Colonial contradictions before the First World War

50
Colonial contradictions before the First World War


Germany, united in 1871 in the empire under the rule of William I, embarked on the creation of a colonial power. Leading German industrialists and financiers advanced a program of broad expansion: in 1884 – 1885. Germany established a protectorate over Cameroon, Togo, South-West Africa, territories in East Africa and part of the island of New Guinea.




Wilhelm I


The entry of Germany on the path of colonial conquests led to an exacerbation of Anglo-German contradictions. To further implement its plans, the German government decided to create a powerful naval fleetwho could end British naval dominance. As a result, in 1898, the Reichstag approved the first bill on the construction of the Navy, and in 1900 a new bill was adopted, which provided for a significant strengthening of the German fleet. [1]

The German government continued to carry out its expansionist plans: in 1898, it captured China from Qingdao, turning a small settlement into a fortress, and in 1899 it acquired a number of islands in the Pacific Ocean from Spain. The attempts made by the UK to reach an agreement with Germany were unsuccessful due to the contradictions that grew between them. [2] These contradictions became even more aggravated by the provision of the Turkish government in 1899 after the visit of Emperor Wilhelm II to the Ottoman Empire and his meetings with the Sultan Abdulhamid II, German Bank of Concession for the construction of the main line of the Baghdad railway, which opened Germany a direct route through the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor to the Persian Gulf and both she had important positions in the Middle East, which threatened Britain’s sea and land communications with India.


Wilhelm II



Abdulhamid II

Back in 1882, in order to establish its hegemony in Europe, Germany initiated the creation of the so-called Triple Alliance - a military-political bloc of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy, directed primarily against Russia and France. After concluding an alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879, Germany began to seek rapprochement with Italy in order to isolate France. [3] In the midst of a sharp conflict between Italy and France over Tunisia, Otto von Bismarck managed to persuade Rome to agree not only with Berlin , but also with Vienna, from whose hard domination the Lombardo-Venetian region was liberated as a result of the Austro-Italian-French war of the 1859 of the year and the Austro-Italian war of the 1866 of the year. [4]


O. von Bismarck

The contradictions between France and Germany were exacerbated by the latter’s claims to Morocco, which led to the so-called Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911, which put these European countries on the brink of war. As a result of Germany’s actions, the cohesion of Great Britain and France only intensified, which was manifested, in particular, in 1906 at the Algeciras Conference. [5]

Germany tried to use the clash of interests of Great Britain and Russia in Persia, as well as the common differences of the Entente participants in the Balkans. In November 1910 in Potsdam Nicholas II and Wilhelm II personally conducted negotiations on issues relating to the Baghdad Railway and Persia. [6] The result of these negotiations was the Potsdam Agreement, signed in St. Petersburg in August 1911, according to which Russia assumed the obligation not to impede the construction of the Baghdad railway. Germany recognized North Persia as a sphere of Russian influence and made a commitment not to seek concessions on this territory. [7] However, in general, Germany did not succeed in separating Russia from the Entente.

As in other imperialist countries, the rise of nationalist sentiment was observed in Germany. The country's public opinion was prepared for the conduct of the war for the division of the world. [8]

* * *


Italy, fully united in 1870, did not remain aloof from the struggle for the colonies. Initially, the Italian expansion was sent to Northeast Africa: a part of Somalia was captured in 1889, and Eritrea was captured in 1890. Italian troops invaded Ethiopia in 1895, but were defeated by Adua in 1896. [9] In 1912, during the war with the Ottoman Empire, Italy captured Libya [10], later turning it into its colony. [11]

1900 also exchanged notes between Italy and France on the mutual recognition of the last Italian claims to Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, which were opposed by Austria-Hungary, and Italy by the French claims to Morocco. In 1902, a secret agreement was concluded between France and Italy’s Foreign Minister Barrere and Italian Foreign Minister Prineti in XNUMX, which provided for the mutual neutrality of France and Italy in the event that one of the parties was attacked or was called in defense, take the initiative to declare war.

