grab for colonies as drove Britain: a feeling of economic vulnerability that colonies would magically cure, a fear that other powers would get a head start in claiming colonies, and a need to unify the voters behind a common cause. Each country also had its own particular set of circumstances to drive it along.
In Germany, Bismarck saw colonies as more of a nuisance and drain of resources. However, the new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, fired Bismarck in 1890 and pursued an aggressive policy of building an empire (and navy to protect it) in order to claim "Germany's place in the sun. There was also concern about the emigration of Germans to non-German areas, especially America. German colonies would provide homes for emigrants and enclaves of German culture across the globe. France felt the need for a unifying cause after the humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and the unsettling economic conditions brought on by depression and huge war indemnities to Germany. Colonies would enhance its national prestige and also give it some leverage for future revenge against Germany. Italy, also newly unified in 1871, was still much more politically fragmented and economically undeveloped than Germany. Colonies would provide some focus for national pride and unity.
The partitioning of Africa was one of history's more brutal and insensitive episodes. Europeans came in and carved up Africa along arbitrary boundaries that split some tribes up and threw others together. Europeans legitimized this by having the Africans sign treaties that they did not understand the meaning of. They also used forced labor to build railroads, etc., killing thousands in the process. By 1914, practically all of Africa had fallen prey to European aggression.
The impact of neo-imperialism
was generally negative. For one thing, European colonial boundaries often cut across old tribal boundaries or combined peoples of different (and hostile) tribes. Even after liberation from European rule, the old colonial boundaries remained to further disrupt traditional patterns of life. This mess is still being sorted out today, a continuing legacy of European rule. There was also the humiliation and suffering colonial peoples were subjected to. While Europeans did work to abolish slavery, they still killed thousands through forced labor (slavery by another name) in order to complete their building projects and bring the "benefits" of European civilization to Africa.There was also the issue of imposing European culture upon native peoples because it was supposedly superior. For example, Europeans would impose their agricultural techniques on Africans and, in the process, ruined the soil, which was better suited for the traditional slash and burn agriculture. They would teach African school children poems about daffodils, even though there were no daffodils in Africa. In the end, this cultural policy backfired against Europeans. Many colonial subjects went to Europe to get college educations and brought back the dangerous ideas of liberalism, nationalism, and Marxism. That, combined with the fact that many colonials served in European armies and had picked up on European firearms technology, helped lead to the ultimate downfall of the European colonial empires.
Even for the European powers, colonies were often more of a liability than an asset. For one thing, many colonies cost more to rule than they brought back in revenues and resources. Second, as the number of available places to take over decreased by 1900, tensions rose between the European powers wanting to take those places. True, by 1914, European or European derived powers controlled 85% of the globe and were definitely sitting on top of the world. But the beginning of the end was near as the specter of the First World War loomed on the horizon.
FC123British Rule in India (c.1600-1947)
Introduction
It has been said that the British Empire was picked up in a "fit of absence of mind." Nowhere was this more true than in the case of India which gradually came under British rule, not by the efforts of Britain's government, but by those of the British East Indies Company, founded in 1599 by a group of merchants in search of nothing more than "quiet trade." However, circumstances would thwart these peaceful intentions, and over the next 250 years the British would find themselves more and more in the role of conquerors and governors than traders. Not only would the British have a profound effect on India's history, but the "crown jewel of the British Empire" would also affect Western Civilization. This is reflected in such English words as bungalow, verandah, punch, dungarees, and pajamas, such customs as smoking cigars, playing polo, and taking showers, as well as more profound influences in the realms of religion and philosophy.
Company expansion (1601-1773)
Two main lines of development worked to bring the British East Indies Company to India and make it a power there. For one thing, by 1600, Portugal was losing control of the East Asian Spice trade. Therefore, in 1601, the British East Indies Company started sending ships to the Spice Islands to gain a share of this trade. At this point, there was no intention of even going to India, let alone of conquering it, since the Mughal Dynasty had a firm grip on the subcontinent. However, the Dutch also had designs on the spice trade and rebuffed any British efforts to take part in it. As a result, the British East Indies Company gained the right to set up trading posts along the coast of India. Later, some of these trading posts would grow into major cities such as Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta.
