the scramble for africa Flashcards
why did britain clash with germany?
by 1871, germany was united as a single country and became a new powerhouse in europe
this was due to its favourable location and natural resources
had better technology
why did britain clash with france?
it had transformed its armed forces and were determined to assert it’s rightful place in the world
naval power building
why did britain clash with russia?
it had started to transform their economy and extended their control into central asia, by 1884, it had extended to the borders of afghanistan
also began building railways which could challenge britains position in india
naval programmes made which meant other areas could be explored such as asia and africa
trans siberian railway began work in 1891
why did the great depression of 1883 make rivalry worse?
new raw materials found to exploit and rebuild economy
brussels conference 1876
king leopold of belgium a conference of explorers and leaders from geographical societies across across europe
motivated by the desire to protect belgian interests in the congo
what did the brussels conference conclude?
africa was incapable of developing natural resources to be found in central africa - european intervention needed
the routes to africa’s great lakes needed to be developed by building roads and railways
an international african association should be established to coordinate the european’s efforts
key individuals at the brussels conference
king leopold
henry stanley
impact of the brussels conference
increased rivalry since people were suspicious of leopold’s intentions
berlin conference 1885
agreed there should be free trade in the congo basin and recognised british interests along the river niger
the doctrine of “effective occupation” laid down at the conference was intended to put a stop to britain asserting a vague right to ‘influence’ over many parts of africa. it obliged the powers to define their claims with some precision and reinforce them with tangible signs of their presence.
key individuals at the berlin conference
bismarck
impact of the berlin conference
devastating for indigenous peoples split up tribal groups
1884 - 80% of africa was under african control
1900 - 90% africa was under european control
interpretations of the scramble for africa - metropolitan
hobson - overseas investment
purely economic explanation, - views the partition as a deliberately thought out british policy designed by shady elite of financiers, capital investors and unscrupulous politicians who supported investment in new areas of the world rather than higher wages and improved living conditions in britain.
the partition of africa was therefore the british government supporting the aims of a small elite group of greedy capitalist investors in africa.
used economic statistics to support his theory:
1862- £144m overseas investment
1893 - £1698m
evidence to challenge hobson
fieldhouse
largest amount of british investment overseas went to the settlement colonies, usa and latin america not africa.
1914 investment in africa was £37m, canada, australasia and
india £1780m.
link between investment and government involvement debatable - investment often followed annexation not the other way around
protection of the suez canal and route to India also vitally important.
fails to see the importance of tropical products such as palm oil to britain so there is a good case to be made that british policy in africa was to defend british trade which may have resulted in annexing some areas.
interpretations of the scramble for africa - metropolitan
hobsbawm - industry and empire
highlighted the technological advances in europe such as the gatling gun, the machine gun, the telegraphy, the railway and the steamship.
gave europeans the ability to conquer other people easily and encouraged this wave of imperialism.
cain and hopkins - gentlemanly capitalist
reject link between industrialisation and expansion and highlight the continuity of policy from 1688.
it was the commercial, professional elites of london which led the expansion
british government prioritised their needs over industrialists as the government were made up of these types of people.
after 1870 these gentlemanly capitalists invested heavily overseas and exerted pressure on the government to defend their interests when threatened by european rivals or nationalist movements.
rejects the idea of focusing on events in the periphery.
evidence to challenge cain and hopkins
almost impossible to prove how this elite influenced government policy
ignores the wider world and how that influenced the government
industrialists were important
interpretations of the scramble for africa - peripheral theories
gallagher and robinson
government tried to seek informal control of trade wherever possible only supporting formal rule when trade was threatened by civil disorder or the ambitions of a rival power.
british intervention due to a purely local crisis in egypt which dragged a reluctant british government into the problems of north africa and led to anglo-french rivalry which proved a vital contributor to the partition of west africa and created tension in sudan.
expansion in south africa due to worries over the rise of the transvaal and boer nationalism.
give priority to the “pull factors” in africa
major consideration was the security of the route to india. this is accepted in regards to south africa and the cape but has been criticised in relations to egypt and the partition of tropical africa
interpretations of the scramble for africa - men on the spot
gallagher and robinson
these men encouraged the government to become involved
rhodes in south africa, peters and mckinnon in east africa, goldie in west africa and the role of french and belgium agents.
claimed that these men had grand schemes of their own, that they worked with local power brokers to get them under way and that they then gained the support of their government to complete the process.
interpretations of the scramble for africa - african nationalism
gallagher and robinson
egypt, sudan, abyssinia and in south africa.
african rulers, states and merchants collaborated with european powers.
tribes such as the zulus in south africa, the ashanti in the gold coast and the mashona in southern rhodesia fought bravely to retain their independence.
african leaders signed agreements with different european powers - often failed.
a.j.p taylor - the primacy of political and diplomatic factors
victory of germany in 1871 over france unhinged the balance of power in europe, created a deadlock in european politics and encouraged the growth of militant nationalism which found expression in overseas expansion.
described europe after 1870 as an ‘armed camp’ with the balance of power so delicately posed that any small conflict within the continent was likely to produce war.
africa was a safe arena for european competition for expansion.
partition constituted a totally unplanned and irrational extension to africa of the ‘struggle for mastery in europe’
interpretations of the scramble for africa - international relations theories
paul kennedy - the rise and fall of great powers
partition happened because other powers wanted to emulate britain and its great power status.
britain responded and seized colonies - wanted to maintain its great power status.
metropole - support
capitalist plot/gentlemanly capitalists scheme to expand Investment in africa
supported by huge increase in british overseas investment from
£144m in 1862 to £1698m in 1893
1886 - discovery of gold and diamonds provided a motive to take over boer settlements in south africa
invasion of egypt to protect suez investment - britain owned £4 million in shares
metropole - challenge
very little investment in africa itself- £37m compared to £1780m for india, canada and australia in 1914.
investment often came after annexation rather than the other way round
defending trading interests in products like palm oil in west africa was also a reason for getting involved in annexing territory.
peripheral - support
gordon disobeyed gladstone’s orders and did not evacuate sudan - his death prompted lord salisbury to take sudan
cecil rhodes- had a personal mission to expand british colonies from north to south africa
nationalist uprising in egypt prompted gladstone to act in 1882
william goldie led expansion in west africa and peters and mckinnon in east africa
peripheral - challenge
major reason for taking egypt was to protect the suez canal -13% of british trade went through it and it provided a shorter route to india.
rivalry with france also influenced british expansion of sudan
rivalry with germany encouraged british hostility to boers - fears of german expansion in east and south west africa.
rivalry with russia may have been a factor in gaining suez canal to protect india
international rivalry - support
brussels 1876 and berlin 1882 conferences accelerated european rivalry
rivalry with france also influenced british expansion in sudan 1898
rivalry with germany encouraged british hostility to boers in south africa 1899-1902
international rivalry - challenge
trade/ investments/ individual’s greed also played a role
men on the spot- had their own agenda’s e.g. gordon and cecil rhodes
