Empires, final thoughts

Empires. Are. Awesome. Plainly put, I think Empires are the culmination of human possibility. As a group of people working towards common goals of technological social and military advancement, Empires represent the positive potential of mankind. Sure plenty of negative things have come from empires, but such is the problem of man. No one thing can be purely good or bad, every aspect of life and every human existence comes with bad and good affects. Parsons had a negative view of empires. He believes they always end badly and cause more harm than good. I think this view is a bit limiting and possibly neglectful. By choosing to focus on the wrongs and potential wrongs of an empire, wrongs like slavery in the British Empire, Piracy in the French, Exclusivity in the Japanese and religious persecution in the early Roman Empire, Parsons is ignoring the mass accumulation of positive ways Empires have affected the world. The British Empire spawned the industrial revolution and helped end the African slave trade in Europe. The Mongolian empire modeled an inclusive society where people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds could live in relative peace. The American Empire though at first more of an overgrown colony grew into one of the most powerful nations in the world and today continues to be at the forefront of technological and military discovery. Empires have their faults, as do the people that run them. Should we really blame a political group of people, for acting as people do, and sometimes making mistakes? The Parsons is correct, bad things have happened as a result of empires, but seeing as there is a positive for every negative, I think perhaps we can see another side and appreciate empires, both past and present, for the good they did, not just the bad. 

Galatic Empires

For a long time Empires have stood, shaping the world they live in. It is hard to imagine a world where there would be rid of an empire or at least an empire like country. It seems as though evolving worlds need a large standing government that is a leader and enemy.  Even in a galaxy far far away there stands an Empire ready for imperial action. It seems that the ways of an Empire will just be part of human existence. Maybe in some way shape or form we need empires just as much as empires need us.

Empires: An Inconclusive End

Empires had a history of shaping the world.  Not only as we know it, but the possible outcomes that could have been.  Parsons ends his chapter on the Iraq War conflict, while Burbank and Cooper ends their discussion on empires as inconclusive.

Parsons seems to paint this worst case scenario in his conclusion on the Iraq War.  He suggests the United States attempted to build an empire in Iraq because of the petroleum reserves found in Iraq.  Parsons suggests that the liberation operations against Saddam Hussein serves as a front so the United States can steal oil from Iraq.  All the evidence points further with Parsons attempt to dissuade this notion when he made the "while no factual evidence" argument to balance the bias.  Antiwar demonstrators made this same claim as they chanted that the war on terror 'was a war on error'.  

Burbank and Cooper suggest that empires drove human history, and practically guided humanity in the direction of civil behavior.  This speaks from a broad perspective from reading the accomplishments, contributions, history, and observations made by Burbank and Cooper.

Development to Disastrous Decolonization

 

            `           As the century began to reach the mid-way point and World War II ended, empire and what that meant was changing around the globe. “The mid-nineteenth century was no a self-propelled movement from empire to nation state. Ideas and practices of layered sovereignty and of varying dreams of self-rule within overreaching structures were still in play” (413). Britain and France began to look at their territories in Africa to safe and refine their colonial lifeline after World War II. Hitler had caused European racism to be recognized not only in Europe but globally and the Africans would no longer willingly subject themselves to unjust imperialism. Britain and Frances first proposal to African leaders was reform. Before they had established a controlling form of indirect rule but they were fully aware that things had to change.

            They began by changing governance and assured them that they would start the process of moving towards self-governance. Development became their new keyword. They renounced the old colonial doctrine of colonies paying them for their own development. They then proposed to spend their own money on communications, transportation, housing, schools and health facilities, industrial and agricultural products. How did these proposals become the decolonization process that we now know occurred in Africa?