Thus, despite the fact that Italy formally remained part of the Triple Alliance at the beginning of the First World War, colonial interests pushed its government headed by Antonio Salandra to join the Entente and join 1915 in the war on its side. [12]


A. Salandra


NOTES
[1] See: Tirpicz A. Memories. M., 1957.
[2] See: Erusalimsky A.S. Foreign policy and diplomacy of German imperialism in the late XIX century. M., 1951.
[3] Klyuchnikov, Yu.V., Sabanin, A.V. The international policy of modern times in the treaties, notes and declarations. CH 1. M., 1925, p. 241 – 242, 254 – 255, 267 – 268. Cm.: Skazkin S.D. The end of the Austro-Russian-German Union. M., 1974.
[4] Klyuchnikov, Yu.V., Sabanin, A.V., with. 241 – 242, 254 – 255, 267 – 268, 304 – 306. Cm.: Serova O.V. From the tripartite alliance to the Entente: Italian foreign policy and diplomacy in the late XIX - early XX century. M., 1983.
[5] New documents on the Alzheiras conference and 1906 loan // Red archive. T. 1 (44). 1931, p. 161 – 165; International Relations in 1870 – 1918's, p. 158 – 162. See: International Relations in the Age of Imperialism. Ser. 2, t. 18, h. 1 – 2. M. —L., 1938.
[6] History diplomacy. T. II. M., 1963, p. 698 – 703.
[7] Collection of treaties of Russia with other states. 1856 – 1917. M., 1952, p. 405 – 407.
[8] See: Bülow B. German politics. P., 1917; he is Memories. M. —L., 1935; German history in new and modern times. T. 1. M., 1970.
[9] See: Popov V.T. The rout of the Italians under Adua. M., 1938; Voblikov D.R. Ethiopia in the struggle to preserve independence. 1860 – 1960. M., 1961; Tsypkin G.V., Yagya V.S. The history of Ethiopia in the new and modern times. M., 1989; Berkeley G.-F.-H. The campaign of Adowa and the rise of Menelik, NY, 1969.
[10] Yegorin A.Z. The history of Libya. XX century. M., 1999, p. 35 – 39. Cm.: Yakhimovich Z.P. Italo-Turkish war 1911 – 1912 M., 1967.
[11] Yegorin A.Z., with. 92 – 96.
[12] Collection of treaties of Russia with other states. 1856 – 1917. M., 1952, p. 436 – 441. Cm.: Salandra A. Italy and the Great War. L., 1932.
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    1 September 2017 06: 54
    /// Germany's entry into the path of colonial conquests led to the exacerbation of Anglo-German contradictions.
    1. +3
      1 September 2017 10: 16
      And it would be necessary to recall to German politicians how England ousted other countries from the colonies and what came of it.

      it turned out that almost everyone was crowded out. Then the United States began to do the same, starting with the US-Spanish War and Hawaii.
      1. +1
        1 September 2017 15: 30
        Thus, Naglia did not want to come to terms with the colonial conquests of Portugal and Spain. An invincible armada was defeated. The PYRENEAN world, which ended the war of France (supported by the impudence), against Spain led to the end of the Spanish Clonial dominion. The time of the Anglo-Dutch wars came. And here Naglia achieved the defeat of Holland. There remained 2 colonial powers - England and France. The war was on. And the naglia won it again. The fleet of Spain was defeated at the end of the 16th century. How many years, or rather centuries, did the naglia fight for domination? And which monster was the result. Is that it? Why would Germany win.
        1. +1
          1 September 2017 15: 35
          Why would Germany win.