The other factor pushing the British East Indies Company toward conquest had to do with the Mughal Empire. This dynasty had ruled most of India peacefully and tolerantly for a century since the 1500's. However, during the reign of Aurangzeb (1658-1707) all that changed as he started persecuting Hindus. Not only did this trigger centuries of religious strife that still continues, it also began the decline of the Mughal Empire, which suffered from weak and corrupt government from this time on. The resulting turmoil forced the British East Indies Company to defend its trading posts against local princes, brigands, and a new European intruder, France.
The French, to compensate for the lack of European manpower so far from home, initiated the strategy of training and arming native recruits ( sepoys) like European armies. Such forces were so effective that local princes would trade large tracts of land for French trained sepoys, thus giving the French control over much of Southern India. In response to this new threat, the British responded in kind by training their own sepoys. By the end of the Seven Years War (1756-63), British naval superiority and sepoys under the leadership of Robert Clive had virtually ended French involvement in India. Clive dramatically demonstrated the effectiveness of European trained sepoys at the battle of Plassey (1757) when his army of 2800 British soldiers and sepoys routed a Bengali army of 100,000 men. Clive's victories over the Bengalis and French made the British East Indies Company a major power in India, able to install its own candidate on the Mughal throne and claim the wealthy province of Bengal for itself. British dominance resulting from these victories had three main effects.
First, British power, plus the fact that their "honorable masters" in England were 7000 miles and nine months travel away, left India wide open to exploitation by the company and its employees. Many British took full advantage of the opportunity to "shake the pagoda tree", as they called the collection of "gifts" from grateful local princes ( nawabs). While a noble in Britain could live well on £800 a year, even minor company employees were making huge fortunes. One merchant was given a profitable saltworks with 13,000 employees while another was given his own mint. A certain Mr. Watts was awarded £117,000 for bravery at the battle of Plassey. And Clive himself received £211,500 for installing one nawab and another £27,000 a year from another grant. Such opportunities for making quick fortunes unleashed a flood of applicants back home for service in India, some applications being accompanied with bribes of up to £2000. Newcomers from England were often shocked when first encountering their colleagues already in India, since they typically mixed freely with the natives and had adopted their customs, food, and clothing. Service in India had its risks for the British, mainly tropical heat and diseases. As one local proverb put it, "Two monsoons is the age of a man," indicating that few Europeans survived conditions in India more than two years. Bombay was known as "the burying ground of the British".
Growing parliamentary control and rising tensions (1778-1857)
However, while company employees who survived service in India were making their fortunes, the company's loose management was costing it a fortune, forcing it to apply to the Bank of England for a loan in 1773 in order to avoid bankruptcy. As a result, Parliament exercised increasing control over the company, establishing governors-general to oversee its activities. This led to a succession of governors with different attitudes and policies. While some governors, such as Warren Hastings (ruled 1778-88) were known for their tolerance of and willingness to learn about the native languages and cultures and to give Indians posts in their government. However, other governors, such as Lord Cornwallis (1788-98), reversed many of these tolerant policies and dismissed most native Indians from higher posts in the administration. Getting into the nineteenth century, tensions grew between two factions: one advocating tolerance and respect for Indian culture and another claiming the superiority of European civilization over that of India. This created a growing gap between the British and Indians that also fostered growing discontent.
Two other developments in the 1800s led to growing unrest among Indians. One was the growing number of Christian missionaries coming to India to preach Christianity, which clashed with the more flexible beliefs of the Hindu majority and the strong beliefs of Indian Muslims. Secondly, the British were bringing in modern technology (especially railroads) and business methods, which disrupted the traditional, slower paced culture and economy of India.
Things came to a head with the Great India Mutiny in 1857. Sparking it was a misunderstanding about what kind of grease was used on the bullets for the sepoys' new Enfield rifles. Muslim troops thought pig grease, which they abhor, was being used, while Hindu troops thought the British were using grease from cows, which they hold sacred. The resulting mutiny developed into a serious rebellion that the British finally managed to put down. However, this was the final straw as far as the British government was concerned, assuming direct control over India in 1858 and eventually dissolving the British East Indies Company. Just as one British queen, Elizabeth I had signed the charter forming the British East Indies Company some 260 years earlier, so another queen, Victoria, signed it into extinction. Ironically, its career had started with a group of merchants in search of nothing more than "quiet trade." For the next ninety years, direct British rule would prevail in India.