            Despite all the changes and improvements that were promised to the Africans following World War II they were still seen as “children and “immature” societies. These societies were maturing faster intellectually than the Europeans would have liked. I do not mean that to discredit their innate intellectual abilities but as to say they began to learn the rules of the game. Following their use in World War II many Africans began to demand more; they felt as if they could fight next to and for the Europeans they deserved a more formal education and a more complete role in the economy. They simply were no longer satisfied with the remedial sense of independence, the nations wanted more and were willing to do whatever it took to get more. Many European settlers began to flee the African states therefore leaving many Africans with the sense of independence and decolonization process was usually violence free in these areas. In area where colonial presence was still there the process involved much more violence and conflict between the Africans and Europeans. This all occurred because the Europeans and Africans had two different ideas of what development should look like. The Africans wanted to begin moving towards independence immediately, while Europeans wanted to slowly move towards that process. They waved money and further aid in order to maintain economic control; the Africans were no longer going to allow themselves to be used by the Europeans.

"Home By Christmas"

It seems that all empires have some sort of diluted idea as to what the cost of war is and how difficult foreign occupation is. In talking about the American invasion of Iraq, and wether or not America should be considered an empire, Parsons mentions "As a result, the price of operation Iraqi Freedom, which Rumsfeld and his planners assumed would last only a few months and cost forty to fifty billion dollars, reached approximately 3 trillion dollars by 2008." (P. 445) Now this is not the first time that we have seem military planners severely underestimate the length that war would last. The most famous of which would be from World War One, in which the slogan "home by Christmas" was the belief of the day. There are other instances as well, both Hitler and Napoleon believed that they could nock out Russia before winter set in. Why is it that empires always seem to grossly underestimate how long a campaign is going to take? Is it underestimating the strength of their enemy? This would make sense, but it seems to be something else. It seems to be that empires do not realize how costly an occupation is until they are actually in the act of doing. Occupation is something that happens on such a large scale and requires hundreds of thousands of men. It seems that most Empires forget about this, and they forget about the resistance that they will receive once the country appears to be "occupied". All of this then runs up the price tag that the invading army will then have to pay to such obscene numbers and causes the way to drag on and on that it will be nowhere near the original time plan that they had set in place for themselves. Empires when occupying need to remember that once that battle is over, if they plan to occupy it will not be a few month process, this is a much longer process that is extremely expensive. Yet, history has shown us that empires have and will continue to invade on a premise that they will be "home by Christmas" or some other slogan that they can develop to convince both their soldiers and civilians that the war will only last a few months.

Unconvinced

Despite the consistent negativity towards empires from Timothy Parsons, I don't think all too badly of the empires in our world's history. As he opens his conclusion, he talks at length about the United States' involvement in the war in Iraq. Parsons references the Bush Doctrine, labeling it a "classic excuse" for empire. But we have discussed in class several times that America is not (at least not yet) an empire. Parsons even writes "...it was true that the United States did not seek a formal empire in the Middle East."
So was the argument convincing? Clearly, there is still debate over whether the United States was/is an empire, but what about the others we have studied? Certainly there have been imperial powers in the past, and America seems to be part of that category, but they don't seem to be as destructive as Parsons would argue.
The British Empire, which we spoke about last week, had many positive points about it. Although it may not 'erase' the wrongdoings of the empire--namely slavery, it does shed some positive light on the empire's actions.
I do agree with Parsons that there is a "current romanticization of the British and French empires of the last century as stable, omnipotent, and benevolent", and that empires cannot be classified as "humane", but I am unconvinced that they were all bad. Britain influenced many of their colonized nations with a better government and economy; the Mongolians and Islamic peoples demonstrated a new, unique method of tolerance for their subjects; and the United States has worked to help many in dictatorial situations.
Yes, there are obvious problems with empire, and the colonization aspect is obviously inhumane. But to say they will always end badly and are completely wrong, seems to be an overstatement on Parsons' part.

Good or Bad

In Niall Ferguson's introduction he raises the question of if the British Empire was a good or bad thing. He states that nowadays the British Empire would be considered a bad thing. One reason being the involvement in the Atlantic slave trade.
This being that in 2001 during the United Nations Conference, slavery and the slave trade had been deemed as "a crime against humanity". Colonization had been considered to be part of slavery.
This seems like a statement Parson would have agreed with. Parson, being not a fan of Empires and Colonization would have readily supported this statement. But the decision of an Empire being good or bad shouldn't lay solely on the fact that they had slavery and partook in slave trades. It should factor in how they acted with other nations, wars, and most importantly how they treated their citizens.

