Empire and emergnce of world powers 1870-1919 Flashcards
Why did Germany join scramble for Africa later than Britain and france?
- Bismarck’s primary concern was to ensure German security
– he focused on creating a series of alliances and wanted to avoid unnecessary rivalry with other countries.
- He argued strongly against Germany adopting a policy of imperial expansion, fearing that this would lead to the country’s downfall.
- When Bismarck left office in 1890, Kaiser Wilhelm adopted a more aggressive foreign policy, which led to German involvement in imperialistic ambitions in Africa and the East.
- Boastful and impetuous, Wilhelm’s primary aim was to increase Germany’s power – he saw imperial acquisitions as one way of achieving this.
‘Japan became a world power because of the advantages it gained from World War I.’ How far do you agree?
For:
WWI enabled Japan to greatly increase exports and industry, while at the same time extending its influence over China (e.g. by providing loans and imposing the Twenty-One Demands).
Although Japan was eventually forced to reduce the twenty-one demands, it retained similar rights in China to those enjoyed by the other world powers.
By 1918, Japan was in a very strong position and unquestionably the most powerful Asian country, posing a significant threat to the interests of other world powers, especially the USA.
Against:
It could be argued that Japan already had great power status even before WWI.
It had already established impressive industrial and military infrastructure,
gained significant concessions from China,
gained credibility from its alliance with Britain (1902)
and defeated a major European power in war (Russia, 1904–5).
Both Britain and the USA viewed Japan as a vital ally in the war against Germany.
Why were the European powers able to avoid war over the ‘scramble for Africa’?
• The scramble for Africa was effectively a safety valve, enabling European nations to play out their game of power politics without the risk of a major war.
• Initially, European nations focused on enhancing their existing interests in Africa. Britain concentrated on East and Southern Africa, France on the North-West, Belgium on the Congo and Portugal on Angola and Mozambique.
• Germany, only recently unified and, under Bismarck, determined to avoid potential conflict with other European nations, did not enter the rush for African land until 1881. At first, therefore, European nations were not in direct competition in Africa.
• The Treaty of Berlin (1885) was designed to regulate European colonisation and trade in Africa with the express aim of avoiding direct conflict between European nations.
• Potential conflict did arise, for example in the Fashoda Incident (1898) when Britain and France both claimed Sudan. War was avoided because neither country was prepared to go to war over Africa. A compromise was reached.
• None of the European powers were prepared to go to war over their interest in Africa.
How far had the USA departed from its policy of isolationism by 1914?
In support of the view that the USA had departed from isolationism it could be suggested that
by 1914 the USA’s rapid industrial growth in the period after 1875 led to the need to seek out new markets, especially in the Far East.
This required a strong navy and overseas’ bases to protect merchant shipping and victory in war against Spain (1898) left the USA in possession of former Spanish territories, such as the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam.
Public opinion also clearly favoured this expansionist foreign policy, as evidenced by McKinley’s victory over the isolationist Bryan in the presidential elections of 1900.
When Roosevelt became president he continued the expansionist policy, taking control of the Panama Canal and ensuring American dominance in the Caribbean through the Platt Amendment to the Cuban constitution and the Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
By 1914, therefore, the USA had developed a growing influence over world financial markets and a commitment to its own form of imperial expansion.
*In challenging the view, it could be argued that
the USA remained fundamentally isolationist in 1914.
The war against Spain over events in Cuba was essentially in line with the Monroe Doctrine, under the terms of which the USA had long held significant influence and power over the Caribbean region.
Additionally, the USA’s main aim remained to protect its own interests by keeping European imperialists out of the Americas.
Economic growth had encouraged the USA to seek new markets in the Far East, and this required a larger navy with overseas bases to protect merchant shipping – however, this was to protect the USA’s economic interests rather than for imperialistic expansionism.
The USA also remained determined to keep out of European affairs. In the USA, the outbreak of the First World War was perceived as the result of selfish and expansionist acts by the main European powers and, as such, nothing to do with the USA.
How far was President Theodore Roosevelt responsible for the USA’s move towards a more imperialistic foreign policy?
In support of Roosevelt’s responsibility:
he firmly believed the USA should play a major role in world affairs.
