International relations of the Great Powers — The American Revolution —83 and the collapse of the Spanish Empire in Latin America around ended the first era of European imperialism. Especially in Great Britain these revolutions helped show the deficiencies of mercantilismthe doctrine of economic competition for finite wealth which had supported earlier imperial expansion.
The New Imperialism c. The foreign counterpart to this phenomenon was the New Imperialism. The Great Powers of Europe suddenly shook off almost a century of apathy toward overseas colonies and, in the space of 20 years, partitioned almost the entire uncolonized portion of the globe.
Theories postulating Europe's need to export surplus capital do not fit the facts. Only Britain and France were capital-exporting countries inand in years to come their investors preferred to export capital to other European countries especially Russia or the Western Hemisphere rather than to their own colonies.
The British remained free-trade throughout the era of the New Imperialism, a booming home economy absorbed most German capital, and Italy and Russia were large net importers of capital. Once the scramble for colonies was complete, pressure groups did form in the various countries to argue the economic promise of imperialism, but just as often governments had to foster colonial development.
In most cases, trade did not lead but followed the flag. Why, then, was the flag planted in the first place?
Sometimes it was to protect economic interests, as when the British occupied Egypt inbut more often it was for strategic reasons or in pursuit of national prestige.
One necessary condition for the New Imperialism, often overlooked, is technological. Prior to the s Europeans could overawe native peoples along the coasts of Africa and Asia but lacked the firepower, mobility, and communications that would have been needed to pacify the interior. India was the exception, where the British East India Company exploited an anarchic situation and allied itself with selected native rulers against others.
The correlation of forces between Europe and the colonizable world shifted, however, with the invention of shallow-draft riverboats, the steamship and telegraph, the repeater rifle and Maxim gun, and the discovery in India that quinine is an effective prophylactic against malaria.
By small groups of European regulars, armed with modern weapons and exercising fire discipline, could overwhelm many times their number of native troops.
The scramble for Africa should be dated, not fromwhen the British occupied Egypt, but from the opening of the Suez Canal in The strategic importance of that waterway cannot be overstated.
It was the gateway to India and East Asia and hence a vital interest nonpareil for the British Empire. Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone, otherwise an adamant anticolonialist, then established a British protectorate in Egypt. When the French reacted bitterly, Bismarck further encouraged French colonial expansion in hopes of distracting them from Europe, and he then took his own country into the fray by claiming four large segments of Africa for Germany in In that year the King of the Belgians cast his eye on the entire Congo Basin.
The Berlin West Africa Conference of was called to settle a variety of disputes involved in European colonial occupation, and over the next 10 years all the Great Powers of Europe save Austria and Russia staked out colonies and protectorates on the African continent.
But whatever the ambitions and rivalries of military adventurers, explorers, and private empire-builders on the scene, the cabinets of Europe came to agreements on colonial boundaries with surprising neighbourliness.
Colonial wars did ensue afterbut never between two European colonial powers. It has been suggested that imperial rivalries were a long-range cause of World War I. It has also been said that they were a safety valve, drawing off European energies that might otherwise have erupted in war much sooner.
But the links between imperialism and the war are more subtle. The heyday of the New Imperialism, especially aftercreated a tacit understanding in the European elites and the broad literate classes that the days of the old European balance of power were over, that a new world order was dawning, and that any nation left behind in the pursuit of world power would sink into obscurity.
This intuition must surely have fed a growing sense of desperation among Germans, and one of paranoia among Britons, about trends in global politics.
A second point, subtler still, is that the New Imperialism, while it did not directly provoke World War I, did occasion a transformation of alliances that proved dangerous beyond reckoning once the Great Powers turned their attention back to Europe.
This pseudoscientific social Darwinism appealed to educated Europeans already demoralized by a century of higher criticism of religious scripture and conscious of the competitiveness of their own daily lives in that age of freewheeling industrial capitalism.
By the s books appeared explaining the outcome of the Franco-German War, for instance, with reference to the "vitality" of the Germanic peoples by comparison to the "exhausted" Latins. Pan-Slavic literature extolled the youthful vigour of that race, of whom Russia was seen as the natural leader.
A belief in the natural affinity and superiority of Nordic peoples sustained Joseph Chamberlain's conviction that an Anglo-American-German alliance should govern the world in the 20th century. Vulgar anthropology explained the relative merits of human races on the basis of physiognomy and brain size, a "scientific" approach to world politics occasioned by the increasing contact of Europeans with Asians and Africans.
Racialist rhetoric became common currency, as when the Kaiser referred to Asia's growing population as "the yellow peril" and spoke of the next war as a "death struggle between the Teutons and Slavs. Bytherefore, the political and moral restraints on war that had arisen after were significantly weakened.
The old conservative notion that established governments had a heavy stake in peace lest revolution engulf them, and the old liberal notion that national unity, democracy, and free trade would spread harmony, were all but dead.
The historian cannot judge how much social Darwinism influenced specific policy decisions, but a mood of fatalism and bellicosity surely eroded the collective will to peace.New Imperialism gave rise to new social views of colonialism. Rudyard Kipling, for instance, urged the United States to "Take up the White Man's burden" of bringing European civilization to the other peoples of the world, regardless of whether these "other peoples" wanted this civilization or not.
Question: Which economic, political, and social forces were most responsible for the new imperialism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?
PART A The following documents provide information about the causes of the new imperialism. Examine each document carefully. The 19th century imperialism was very much like the colonialism in the previous centuries, just involving somewhat different empires and geographical locations.
I would say that every single imperial expansion in history was out of greed. There were economic forces that led to a new wave of imperialism between and One of these forces was the desire for resources.
As the industrial revolution expanded, countries wanted. Known as New Imperialism, this desire for expansion was motivated by many things, not the least of which were the promise of economic growth, the sting of national rivalries, and a sense of moral.
Many historical events from the past have changed the way we live today. It has turned our knowledge and our lifestyle into something so ordinary, that we are not even aware of it.
and parts of Southeast Asia. On the other hand, the new imperialism was the period between the years “”, where Europe became more focused on.