Britain: Heaven's Breed?

Britain , (England to be more precise) started its roots as nothing more than an isle country with a growing population and history.  Like any other country they started basic.  Until the 16th-century with the defeat of the Spanish Armada, England expanded greatly, evolving into the British Empire.

After the loss of the British-American colonies, the Empire focused more on domestic colonies closest.  For missionaries, it became a matter of civilizing and spreading the word of the Gospel with grace and mercy to non-civilized or peoples without salvation.  For colonizers, it became a matter of colonial settlement.  For imperial bodies, it was about conquest.

All three of these can be good and bad in and of itself because of the yields.  Ferguson brings this up in a neutral tone asking to what extremes are taken to build such empires.  Burbank and Cooper will agree that there is a good and bad nature to empires, because the empire model exists in human hands.  Parsons conflicts with this, arguing empires bring more evil than good.  Would Neil agree more with Parsons or remain neutral on this conflict, given the nature of empires involving conflict or war?  Did the era of the Axis powers diverge from the tradition of empires?

Now that's a redundant question in and of perhaps.  The fact remains the British Empire dominated about a quarter of the world's population and bested her neighbors and others in the imperial expansion game.  Heaven's Breed discusses the Annihilation of Distance, The View from the Hills, Races Apart, and Tory-entalism.  These topics share the discussion that the British Empire holds the role of civilizing and establishing British culture into the colonies.

The annihilation of distances refers to the empire maintaining control over India by continually following and updating their technology.  Newer technology became important as an emphasis to show Britain's capabilities and the politics of difference compared to the other Western empires.  The naval power of the empire loomed over that of the other nations, unquestionably the best for that time.  The question begs to ask how did the British Empire's control of India last so long?  What allowed the empire to continually keep track then of technology?

Racial tensions existed, evident in both the conqueror and the conquered.  This no doubt occurs as a natural part of empire building.  Compared to the discussion last class, a nation isolated from the experience of imperial rule too long won't have racial tension.  Instead, it becomes replaced with genocide against the conquered.

The Mission

            Britain’s focus for Africa shifted in the 18^th century, “Their goal was not so much colonization as ‘civilization’; introducing a way of life that was first and foremost Christian, but was also distinctly Northern European in its reverence for industry and abstinence” (Empire, 94). David Livingston and thousands of missionaries led this volunteer Empire building project and though their intentions were good bloodshed was extremely prevalent. The British goal of civilizing Africa was a recent revolution in the 18^th century led by missionaries, the goal of exploiting African resources had finally after almost three centuries faded and drifted away. The question is, why? And what did this evolution entail?

            Sierre Leone had been one of the largest slave trade ports in Africa during the Slave Trade era. That all changed in the 18^th century, the British began to send the slaves out of bondage not further into it. Sierre Leone became known as ‘The Province of Freedom’ and the capital was renamed Freetown. All slaves sent there in the late 18^th century were not sent to a plantation but they were giving land and their freedom, sent off to pursue a life of freedom and happiness. This drastic change could have only stemmed from revival which began in only one place in Britain.

            Indeed, it might be said that the moral transformation of the British Empire began in Holy Trinity church, on the north side of Clapham Common. The revival was led by successful Jamaican plantation owner Zachary Macaulay who had quit the slavery business due to his convictions with his faith. The ‘Clapham Sect’ had been convinced that Macaulay, their current governor, that abolition was the only way to please God after they had enslaved his people for so long. Macaulay and his followers did not stop until their task was complete, “The memorial to the Clapham Sect on Holy Trinity Church’s east wall salutes Macaulay and his friends who ‘rested not until the curse of slavery was swept away from all parts of the British dominions” (Empire: 98).

