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.