          since the Napoleonic wars, all wars with England by its opponents boiled down to one desire - to withdraw its allies on the continent with lightning speed. England itself was inaccessible by virtue of geography, and almost always fought in Europe, mainly with the wrong hands. Smart politics multiplied by geography! request
        2. +1
          1 September 2017 21: 13
          Spain dawned on the Darma. Therefore, it collapsed. Angles invested profits from the colonies in the economy and the Spaniards in the holy church .. as they say the difference we see ..
          1. 0
            21 February 2018 07: 16
            The Spaniards invested their gold in the Spanish Netherlands, as the Netherlands had a very favorable geographical position and could be traded through the Netherlands with all of Northern Europe. It was due to Spanish gold that the Netherlands rose. The Spaniards also spent a lot of money on the Italian war. In general, the Spanish kings very stupidly disposed of their wealth, the expulsion of Jews from Spain played a significant role in this. It was necessary for the Spanish kings to make Jews ministers of finance and create their own Bank of Spain, an analogue of the Bank of England, thanks to which the British could print millions of unsecured pounds and thanks to this money bribe and buy everyone.
    2. +2
      1 September 2017 16: 49
      Quote: Reptiloid
      /// Germany's entry into the path of colonial conquests led to the exacerbation of Anglo-German contradictions.

      Nonsense. A more adequate story has now been written.
      It’s not about aggravation of A.-G. relationships, and not even the need to destroy EMPIRE competitors. Just the only thing that could be applied on the continent against Russia is Germany. And France, Turkey, and so on, these are baubles for the Papuans.
      And Germany did not interfere with her overseas imperial manners, but she challenged England in Europe. This is an order of magnitude more serious. England could be slammed with a slipper and the fleet would not have helped.
      1. 0
        1 September 2017 19: 29
        As for the controversy, this, as the name implies, is the topic of the article. It just happened in this case that several problems were solved by the Britons at the same time. Although the plans for the dismemberment of the Republic of Ingushetia did not materialize, as was planned, but some territories were separated.
      2. +1
        1 September 2017 19: 58
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Germany did not interfere with her overseas imperial manners, but she challenged England in Europe

        Quite right: discussions about colonial contradictions are nonsense of amateurs.
      3. 0
        12 February 2018 11: 04
        So, in fact, England also contributed (or rather did not interfere) with the creation of the German Empire, precisely on the basis of opposing it to the Russian Empire. Bismarck understood this very well and therefore recommended that the Germans not to fight with Russia. And as he died, England, as she wanted and used Germany. Both then and now. Nothing changes.
  2. +3
    1 September 2017 07: 36
    Germany, united in 1871 into an empire under the rule of William I, embarked on the path of creating a colonial power
    .... And this is natural ... There is nothing more to select in Europe and no one had ..
  3. +2
    1 September 2017 08: 02
    I wonder what Russia and France had in common. What the hell did we need to climb into the war for the interests of the Entente. And there were no special contradictions with Germany.
    1. +4
      1 September 2017 08: 26
      Quote: Ken71
      I wonder what Russia and France had in common.

      French loans.
      1. +3
        1 September 2017 08: 40
        That is yes. But defeating France could get rid of them. And being her ally is unlikely.
        1. +2
          1 September 2017 09: 14
          The defeat of France and the formation of a unified German empire in Russia was assessed as a threat to security.
          The idea of ​​the union belongs to Chancellor A.M. Gorchakov, who outlined it in a telegram to the ambassador in Paris on December 23, 1871: “Gorchakov Orlov. December 11, 1871. You know the motives that made us want an agreement with France. In the belief that both parties have no interests that are inevitably hostile. That they, on the contrary, having many identical interests, could and should have found mutual benefit in an agreement that would contribute to their security, their prosperity, and maintaining a reasonable balance in Europe. This is the position formulated by Russian diplomacy, shortly after the victory of Germany over France. This system is based on the national and rational interests of both countries. We have in mind France, abstracting from any party, personal or dynastic issues. Such principles are ongoing. They are superior to any transient circumstances. ”
          In 1887, there was an attempt to turn off this road when the Russian diplomats, the Shuvalov brothers, without the permission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, proposed to Bismarck a plan of agreement, according to which France was granted its own fate, and Germany was sympathetic to the Russian plan to conquer Constantinople and the Black Sea straits. This document did not find support in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the emperor Alexander III. In retaliation, Bismarck forbade the Reichsbank to accept Russian values ​​and issue loans for them. By agreement with German bankers, French financiers bought up Russian securities, and they migrated to the Paris stock exchange. From this moment, new Russian loans were placed in Paris.
          1. +3
            1 September 2017 09: 48
            Thank . Did not know. But still a pity. Germany was easier to make take into account our interests than France. IMHO.
            1. +2
              1 September 2017 11: 20
              How could Germany be compelled to take Russian interests into account if Germany considered itself stronger than Russia and in fact was stronger than Russia?
              1. 0
                1 September 2017 12: 30
                In fact, she was stronger than everyone else.
              2. +1
                1 September 2017 14: 39
                Russia could become that weight on the scales between the triple alliance and the Entente. And with this blackmail both those and others.
        2. +2
          1 September 2017 12: 13
          And then alone to stop the German hordes? Then there was no autism in power as in the 40s.
          1. +1
            1 September 2017 22: 03
            Quote: Koshnitsa
            And then alone to stop the German hordes? Then there were no autists in power