            Macaulay and Clapham led the beginning of the mission but the job was not done, David Livingstone is the father of the missionary movement in Africa. As a preacher and doctor he was the perfect man to go to South Africa and spread Christianity and civilization. This was a difficult task; though the Africans were drawn to him he soon found that it was not due to their new found hunger for Christianity but because of his abilities as a doctor. He then knew he had to truly open up the heart of darkness. Though the people of Southern Africa never really responded to his works, they respected him and his feelings towards them soon changed. He came to the realization that many of them were wiser than his white counterparts and was completely secure in their faith life and culture. It was not until his movement with the more economically developed East African coast that he began to have a true affect on the salvation of the African people. Revival in Britain that brought a change of mindset and the persistence of Livingstone is what truly drove the civilizing mission.

Empires Naturally get to confident?

Chapter 5 of "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order" by Niall Ferguson begins by talking about the "hubris" of the British Empire during the last years of the reign of Queen Victoria. Do all Empires get this "hubris" when they are at the hight of their power? Do all Empires feel like they are invincible? Thus leading to their over expansion and thus disconnect from their people?

The British Empire extended across the globe, there was no way that they could have a connection with every culture of people that they had brought under their wing, the only thing that mattered to the empire was the continued conquest. As Ferguson states, "there simply seemed no limit to what could be achieved by British firepower and finance."(Pg. 185) The British believed that they could achieve whatever they wanted because of the fact that they could overpower anyone that they came into contact with. While this would have allowed for this in many cases, it did not allow for them to connect with their people.

It seems that all empires reach a point in which they feel they can accomplish anything solely because they have superior firepower and money, Nazi Germany invaded Russia, Napoleon invaded Russia, Roman expansion into Germania, these are just three examples of empires that "got hubris". All three of these empires believed that they had superior firepower and finance to the people they were invading, and all three of these invasions resulted in the empire overextending themselves to the point of never achieving that goal because it turned out superior firepower was not enough if you cannot relate to the people you are conquering. All empires appear to get this state of hubris where they think they are better than everyone else, the British empire was no different in this aspect.

British Empire? Nah...

Why should I care about the British Empire? I am an American citizen, living in America, learning at an American school. Why should British history matter to me?

Maybe British history should matter because the United States is a result of the British Empire. Maybe because modern America still in part portrays the colonial power it started as, and Americas current power originated in the British Empire. Maybe, just maybe, British history should matter because it has a major role in the creation of not only the modern world, but also the ancient world.  Sure the British Empire has had its problems. Pirates searching the seas for treasure, rulers who no longer wanted to rule or who wanted to rule too much, peer nations who sought the land and wealth Britain wanted; the British Empire had plenty of problems. Every nation has their troubles, but through centuries and dozens of rulers, the British Empire consistently aided in expansion and overall benefited not only her but also the colonies she started, such as America.

Within 50 years of the start of overseas expansion, the British Empire had colonies and men on 5 continents. One of their most profitable colonies was in the Americas. What started as a small group of seekers of religious and financial freedom grew into the hope of the developing world; a new land rich in resources and potential. Without the British Empires influence, it is unclear if America would exist. I think that fact makes the British Empire study worthy. Maybe a student in an American school, in America could study the British Empire and learn something. Maybe the rise and fall of an empire thousands of miles away impacts the modern world. Maybe the British Empire affects America. Maybe Red coats and yankees aren't enemies anymore. Maybe British history matters not only because it has the opportunity to teach, but because directly affects almost every nation in the world in some way.

What should US do?

According to Niall Ferguson, the British Empire was the biggest ever; at least it was in the mid-nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As Americans—products of the British—we should care about the Empire and determine whether to shed or shoulder it. But many find only fault with the British Empire's former actions. From the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, to the evidence within the Declaration of Independence and the 'Star Spangled Banner', it is difficult to overlook the "bad" in the British Empire. Author of The Rule of Empire, Timothy Parsons, and even parts of Cooper and Burbank's Empires in World History condemn the actions of the British Empire in their chapters. 

Yet Ferguson's book, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, aims to make some important observations about British Empire to shed some light on it's positive aspects. He argues, quite well, that Britain has done the most to promote goods, capital, and labor, and to impose Western norms around the world. Using statistical information and business reasoning, Ferguson even poses that "there is reason to doubt that the world would have been the same or even similar in the absence of the [British] Empire." 