From the British Raj to independence (1858-1947)
Britain ruled about 60% of Indian directly and the other 40% indirectly through native princes who followed British policies. During their time in India, the British developed tea and cotton agriculture and coal and iron industries. In fact, by 1940, the Tata Iron Works was the world's largest Iron factory. Likewise, the British continued developing India's infrastructure with more railroads and telegraph lines, so that by 1900 India had the longest railroad in Asia. British administration and bureaucracy were efficient, as was the British style education system Britain established.
However, even these developments contained the seeds of problems for British rule. As before, the new industries, railroads, and telegraphs, however progressive they may have seemed to the British, disrupted the traditional culture and economy of India. By the same token, however efficient the bureaucracy was, there were large gaps between the higher ranking British and lower ranking Indians that carried over to society in general. Increasingly, Indians were getting tired of their second-class status and worked increasingly for independence.
The Indian National Congress, founded in 1885, led the independence movement. At first, its goal was to gain more rights for Indians and more say in the British administration. However, as its power grew in the twentieth century, it agitated increasingly for complete independence. This led to a parallel, but somewhat separate independence movement of Muslims in India who feared being a minority in a Hindu-dominated state. Therefore, they wanted a separate independent Muslim state in the northwest.
World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45) further catalyzed India’s push for independence, since Britain had to rely heavily on Indian recruits to fill its ranks. In return, Britain promised more political concessions, thus weakening its hold on India, encouraging more demand by Indians, and so on.
In 1920, a new leader, Mohandas Gandhi emerged as the voice of the Indian National Congress. Educated in both traditional Indian culture and British schools, Gandhi developed very effective non-violent tactics of resistance while protesting British policies. The British, not wanting to risk the bad publicity a violent reaction could generate, had to give in to Gandhi time after time. Therefore, at the end of World War II, Britain promised independence for India. Unfortunately, this revived the issue of whether there would be one large Hindu-dominated state or a separate Muslim state in the North, leading to violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims broke out. Finally, in 1947 Britain the region between Hindu India in the South and Muslim Pakistan in the Northwest that also controlled a separate territory, Bangla Desh, in the Northeast. Despite heroic efforts to keep the peace by Gandhi (who was killed by one of his Hindu followers in 1947), tensions between Hindus and Muslims have continued to the present day and still threaten the peace and stability of South Asia.
FC124The Decline of Imperial China (c.1800-1911)
Introduction
The 1800's were not kind to China. Whereas geographic and technological limitations had once kept China fairly isolated from the rest of the world, other forces, in particular the Industrial Revolution then sweeping Europe and America, were closing in to wrench China out of its self-imposed isolation. As in India, the British East Indies Company would lead this intrusion on China's privacy.
The Opium War and its aftermath (1839-64)
In the early 1800's, China, by its own design, was still largely cut off from trade with the outside world. All trade with Europe was channeled through one port, Canton. Even there, Europeans could only trade through specially designated Chinese agents known as co-hong. Several Chinese products, such as silk and porcelain, were in high demand in Europe, but the most popular trade item in the early 1800's was tea, consumption of which increased by a factor of 30 times between 1720 and 1830. Unfortunately, the tea trade led to a serious drain of silver from Britain. The British East India Company, desperate for something to offset this trade imbalance, found such a commodity in opium, which not only upset China's balance of trade, but the stability of its whole society.
Two other factors revolving around the differing philosophical outlooks of these two cultures added to the growing tensions. First of all, they had two very different attitudes toward trade. On the one hand, the Chinese government viewed trade as a monopoly controlled through its agents, in this case the co-hong. Up until the 1800's, this was not such a problem, since most Europeans traded under the mercantilist system that also exercised strong government controls. However, by the 1830's, the British were leading the way in the Industrial Revolution and were pushing for a free trade system known as laissez faire ("hands off") that would give their manufactured goods an edge against the more expensive handmade goods their foreign competition was producing. Secondly, there was the relative status of the two nations. The Chinese traditionally saw themselves as the Middle Kingdom and all other peoples as inferior barbarians. Any goods brought as gifts to the Chinese court were interpreted as tribute that they may or may not graciously acknowledge. By contrast, the British had a strong democratic tradition that refused to recognize another nation's superiority.
