Versailles Treaty Excercise: An Excercise in the Versailles Treaty

I enjoyed the peace conference exercise we did on Friday. The inclusion of Germany and Japan would have made it more interesting, and probably much more complicated, but the situation and the goals of each country (or potential country) were still fairly accurate. The one aspect of the conference that wasn't covered was colonialism and imperialism. Although the territories involved fall outside of the boundaries of Europe, the existence of colonies or desire to establish colonies in those areas played their part in the relations between the countries. In Africa, Britain and France kept their colonial empires and split up the German colonies between themselves. There had already been tension between Britain and France (and Russia before the Revolution) over the fate of the Ottoman Empire during World War One, and once the war was over these problems became apparent during the peace conference, resulting in the division of the Middle East into British and French mandates and the disastrous consequences of such actions. In addition, the imperialist tendencies of the British and French undermined the peace process and made the League of Nations more than a bit hypocritical, contributing to its lack of power in the following decades. After World War One, imperialism was still a potent force.

David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" is an excellent book on the subject.

Mr. Lambsley's Strange Constitutional (Coffin 824-837)

So, the textbook mentions that there was a "discussion on the decline of the West amid a growing sense of cultural crisis" (Coffin 836-837) occurring in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Having not read the entire chapter, I cannot comment on the philosophical aspect of this belief in the decay of Western civilization, but I think I can safely say that this belief was spurred on by all the new developments taking place in this period. For instance, what say you're a stiff-lipped British aristocrat leaving whatever your parliamentary building is called for your morning constitutional. Your name could Lambsley. As you walk out the door you hear two members of parliament speaking about socialism without disdain. Disturbed by this incident you hurry off but are immediately confronted by a women's suffrage rally! "Good heavens! What next?" you mumble, and you back away from such a mad gathering, but what is this you have now stumbled upon? It is an advertisement for some horrendously new-fangled contraption called a bi-cycle. You drop your cane and run, run without looking back. But what was the point of that "digression?" Mainly that a lot of new stuff was happening that hadn't happened before, or at least to so great an extent. If you happened to be like Mr. Lambsley, the changes of mass politics and consumer culture, not to mention of industry or philosophy, were probably a bit of a jolt.

The Great Game: IT WAS GREAT!

The textbook mentions the "Great Game" briefly in its discussion of Russian imperialism, describing it as "the maneuvering, spying, and support of friendly puppet governments" (Coffin, 803) between Britain and Russia in Central Asia and the Middle East. This topic is a particular favorite of mine, but I also think it presents a good case study for the many different forms European imperialism took in the 19th and early 20th centuries. With Russia there is the expansionary form of imperialism, in that Russia was conquering neighboring lands (the Caucasus region, Kazakhstan and Turkestan), whereas with Britain there is the other, overseas, form of imperialism, in which Britain was conquering far off lands (India). (Note that I am not making a distinction between expansionism and imperialism, but rather a distinction between types of imperialism).

Of course, it wasn't all conquering, or the direct rule of formal imperialism. Both Russia and Britain often practiced an informal imperialism, extending their separate spheres of influence by making deals with the local khans, emirs, and other despots, particularly in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. In fact, this informal imperialism usually occurred before any formal imperialism. It was easier for the European countries because they could still get concessions, resources, and new markets without having a military presence in the area. However, these agreements between the European countries and the local rulers eventually ended in most cases. For instance, the local ruler would grow tired of one country's influence, and, believing his army to be strong enough, would either exchange the influence of Russia for Britain (or vice-versa) or strive to be independent. On the other hand, Britain and Russia could feel that the time was right for an new territory and scrap the agreements themselves. In any of those cases, informal imperialism led to formal imperialism when the European countries invaded the territory (historical examples are the Russian campaigns in Central Asia in 1868-1870 and Anglo-Afghan Wars in 1838-1842 and 1878-1880; not all of these, however, were successful for the European countries).

The motivations of each country are also important to consider. Besides economics, which I have already mentioned (new markets, resources), Russia engaged in much of this imperialism for power, glory, and a demonstration of strength. Britain spent so much time in the area in an attempt to check Russia's imperial ambitions, which were a growing threat to India, and by extension Britain's entire empire. In addition, there was much public support in both countries for the imperial undertakings that took place during the "Great Game." The "Great Game" is still around in the present day (though many features of it have changed); it continued through World War One, the Russian Revolution and Soviet imperialism (both in the 1920s and later with the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan), and even past the break-up of the colonial empires. You could argue whether or not the current U.S. engagement in Afghanistan counts as part of a new "Great Game" or not, but there is definitely still competition for resources in Central Asia and the Middle East for natural gas and oil, respectively. To conclude, I think the "Great Game" is fascinating, and a very good example of European imperialism.

Note: For those interested, check out "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk. You could also look up Vasily V. Vereschagin on the internet; he was a Russian artist who had paintings of the Russian campaigns in Central Asia, as well as painting or two of the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny.

The Impact of the Crimean War (Coffin 776-777)

Though the Crimean War was short and not a true victory for any of the countries involved, it had far-reaching effects, and, though I am going beyond the time period we are currently studying, I think many of the root causes of World War One lie in the circumstances surrounding the Crimean War. First and foremost are the alliances. After having been involved in over a century of intermittent warfare, culminating in the 25 years from the French Revolution to Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, Britain and France allied in response to the mutual threat of Russian expansion in Eastern Europe. Regardless of whether this alliance held for every year between 1854 and 1914 (I’ll admit I do not know the complete history of the alliance), the two former enemies had set a precedent for themselves of joining forces. On the other hand, when Austria chose not to support Russia, that alliance dissolved. Those two countries would be antagonists in World War One, and Russia, now with no strong allies, would eventually form an alliance with its former enemies, Britain and France. The other major impact of the Crimean War, according to page 777 of the textbook, was the weakening of Russia and Austria. The reduction of those two countries’ power and influence proved very beneficial to Prussia’s ambitions and the eventual unification of Germany, whose very existence upset the balance of power in Europe. The impact of the Crimean War was terribly large not in the short-run, but in the long-run.