He does not deny that Britain committed wrongdoings; they treated their slaves and colonies badly, and their Christian missionaries were often misguided. But Ferguson does an impeccable job of trying to convince the reader that the British Empire did more good than harm. Within his conclusion, he even argues that many of the areas involved in British colonization resulted in better situations economically. 

To me, this seems to be a bit of a stretch, considering how brutally the colonies were treated. Still, Ferguson makes an interesting point and poses an important question. 

Much of the British mindset is focused on empire; for a long time, that was their mission. But Ferguson argues that Britain does not have enough fiscal or military resources to be the "international government," only the United States currently does.

Do you agree with Ferguson? Is the United States in a place to move from informal to formal empire? And if we are, should we?

Imperial Conquest: Dawn of the 20th century

20th century empire building arguably served as the precursor to the arms space race of the mid-20th-century.  Parsons mentioned in his 7th chapter on France's stance on war the refusal to fight in intercontinental conflicts.  "The First World War had demonstrated the devastating consequences of total war between 'civilized ; industrial nation-states," Parsons (351).

Overtime, devastation of war became a barbaric notion to the changing world.  Did these anti-war sentiments and resentful feelings spur the attempt at a more technologically-focused and less combat-influenced arms space-race?  Did a more democratized world with media access to atrocities create this idea?

Imperial intersections occurred on a large scale between the whole world.  To combat the Imperial Japanese threat, KuoMingTang leader Chiang Kai Shek and his nationalist forces allied with Western powers and communist forces to oust the Japanese imperial campaign.  Imperial Japan sought the United States as an ally in the conquest for Asia.  Germany's occupation of Italy created a coerced cooperation to fight against non-Axis powers.  The Bloodlands between Germany and Soviet Russia grew even without the two powers having forged an alliance.  Further evidence comes from the Balkan Wars and the interaction of the short-lived Balkan alliance against the Ottoman Empire, which saw the unlikely alliance between four Western nations against a monolithic power. 

The Sovereignty Of Ireland

Great Britain ruled over many lands through out the world, issuing them as "British Commonwealth of Nations" during World War 1. Citizens living in the dominions were both part of the British empire as well as being members of their own country. During a conference in 1926 the question of how much sovereignty can be shared with other empires when the majority who are not British become self-ruing.

While the question was trying to be solved, Britain grew a relationship with Ireland and their Catholic majority. Many years before in 1916, Irish nationalist had created a Republic of Ireland. By doing so this sparked violent and bloody revolts which took a turn into both a civil war and a war with British. One of the most significant and known events being "Bloody Sunday" in 1920 (not to be mistaken by the 1972 Bloody Sunday), which came during the Irish war of Independence.

Britain had accepted the idea of Ireland becoming ungovernable so Britain negotiated with Ireland. The North and its Protestant majority was sectioned off from the Catholic Ireland of the south. Leaving the Irish Free State to be created in 1922. This continued to bring violence through out the south of Ireland over the sovereignty of Britain.

It was later on in 1949 that Ireland would withdraw from the commonwealth and become recognized as the Republic of Ireland. The issues of the South and North Ireland are still unsettled to this day. It shows how much conflict there is in sovereignty of territories. Great Britain in a way answered their own question that came up in 1926.

Japan's Rise

Military dominance paired along with motivation from western nations were the driving forces behind the reforms Japanese government implemented following World War I. Many western leaders criticized Japan for their imperial and military isolationism. The Exclusion Act of 1924 that prohibited all Japanese immigration to the U.S. only reiterated those feelings for people around the world. They then began to return to an emperor centralized government. Emperor Hirohito’s ascension to the throne brought the usually unwilling Japanese population closer and closer to democracy. Japan developed two political parties: the liberals and the lefties. The liberals continued to push for democratic change while the conservatives pushed to stop all significant political reform.