All these economic and philosophical tensions came to a head when the Chinese government had 20,000 chests of the British East India Company's opium burned. This threatened the tea trade, in which the British government had a vested interest, since it charged a 100% customs toll on tea coming into Britain. The result was the First Opium War (1839-42) between Britain and China. The British navy, with its modern weaponry, quickly and easily won a decisive victory. The resulting Treaty of Nanjing (1842) gave the British access to trade through five ports, control of Hong Kong, a huge indemnity from the Chinese government to cover the cost of the war, and abolition of the co-hong (merchant guild) system. It also forced China to accept other countries on equal terms, which was a terrible blow to its pride. Finally, the Chinese gentry now assumed the task of quelling any rebellions, which led to the buildup of regional warlords who would be a serious problem in years to come.
Britain's privileged status triggered a rush by other nations such as France, Russia, Germany and Japan to force China to grant similar treaties that gave three main concessions. First of all, they wanted most favored nation status, which automatically gave them all privileges that any other nation had from China. Second, they wanted extraterritoriality, which allowed their citizens to live under their own laws even when in China, thus making them virtually immune from Chinese justice. In fact, any cases involving a European and a Chinese person were to be tried under the European system. Finally, Europeans could recover any debts that the Chinese government owed them by collecting China's customs dues and other taxes if the customs dues were not enough.
The First Opium War and its aftermath unleashed a vicious cycle that would eventually lead to the fall of the monarchy. China's decline would invite either a disastrous war or intervention in a revolt to push or preserve foreign interests. This would cause many Chinese to wake up to the need for reform. However, the Chinese hatred for foreign barbarian ways would trigger a conservative reaction against the reforms, leading to further decay, and so on. This cycle would repeat itself three times, being triggered by the Taiping Rebellion, war with Japan, and the Boxer Rebellion.
Two other factors would aggravate this cycle even further. For one thing, the introduction of new crops from the Americas and a well-regulated agriculture under the Ming Dynasty had caused China's population to expand to 400,000,000, putting a tremendous strain on China's ability to support itself. Secondly there was the government's recent failure to maintain the flood control projects, which had unleashed terrible floods and food shortages on China.
All of these factors triggered the Taiping Rebellion (1850-64), a peasant revolt started by a frustrated scholar, Hong Xiuchuan who claimed he was the brother of Jesus Christ. Hong inspired his followers with a revolutionary fervor that banned alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, held property in common, and called for the equality of all, including women. His movement swept over much of China before the government finally crushed it with foreign help. The Taiping rebellion was typical of any number of peasant revolts throughout Chinese history in its revolutionary and religious vision of a new world. It was also terribly destructive, probably killing even more people than World War I. Adding to China's misery during this chaos was the Second Opium War (1858-60). This war, fought with Britain and France for the flimsiest of reasons, saw the brutal sack of the Summer Palace in Peking by British colonial troops from India. It is from this event that the Bengali word "loot" entered our language.
Faced with these overwhelming problems from both within and without, a two-fold program of reform emerged. On the one hand, Chinese scholars tried to revive and stress the old Confucian virtues. However, they also tried to adapt Western technology in order to control the Western "barbarians". This sparked serious debates about how feasible it was for China to be able to adapt Western technology while maintaining the purity of Chinese culture, for the Chinese still despised Western ways as barbaric. Whatever their doubts, reformers set up several factories producing such things as weapons, ammunition, steamships, and textiles. They built railroads and telegraph lines which peasants often tore down since they disrupted the natural harmony of the countryside. The Chinese government even bought one railroad and tore it up for such a reason.
However, several factors seriously limited the extent of China's modernization. In contrast to Japan, which was successfully industrializing in the late 1800's, there was no real central direction to coordinate these efforts. Rather, provincial officials on a local level did them. Also, the influx of Western "barbarians" created a good deal of bitterness against the West and a reluctance to conform to its ways. At the same time, they plunged China further into debt making it more difficult for the Chinese to fund any modernization programs.