            Really? Cola 2 is just a "political genius", probably wassat
            1. 0
              10 September 2017 03: 45
              Well, compared to Dzhugashvilka any genius will be
    2. +4
      1 September 2017 10: 01
      Quote: Ken71
      And there were no special contradictions with Germany.

      Of course it wasn’t! lol Well, it was only such well-known imperialistic hyenas as vile, arrogant Saxons, greedy "paddling pools", and stubborn "hans" who were ready to gobble up each other, as soon as possible! And the God-saved RI always sat on the priest exactly, doing exclusively peace and well-being! laughing And I didn’t have any complaints to anyone ... Maybe just a little ...
      The war is generated by imperialist relations between the great powers, that is, the struggle for the division of production, for whom to eat such and such colonies and small states, and in the first place are two clashes in this war. The first is between England and Germany. The second is between Germany and Russia. These three great powers, these three great robbers on the high road are the main figures in this war, the rest are independent allies.

      Both clashes were prepared by the entire policies of these powers over the several decades preceding the war. England is fighting to rob the German colonies and ruin her main rival, who beat her mercilessly with her superior equipment, organization, trading energy, beat and beat so that England could not defend her world domination without a war. Germany is fighting because its capitalists consider themselves to have a “sacred” bourgeois right to world championship in the robbery of colonies and dependent countries, in particular, fighting to subjugate the Balkan countries and Turkey. Immediately, Russia's interests were voiced in the first month of the war in the so-called. “Sazonov’s memorandum” (Minister of Foreign Affairs). They boiled down to the maximum weakening of Germany and Austria-Hungary, the seizure of a number of lands from them in favor of Russia and its Balkan allies, as well as gaining control of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, which belonged to Turkey. Along with the clash of interests between Russia and Germany, there is no less - if not more - a deep clash between Russia and England. The task of Russia's policy, determined by centuries-old rivalry and objective international correlation of great powers, can be briefly expressed as follows: with the help of England and France, to defeat Germany in Europe in order to rob Austria (to take away Galicia) and Turkey (to take away Armenia and especially Constantinople). And then, with the help of Japan and the same Germany, to defeat England in Asia in order to take away all of Persia, to complete the partition of China, etc.

      And for the conquest of Constantinople, and for the conquest of an increasingly large part of Asia, tsarism has been striving for centuries, systematically pursuing an appropriate policy and using all sorts of contradictions and clashes between the great powers. England was a longer, more stubborn and stronger opponent of these aspirations than Germany. From 1878, when Russian troops approached Constantinople, and the English fleet appeared in front of the Dardanelles with a threat to shoot the Russians as soon as they appeared in Tsargrad - until 1885, when Russia was close to the war with England due to the division of production in Central Asia (Afghanistan; the movement of Russian troops deep into Central Asia threatened British domination in India - and until 1902, when England entered into an alliance with Japan, preparing her war against Russia - for all this for a long time England was the strongest enemy of Russia's robber policy, then that Russia has threatened to undermine the dominance of England over a number of other nations. (VI Lenin. "separate peace" November 6, 1916)

      Because of such a “trifle,” even getting out of the couch was not worth it ... Is it not? laughing We now, after the fact, know that it wasn’t necessary to go into this mess, and in 1914 everything was far from so obvious ...
      1. 0
        1 September 2017 13: 49
        Quote: HanTengri
        Immediately, Russia's interests were voiced in the first month of the war in the so-called. “Sazonov’s memorandum” (Minister of Foreign Affairs).