As President from 1901–1909, he argued that it was ‘incumbent on all civilised and orderly powers to insist on the proper policing of the world’. He ensured that the USA gained control of the building and operation of the Panama Canal, and negotiated the Treaty of Portsmouth which ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
He organised the Platt Amendment in 1903, which granted the USA effective control over Cuba’s foreign policy.
The Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 stated that the USA would intervene if any Caribbean state became threatened by internal or external factors.
That he was not afraid to use this new power was clear – in 1905, the USA occupied the Dominican Republic; in 1909, the USA helped rebels depose the President of Nicaragua.
These policies were in marked contrast to the USA’s isolationist tradition. Roosevelt justified them by arguing that the USA had to protect its own economic interests and must prevent European interference in the Americas.
In challenging the view:
the move towards a more imperialistic foreign policy was already present before Roosevelt became president.
The USA’s industrial expansion had been reliant on the domestic market; an economic downturn in 1893 alerted industrialists and businessmen to the need for overseas markets, which would in turn require a strong navy and overseas bases.
This led to a debate between those favouring isolationism and those wanting a more expansive foreign policy.
The 1898 war against Spain left the USA in effective control of Cuba, together with other former Spanish possessions (e.g. Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam).
Many politicians, such as Bryan, opposed this and wanted a return to isolationism. Bryan’s defeat to McKinley in the 1900 presidential elections showed that the imperialist lobby had already won the debate before Roosevelt became president.
Why was Russia defeated in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–5?
Japan had been prepared to recognise Russian rights in Manchuria in exchange for Japanese rights in Korea.
Instead, Russia invaded Korea starting the Russo-Japanese War.
Reasons for Russia’s defeat included Russian arrogance in assuming military superiority over Japan.
Japan’s rapid and devastating response in attacking Port Arthur (Feb 1904) meant the Russian’s were unprepared for battle, and a number of their ships were destroyed.
The Russian fleet was widely dispersed across the world whereas the Japanese fleet was localised.
Russian troops had to ensure a long overland journey across Asia and, with Russian forces tired and incomplete, Japan gained rapid success in Manchuria.
Russia’s last hope was the Baltic fleet, but this had to make a long journey to the Far East. Since 1902, Britain was in alliance with Japan (partly as a means of protecting British interests against Russia).
Britain refused to allow the Russian fleet to use the Suez Canal, forcing it to go around the horn of Africa. While travelling through the North Sea, the Russian fleet even came under threat from the British fleet (after Russian ships fired on British fishing boats mistaking them for warships).
By the time the Russian fleet arrived in the Straits of Tsushima (May 1905), Japanese ships were ready for them. Slow moving and outdated, Russian ships were no match for Japan’s modern warships.
To what extent was the ‘scramble for Africa’caused by European countriesí desire for trade?
The rapid increase in the production of manufactured goods associated with the European Industrial Revolution created a need for raw materials, new markets and greater investment opportunities. Explorers, aided by new medical advances (such as effective treatment for malaria), had identified potential for all three in Africa. Developments in railways and steamships made the African interior more accessible. Many European countries had already been involved in the slave trade, exploiting Africaís coastal regions. Now they expanded their commercial interests inland, seeking raw materials such as rubber, palm oil, timber, diamonds, gold, etc. Britainís original interest in Africa had been to protect its vital Indian Ocean trading routes ñ control of Cape Colony in southern Africa provided a key port on the sea route to India, while control of Egypt enabled the building of the Suez Canal, which made journeying round the southern tip of Africa unnecessary. By 1900, Britain controlled most of East Africa. France, also seeking new sources of raw materials and new markets, controlled much of West and NorthWest Africa, while Belgium controlled the Congo (an area bigger than Belgium itself), exploiting its production of rubber. While the potential to expand their trading opportunities may explain European nationsí initial interest in Africa, there were other factors which caused the chaotic scramble for African territory which took place in the late 19th century. This was a period of intense nationalism, and countries believed that the development of large overseas empires was essential to enhancing their wealth, power, prestige and influence. Expansion within Europe itself was impossible without going to war, European borders having been effectively fixed following the Franco-Prussian War (1870ñ71). Africa provided the perfect opportunity, its native population unable to resist European armies with their fast-firing rifles, machine guns and heavy artillery. European nations therefore embarked on a mad rush for African territory, determined to gain as much as possible ñ regardless of its potential value ñ simply to prevent it falling into the hands of their rivals. For example, Germany (which entered the scramble later than other European nations due to Bismarckís reluctance to risk rivalry with potential enemies) acquired territory which was of little value; indeed, it cost Germany considerably more than it was worth. Some historians have argued that the ëscramble for Africaí was a safety-valve ñ a way for European countries to play out their game of power politics without the risk of a major war, the Treaty of Berlin (1885) ensuring that potential conflicts were quickly and peacefully resolved. Medical advancements, in the treatment of malaria, also considerably reduced the associated risks to European armies, thereby facilitating a more rapid acquisition of territory.