Therefore, China saw little progress toward modernization, especially after the rise to power of the dowager empress, Cixi, who ran China's policies for her weak son and nephew (1875-1908). Cixi especially resisted foreign influence and modernization, preferring to spend money on her palace and lavish lifestyle. As a result, by the 1890's, China was more vulnerable than ever to foreign powers carving out spheres of influence. Under this system, the dominant power in that sphere controlled the economy through such things as collecting taxes and constructing railroads and telegraph wires, while still leaving administrative duties and expenses to local Chinese officials. This allowed the various powers to drain China of money without having to assume the more burdensome responsibilities of government.
However, what really shook China out of its lethargy was a war with Japan, which had successfully modernized in reaction to the West over the past 40 years. This clash, known as the Sino-Japanese War (1894-5) was fought over control of Korea. To everyone's shock, the Japanese navy soundly defeated the Chinese navy and claimed Korea, Taiwan, and a huge indemnity as the price of victory.
Such a humiliating defeat sparked a new movement among Chinese scholars for widespread reforms. This movement was popularly referred to as the Hundred Days Reform because the dowager empress, Cixi, quickly squelched it. As a result, China's problems continued mounting until they triggered another revolt, the Boxer Rebellion (1898-1900). The rebels, fighting under the banner of the Righteous and Harmonious Fists, believed they had magical powers to resist enemy bullets. While their revolt was initially aimed against the government, the empress skillfully turned it against foreign influence. The result was a siege of the foreign embassies in Beijing that was finally broken up by an international force led by the Japanese. Such intervention was not without its price, as China was forced to pay a heavy indemnity for all the recent troubles to the foreign powers.
The renewed humiliation caused by the Boxer Rebellion revived calls for reforms, this time with more success. Between 1900 and 1910, more modern ministries were formed, the old Confucian based civil service exams were abolished, provincial assemblies with the semblance of democracy were established, and a new law code was introduced. More modern schools were set up, while many young Chinese students studied abroad in the West, both of which spread the Western ideas of democracy and nationalism among Chinese intellectuals. Unfortunately, such reforms only raised expectations of more reforms, and a revolution in 1911 overthrew the monarchy and established a republic in its place. However, China's problems were far from over. Almost from the start, the new republic was doomed by the lack of a healthy economy and educated middle class, elements necessary to sustain any strong democracy. As a result, the next 40 years would see China embroiled in two world wars, civil war, and revolution.
FC125The Emergence of Modern Japan (1868-1937)
Decline of the Tokugawa Shogunate
In the early 1800's the peace and stability of Tokugawa rule came unraveled, leading to a period of turmoil and then restructuring from which a modernized and revitalized Japan would emerge. Several forces combined to generate these changes. First, 200 years of peace and being disarmed by the Tokugawa government undermined the power and even the reason for the existence of the Samurai. Second, the encroachment of the British into China and the ensuing Opium Wars led many Japanese to worry about the threat of encroachment on their shores and the ability of the Shogunate to deal with it. Finally, a series of bad harvests in the 1830's triggered inflation, disease, and unrest in Japan. The result of these various forces was a struggle between traditional isolationists who wanted to keep Japan cut off from the outside world and reformers who wanted to open it to the West and institute reforms to shore up the declining shogunate.
However, before Japan could come to a firm policy one way or another, the West intervened to decide the issue. The United States, by taking California in the Mexican War (1846-8), had become a Pacific power practically overnight. In 1853, a flotilla of American warships commanded by Commodore Perry delivered a conciliatory letter from the president to the Japanese head of state and a more belligerent letter written by Perry himself. The gist of Perry's message was that Japan had better open its doors to the West or the United States would kick down those doors and force Japan to trade.
The Tokugawa Shogunate, seeing Japan was no match for the United States, capitulated when Perry returned the next year. The immediate results for Japan, and especially its government, were disastrous. With the Americans came an influx of Mexican silver, which triggered more inflation. A cholera epidemic also hit at this time. These, plus the humiliation this situation brought to the Tokugawa Shogunate, caused its fall in 1868.