            The early 1930s were dim for Japan. They experienced a period of economic crisis which stemmed from the Great Depression. It caused uncontrollable price changes, large amounts of unemployment, societal turmoil, and a decline in trade which was needed to supplement their struggling economic system. During this time the Japanese army also began to drift away from political leadership and make its own decisions. They invaded Manchuria in 1931 without permission of political leaders. The League of Nations made it clear that they did not agree with the invasion but in way could enforce their disapproval; soon after Japan withdrew from the League of Nations. Following the withdrawal the country was governed almost completely by its military forces.

            In 1937 the troops located in Manchuria continued their push and invaded China. This war was blessed by Hirohito. Within five months Japan had completely dismantled the Chinese and had taken completely control over their military. Japanese troops became brutal, performing one of the most atrocious acts in military history, the ‘Rape of Nanking’. By 1940 the war had been in stalemate for quite some time then Japan signed the Tripartite building an alliance with Germany and Italy. Japan then became obsessed with oil, the US aware of the oil importance proclaimed an oil embargo on them. “Western intervention in the form of economic sanctions (most importantly oil) against Japan would transform the nature of the war” (History). These actions all led up to the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941; which in turn brought World War II to Asia.

            Japan rose to power through military dominance that caught the attention of the western world. The emergence of this new military power forced the rest of the world to not only acknowledge them but to take precautions to stop them or build alliance with them. Once again the Japanese empire has proven that military dominance is probably the most important element for a great empire to have.
http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/pearl-harbor.html

Improved Empire?

         Genocide is messy. Empires use mass killings as a way to clean up territories, thus purging the land of unwanted blood. For as long as history has been recorded there have been mentions of genocide like events, of the mass killing of a specific group of people. Militaristically it makes sense to remove a people when they pose a threat. This obviously poses a moral issue, but Empires rarely focus on the moral when control is in jeopardy. The Nazi’s killed all the Jews they could find in WWII, and in the early 1900s the Turks did the same to the Armenians. Burbank and Cooper specifically mention the Armenian Genocide.

         The Armenian Genocide involved thousands of Armenians being removed from their homes and taken on a journey, not unlike the trail of tears experienced by the Native Americans in America in the 1900s. Many died along the way and those who survived the journey, were killed upon completion. Today the Turkish government does not recognize what happened as genocide and the words “Armenian genocide” are forbidden from being spoken in schools and public places. Burbank and Cooper called the Armenian situation in Turkey a “Massacre”. I do not know if they choose to refrain from using the more widely accepted phrase “genocide” to avoid political issues, or simply because they saw the event as such. I see little different between massacre and genocide, other than genocide specifically targets a single people group and massacre does not.

         The close of World War I was suppose to represent the coming of a new world, a new age, and a new form of empire. I question whether the use of methods such as genocide proves that empires essentially remain the same. At times the ancient Chinese killed those that intruded, as did the Japanese, Australian, some Native American Tribes, and at one point or another, most successful nations. The presence of genocide in the world today, proves that Empires do not change, they only shift forms, adapting to modernity. Instead of spears soldiers carry guns, and instead of horses they ride in tanks. Does war really improve life, or does it escalate the expectations for next time?

Armenian "Massacre"

Having taken a twentieth-century genocide course last spring, the portion of Cooper and Burbank’s chapter that discussed Armenia intrigued me. The first mention of the Turkish people comes on page 379: “The Ottoman military, claiming that Armenians…were conspiring with the enemy, engineered a mass deportation from the combat zone, under atrocious conditions.”

In my previous class, we discussed the “atrocious conditions.” Thousands of Armenians were moved as part of a “resettlement program,” which was essentially deportation, and commonly referred to as death marches. The people were often forced to walk to their destination—many dying along the way, and many others slaughtered by bands of killers. Although there is some controversy over whether the Armenian situation can be labeled “genocide,” it typically is labeled as such. The Turkish government may not recognize it as genocide, but online searches and museums generally disagree. Seeing the emotionless language of authors Cooper and Burbank, in Empires in World History, was a little disheartening.