        What specific memorandum are we talking about?
        1. 0
          1 September 2017 16: 43
          Quote: Gopnik
          What specific memorandum are we talking about?

          If you, finally and irrevocably, were banned in all search engines ... You can do some hacking and evoke the spirit of VIL! laughing And so, in search engines, it is searched in one click. hi
          1. +2
            1 September 2017 17: 00
            What is difficult to answer simply? I did not find the date and text of the aforementioned memorandum from the "first month of the war," you thought, you know, just post what I’m talking about.
            1. 0
              1 September 2017 19: 04
              Quote: Gopnik
              What is difficult to answer simply? I did not find the date and text of the indicated memorandum from the "first month of the war"

              I apologize. I got it. Was wrong. feel It is, EMNIP, on the memorandum of February 21, 1914. A bunch of links! But ... Sawing! Either in them, not a line from the memorandum itself, or "Object not found" ... There are no censored words!
              Quote: Gopnik
              I thought you know, just post, what exactly is it about.

              I gave a quote from the VIL. Apparently, in 1916, every competent cook knew what it was about. I apologize again! hi
      2. 0
        1 September 2017 22: 00
        Well, the Kaiser attacked Russia, it was necessary to immediately surrender, in Lenin's style?
    3. +1
      1 September 2017 13: 51
      Actually, by and large, it was the Entente that got into the war of Germany with the Republic of Ingushetia, and not vice versa.
      1. 0
        1 September 2017 15: 37
        More details, plz.
        1. +1
          1 September 2017 15: 51
          Well, Germany first attacked the Republic of Ingushetia, France began to prepare for war, rather than hiding under the bench, Germany declared war on her too. And England in general itself declared war on Germany, although it could have served time.
          1. 0
            1 September 2017 21: 19
            you look at the history of relations between France and Germany before that. they couldn’t get under the bench ... there was such an insult to the Prussians ..
          2. 0
            1 September 2017 21: 47
            I understand you, Germany is the aggressor and unleashed an offensive aggressive war. Like in 1939.
            1. 0
              2 September 2017 09: 19
              Well, yes, offensive and aggressive, what's wrong?
    4. 0
      21 February 2018 07: 21
      Austria-Hungary was an ally of Germany, and after the betrayal of Austria-Hungary during the Crimean War, relations between Russia and Austria-Hungary were irrevocably spoiled, moreover, Nikolasha licked his lips on the Balkans, dreaming to appropriate the title of Tsar of all Slavs. Turkey was also an ally of Germany, and in St. Petersburg they slept and saw straits within Russia. Therefore, the union of Russia and Germany was in principle impossible. For this, Germany needed to get rid of the alliance with Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
  4. 0
    1 September 2017 09: 44
    What is an extract from a history textbook?
  5. +2
    1 September 2017 11: 41
    Quote: Ken71
    Thank . Did not know. But still a pity. Germany was easier to make take into account our interests than France. IMHO.