The Meiji Restoration (1868-c.1890)
Replacing the shogunate was the restored imperial court under the emperor Matsuhito, called Meiji ("enlightened rule"). The Meiji regime would oversee the transformation of Japan from a largely feudal and agrarian state into a powerful industrial nation. This is often seen as a reaction to and imitation of industrial state building in Western Europe, in particular that of Germany. While this is partially true, Japan during the Tokugawa period had developed in ways that prepared it for the Meiji reforms. For one thing, the Tokugawa Shogunate had maintained a unified Japan for over 200 years, thus helping create a Japanese nation. Also, during this time a strong middle class had evolved along with the financial techniques needed to adapt to industrial capitalism.
As a result, Japan was able to make the transition to an industrial nation state while maintaining its own unique Japanese values of loyalty to the group and the emperor. For example, the Japanese corporation that evolved during this period can largely be seen as an updated version of the paternalistic feudal state, where the workers (peasants) owe lifelong loyalty and service to the company (lord) in return for its protection of their welfare. Japan's transformation into a major power can be seen as taking place in three successive stages: political and social reforms, industrial and military reforms, and early expansion.
Japan went through several Western-style political and social reforms to create the conditions conducive to industrial and military modernization while maintaining a distinctive Japanese character. In order to destroy Japan's feudal structure, the Meiji government replaced Japan's old provinces with seventy-two modern districts. As in the West, all class distinctions were abolished. This especially hurt the Samurai who now were even forbidden to wear their swords or distinctive hairdos. Public education became mandatory for all boys and girls in order to create an educated work force and instill a spirit of nationalism in them. A European style parliament was formed, but like its German model, it had little real power. The emperor kept his exalted position while Shinto was made the state religion, both of these providing points of focus for Japanese national loyalty.
With the political and social reforms in place, the Meiji government proceeded to industrialize Japan, concentrating on heavy and strategic industries: railroads, the merchant marine, mining, modern agricultural techniques, munitions, and the navy. However, Japan had no large-scale capitalists. Therefore, the government, in keeping with Japan's paternalistic tradition, paid for these industries and then sold them at low cost to a few private investors. These new capitalists, called the Zaibatsu ("money clique"), would come to control 70% of Japan's bank deposits and heavily influence government policies, much as the daimyo (feudal lords) had done in previous times. Thus began the long-time alliance of government and big business, which is still a predominant feature of Japan today. One other reform was that of the military. In 1873 the government began universal conscription, which deprived the Samurai of their privileged position as the warrior class. This triggered a Samurai revolt. Surprisingly, the conscripts fought well and crushed the revolt, thus destroying the samurai's aura of invincibility.
Japan's quest for empire
By 1890, Japan had largely industrialized and was ready to look outward to protect what it saw as its interests. In a series of three conflicts, the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, and World War I, Japan emerged as a major power. Its first concern was Korea, the closest part of the Asian mainland to Japan and which Japan had claimed since the 1500's. The other primary contender for control of Korea was China to the north. In the ensuing war, known as the Sino-Japanese War (1894-5), Japan's modernized army made short work of the outdated Chinese forces, taking Taiwan and establishing its influence over Korea. In addition, this further weakened China's government and helped lead to a revolution in 1911 and eventually to the Communist revolution and victory in 1949.
More shocking was Japan's unlikely victory over the Russian army and navy in the Russo-Japanese War (1903-5). This gave Japan the Liaotang Peninsula and even tighter influence over Korea, which it finally annexed in 1910. It also triggered a revolution in Russia, which, although unsuccessful, helped lead to the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the triumph of the Communists there.
During World War I Japan declared war on Germany, easily taking its possessions in East Asia. However, China, also on the allied side in the war, had claims over those territories. Japan emerged the winner in this dispute, so that by 1919 it had control of Korea, Taiwan, and the Liaotung Peninsula. Not surprisingly, relations with China continued to deteriorate.
In the 1930's two things made those relations much worse. One was Japan's burgeoning population that forced it to import food. The other was the Great Depression, which cut Japan's trade and its ability to pay for that imported food. This led to growing military influence, violence, and instability in the Japanese government. In 1931, Japan seized control of Manchuria from China. The Western powers, mired in their problems with the Depression, were unable to help China. Throughout the 1930's, military control of the Japanese government tightened. In 1937, that military government invaded China, thus starting World War II in Asia.