Fortunately, later in the chapter (page 385), the authors further highlight the “devastation” of the region and highlight the many deaths of not only the Armenians, but the Muslims and Greeks as well—something I did not remember studying in my genocide class. And although I understand that the Armenian portion of the chapter should not be extensive, I wonder why Cooper and Burbank chose to label the Armenian situation as “massacres.”

Still, this aspect is only one example of the devastations during World War I. The question of the ‘new world’ and “whether it was a world after empire or a world with new forms of empire” does not seem to be addressed as much in chapter twelve. Cooper and Burbank do, however, spend a great deal of time on the history of World War I; what took place, the conflicts between empires, and the present tensions. Here is where situations like the Armenian genocide are mentioned.

So, since much of the chapter was factual, historical information, I would like to pose a similar question to the one mentioned by Cooper and Burbank. After World War I, was the world one after empire, or simply a world with new forms of empire?

Indirect Rule in Europe?

While reading through Parson's section on Nazi Rule in France, one thing that continued to stick out to me had to do with Vichy France. For as much as I can remember with Europe, this was one of the first times that indirect rule had really been applied. There had been times when Monarchs would place their family members over states, or force states into alliances with them, but Vichy France seemed different.

As we have studied in the Atlantic empires, and particularly the case of Britain in Africa, a common form of government was to set up a government that was run by the locals while overseen by representatives of the imperial state so as to minimize cost and effort. This is exactly how things panned out with Vichy France. The government of Vichy was established using French people, led by Marshal Petain a French WW1 hero, who were then overseen by the Nazi government. Rather than just occupy all of France Germany decided to occupy the northern half while setting up a government in southern France that was very similar to what had been seen during the Imperial era.

Was Germany trying to use the models that had been used during the Imperial era? Is this the first time that someone had attempted this model in Europe? For all its success in Africa, it did appear while it lasted to be a successful move by the Germans in controlling France while minimizing the amount of effort that they themselves had to put in. Did Germany really establish an Imperial age Indirect Rule system over France?

Expansion - Cost vs. Profit

           

War among nations both in and outside of Europe played a major role in imperial reconfigurations. (331) War is costly in lives and in resources. Many nations sought imperial expansion as a way to gain new goods and resources. Trading routes were expanded in the age of exploration and many nations found the wealth they sought. However, as Parsons points out, the time and money spent on overseas expansion could just have easily been spend on expanding and developing the land already claimed, thus adding to the economy and still aiding social expansion through means of stimulation of local commerce.

           

            Expansion is costly. England’s imperial conquests in India, the West Indies, the Caribbean, and the Americas were very costly. They failed to turn a profit for years, and even then the return started out slowly. Likewise Portugal experienced a similar cost profit and loss scenario with their territories.

            War is costly and expansion is expensive, and an entire nation disintegrating because of a lack of funds is unacceptable. Those in change do what they must to serve the people they rule. In hindsight historians can argue which choice would have been the most profitable and which most secure, but in the moment those in change did what they thought was best. The East India Trading Company had its stockowners to think about, England had its quickly emptying treasury. Social, financial, and political expansion happens in context of the age, and regardless of where expansion occurred, Europe was destined for change. 

"The Quest to being European"

 

19^th Century Empire in Europe was a series of shifts, new empires came about, others were revamped, and colonial imperialism was the driving force behind trade and economics for the more powerful empires. There was a new desire amongst all in the region to be “European”. Educated elites across Romania, Habsburg, and the Ottoman empires all longed to be classified as “European” and took the necessary measures to accomplish this during the 19^th century. What exactly did becoming European mean for these three empires; each made significant modifications in their political, economic, and military in order to be identified as European empires.

            The Ottomans had a large amount of reform initiatives; they combined these initiatives with weakening restrictions to create a more republican society. Jannissaries even began to believe that it was their duty to interfere if the sultan was out of hand or abusing his power in anyway. For the Ottomans who for centuries had centered their society around the sultan and his reign this was a large ordeal. It meant that the Sultan no longer had complete and absolute control of the empire. Politically they offered all male subjects citizenship and equality, which was not unexpected they had always been fairly liberal to their subjects. Economically they began to colonize in many of the same area as Britain and other large world players. There trade increased ten-fold from 1820-1914.