    There were economic contradictions, and attempts to “force” and attempts to simply agree. But it did not grow together.
    In the history of economics, look at the "protectionist tariff", you will find a lot of interesting things about the trade wars of RI and Germany for yourself. RI lost them outright, hence the rapprochement with France. +, of course, France’s buying up of RI debt obligations, the “gold scandal” after Witte’s reform, French credit, contradictions with Germany in China, Turkey and Persia ... A lot of things interfered.
    1. 0
      1 September 2017 12: 59
      Particularly indicative of a certain audience category (sometimes referred to as "bakers") are the reasons for the loss of these trade wars.
      1. 0
        1 September 2017 14: 54
        It is characteristic that in his letters to Bebel written in 1891 (a year after the publication of Engels' article), which deals with the prospects of an impending war, Engels bluntly says that "the victory of Germany is, therefore, the victory of the revolution," that "if "Russia will start a war - forward to the Russians and their allies, whoever they are!" angry
      2. 0
        1 September 2017 21: 20
        they don’t care. the Bolsheviks are guilty. and no matter what century it was, they are always to blame ...
        1. 0
          1 September 2017 21: 52
          There are no Bolsheviks, the commies scattered in 1991 wink
          1. +2
            1 September 2017 22: 28
            and Cossack even earlier ...
            1. 0
              1 September 2017 22: 44
              That fight Cossacks in the same Donbass and Syria, but where the communists are, it is not known ...
              1. +4
                2 September 2017 08: 07
                yes what for? show where the mummers are fighting in Syria .... you can only restore traditions. True, all your traditions come down to pushing and medals to each other. Watch the nasty mummers clowns. Well, I almost forgot to pull some more money from the budget The reliefs are different and other. And you only have to protect the cottages ... all the same people are right-grandfather your Cossack father was a Cossack son and you are a dog’s tail ...
                1. +1
                  2 September 2017 10: 51
                  Worthy, very worthy. Good answer, solid.
                2. 0
                  10 September 2017 03: 50
                  According to the Yuga.ru portal, on April 13, 2016, a record of the speech of the ataman of the Taman department of the Kuban Cossack army Ivan Bezuglogo appeared in the network, in which he spoke about the feat of the Cossack Sergei Morozov. According to the chieftain, Morozov died heroically, covering himself with his commander when they both came under mortar fire during the liberation of Aleppo.

                  “In 2016, our military space forces began to fight against bandits in Syria, but a unit of the Taman Cossack department fought with militants on the side of government troops in 2013. They understood that this infection should not be spread. And they adequately showed the battle, which was attended by Cossacks. The battalion, "said Bezugly.

                  "And here is the last case - the death of our Cossack Sergei Morozov. He was from the Taman department - this is Supsekh Cossack society. I’ll say there are worthy warriors, worthy Cossacks, because the deputy division commander and intelligence chief Colonel Tsvetkov lives in this village , where there is a Cossack society, and it trains worthy guys, "the chieftain emphasized.

                  “When the first battle for the city of Aleppo took place, the Cossack detachment collided with the Turks. But for the Cossacks it’s not new to fight with the Cossacks. The Cossack has this at the genetic level. We know what the Turks are. Cossacks entered the fray, and now Sergey Morozov, together with the wounded Cossack was taken out of the battlefield by the commander. And when the mortar shelling started, Sergey covered the commander with his body. He was killed, the commander was wounded, but he remained alive. That’s how our Cossack died, "Bezugly noted.
              2. +1
                2 September 2017 08: 10
                and yes. before opening your mouth, take an interest in what party your chieftain was in ......
                1. 0
                  10 September 2017 03: 51
                  Bezugly was not in any party. I know for sure.
                  So where are the commies fighting? Under the blanket? laughing
  6. 0
    1 September 2017 18: 58
    Quote: Koshnitsa
    ... Engels bluntly says that "the victory of Germany is, therefore, the victory of the revolution", that "if Russia starts the war, then go forward to the Russians and their allies, whoever they are!" angry


    So Marx and Engels are Westerners to the core. They treat any Slavic revolutionary movement as counter-revolutionary. The national upsurge in Austria-Hungary is counter-revolutionary if it comes from the Slavs, but tolerate if it comes from the Hungarians :). They seemed to recognize the Poles as the only revolutionary Slavic nation. Culture is not the same. And this their position is quite explainable by their own theory. Generally, if extrapolated t.z. Engels (from correspondence) to the First World War, it turns out that the colonial conquests of Germany are positive, because contribute to the development of capitalism, allow it to mature, and therefore bring the socialist revolution closer :).
    1. 0
      1 September 2017 19: 40
      Two great Russophobes, two pillars of Marxism-Sevastopol and Kronstadt burn, Russian drive beyond the Dnieper.