To what extent was the ‘scramble for Africa’caused by European countriesí desire for trade?
The rapid increase in the production of manufactured goods associated with the European Industrial Revolution created a need for raw materials, new markets and greater investment opportunities. Explorers, aided by new medical advances (such as effective treatment for malaria), had identified potential for all three in Africa. Developments in railways and steamships made the African interior more accessible. Many European countries had already been involved in the slave trade, exploiting Africaís coastal regions. Now they expanded their commercial interests inland, seeking raw materials such as rubber, palm oil, timber, diamonds, gold, etc. Britainís original interest in Africa had been to protect its vital Indian Ocean trading routes ñ control of Cape Colony in southern Africa provided a key port on the sea route to India, while control of Egypt enabled the building of the Suez Canal, which made journeying round the southern tip of Africa unnecessary. By 1900, Britain controlled most of East Africa. France, also seeking new sources of raw materials and new markets, controlled much of West and NorthWest Africa, while Belgium controlled the Congo (an area bigger than Belgium itself), exploiting its production of rubber. While the potential to expand their trading opportunities may explain European nationsí initial interest in Africa, there were other factors which caused the chaotic scramble for African territory which took place in the late 19th century. This was a period of intense nationalism, and countries believed that the development of large overseas empires was essential to enhancing their wealth, power, prestige and influence. Expansion within Europe itself was impossible without going to war, European borders having been effectively fixed following the Franco-Prussian War (1870ñ71). Africa provided the perfect opportunity, its native population unable to resist European armies with their fast-firing rifles, machine guns and heavy artillery. European nations therefore embarked on a mad rush for African territory, determined to gain as much as possible ñ regardless of its potential value ñ simply to prevent it falling into the hands of their rivals. For example, Germany (which entered the scramble later than other European nations due to Bismarckís reluctance to risk rivalry with potential enemies) acquired territory which was of little value; indeed, it cost Germany considerably more than it was worth. Some historians have argued that the ëscramble for Africaí was a safety-valve ñ a way for European countries to play out their game of power politics without the risk of a major war, the Treaty of Berlin (1885) ensuring that potential conflicts were quickly and peacefully resolved. Medical advancements, in the treatment of malaria, also considerably reduced the associated risks to European armies, thereby facilitating a more rapid acquisition of territory.
“Japan’s victory in the war of 1904-5 was the result of Russiaís military weaknesses.” How far do you agree? (for)
Russia’s military leaders were both arrogant and complacent, convinced of their superiority over Japan.
As a result, Russia had refused to negotiate, and invaded Korea.
Russian forces were totally unprepared for the Japanese attack on Port Arthur. Although the Russian army was huge, it was poorly equipped and badly led.
Russian troops had to endure a lengthy trip across Asia to reach Port Arthur, by which time Japanese forces had already established control of the area.
The Russian fleet consisted of outdated ships which were no match for the fast-moving, well-armed modern warships of the Japanese navy.
The Russian navy was widely dispersed across the world, its Baltic fleet forced to undertake a long and arduous journey before it could confront the Japanese at the Straits of Tsushima.
“Japan’s victory in the war of 1904-5 was the result of Russiaís military weaknesses.”How far do you agree? (against)
Japan had several advantages over the Russians. It could more easily get ships and troops to the region, affording it time to establish control.
In particular, its shipping fleet was far more localised than that of Russia
. Japan had fast-moving, well-armed modern warships, while its troops were equipped with the most up-to-date weapons.
Japanese forces were well-led, their commanders trained in modern warfare methods.
Japan’s 1902 alliance with Britain was significant because it severely delayed the arrival of the Russian Baltic Fleet (due to conflict with the British navy in the North Sea and Britainís refusal to allow access through the Suez Canal).