            Russian military reform meant extending the draft to all males doing their best to ensure all served on behalf f the empire. Since all were required to serve in the military it was difficult to ensure loyalty from the leaders. Ambitious Generals formed strong ties with the emperor to assure him that they pose no threat. Politically, Russia was virtually forced to grant their subjects civil rights in 1906 but they did not leave behind the class divisions until 1917. They also grew economically; this growth was steady and began in the 1980s.

            Habsburg developed an army that included Jews in 1848; they were multinational with a large group of intellectuals. Politically they were very similar to the Ottomans they also abolished serfdom as well. They like the other two nations also eventually developed a parliament and began to elect officials, the true European way. Each of the empires made drastic changes in order to be affiliated with the European name.

The Imperial Intersect

"If war was the most visible way that empires intersected, economic power was crucial to sustaining imperial control or trying to expand it," Burbank and Cooper (331).  This case proves true for Western European empire building.  

The same applies to China and Japan.  

For China, multi-foreign  affairs with outside nations took off towards the end of the Qin/Manchu Dynasty.  The imperial intersect applies in the earlier stages whence China had to deal with "barbarian" forces like the early Romans of the Republic.  

Japan 's foreign encounters started slightly earlier in the 16th century due to contact with Portugal.    Early interactions with non-Japanese nations was only limited to China and Korea.

In the case of Europe, the intersections of Germany, Russia, Ottoman, and Habsburg empires collide, setting the early stage for World War I.  Because of the advent of the Protestant Reformation, adding the discovery of the New World, alongside the American Revolution or the British Civil War, does that explain exactly why World War I primarily took place in Europe?

Why Imperialize?

In Parsons, The Rule of Empires, he mentions the value that the imperial system brings to states that use it, with Britain as an example. Parson mentions that "Britons at the turn of the twentieth century put 75 percent of their capital in non imperial territories, and on average these investments brought approximately 1.58 percent higher returns than imperial ones." (Pg. 297) Just from these numbers a clear case can be made that it is more profitable to invest in ones own country than it is to go out and imperialize other territories. But the statistics do not stop there. This number is actually skewered because of the British control of India, which was an extremely rich investment. Of all of the imperial investments, India was the one that truly made sense. The other major colonial possession of Britain in the early twentieth century was Africa. The entire continent of Africa south of the Sahara, took in only 5 percent of all British exports (Pg. 297). Clearly Africa was not a profitable venture, and as Parson explains it was more an attempt at maintain their global empire than to bring in profit. But even so, how is taking on large swaths of nonprofitable land, to protect another imperial possessions really worth it? Would it not have been worth it for Britain to have put money into their own industry rather than spending it on imperialism, or if they couldn't go without imperialism, why not spend all that money that they did in Africa, and instead spend it in India?

United Against the Ottomans

Generally imperial powers are focused on different goals; they work towards expansion, "curtailing each other's attempts at domination," developing a national identity, effectively handling their subjects, and much more. And historically, imperial powers are hardly unified in a goal.

However in Cooper and Burbank’s eleventh chapter of Empires in World History, we see that “Both empires (the Russian and British empires) sought to undermine their common rival—the Ottomans.” In 1826 they join together to manage the conflicts between rebels and the Ottoman sultan; in 1827 the French join and the British label it “peaceful intervention.” This happens again and again in history; multiple powers join to overthrow one specific power.

But imperial nature set in again, and “the British began to worry that they were assisting the wrong empire.” Britain, deciding instead to let the other empires fight, withdrew from the anti-Ottoman campaign. This is a typical of an imperial power; seizing the opportunity to protect themselves, yet still accomplishing the desired goal through other means.

Still, there is little to no explanation as to why the British, Russians, and eventually the French dislike the Ottomans so much. Likewise, other than the sentence stating that “keeping the Ottoman empire in place…was more to [Nicholas’] advantage than destroying the sultan and unleashing a free-for-all in the region,” I am unsure as to why it is more of an advantage to keep intact than to destroy the Ottoman empire.