how did the problems faced by the colonial race help to push the World into World War I?

Answer 1

I've got to say, I'm a little annoyed at the person who said "history is a waste of time." You can't understand ANYTHING in our world today without knowing history - no matter if that history is 5 years ago, 50, or 500. I spent 4 years of college and my entire professional career teaching History.

Getting back to the point....

Yes, colonialism added to the tensions, but that was only part of it. A simple explanation of World War I leads us to the fact that it occured due to the fact that many countries in Europe desired to "be the best." They wanted great Empires, specifically in Africa and S.E. Asia, and India. This desire to be the best made things pretty competitive and caused a lot of tensions - these tensions partially led to WW1.

The direct cause of World War I is quite obviously the assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinand by a Serb - Ferdinand was a leader of Austria-Hungary (one country at this point, somewhat powerful). As a result, the countries went to war. Allies were involved and it turned in to a full scale war. I would say the primary causes of the war revolve around secret alliances - no one knew these countries had so many allies that would get involved.

Long existing tensions (partially involving colonialsm) were expressed through this war. Simply, the war was sorta like the straw that broke the camels back - one thing or another was bound to set these countries off to war eventually. It just happened that it was Ferdinand getting assasinated that did it. If these tensions did not exist, would these European countries still have gone to war with each other outside of Austria-Hungary and Serbia? Very difficult to say, some would say yes, some would say no.

I hope this answers your question.

Answer 2

pretty simple, the people inside the countries controlled by the empires wanted independence, it wasn't the main cause but it was an important one.

Answer 3

Well, that' a good question. That's probably a history question on your homework. History is such a waste of time. How have we benefitted from history? History has not helped us out of an unnecessary war. We went to war over stuff. Our president probably studied history. He studied that people go to war over stuff. HMMMMMM I guess he did study history, and he is repeating it. Aren't we supposed to study history so we don't repeat it?

I guess I have a question to post, "Why is history necessary?" If you have an answer for me, please e-mail me. I would love to know.

Answer 4

Some years ago when I was in graduate school I wrote a thesis entitled "The Egyptian Lever" which outlined Germany's use of its membership on the Egyptian Caisse de la Dette (Debt Commission) to try to manipulate Britain's interest in maintaining its hold on the Suez Canal into an alliance with Germany, or at the very least an understanding. As this issue was interrelated with a variety of other colonial questions, I was obliged to do some research on the whole issue. I will not bore you with the detail, but will try to write a brief synopsis that you may find useful.

Britain, in the latter 19th century was possessing of a global empire on which, as the saying then went, "the sun never set." To maintain that empire a number of factors had to resolve in Britain's favor. She had to maintain naval superiority and/or naval combinations that assured communication and trade lines were secure. In addition, as her land-based military resources were stretched very thin, she had to try to keep other major powers from meddling in and causing trouble with her far flung empire, and had to try to maintain a balance of power in Europe so that no one state became so powerful as to threaten the home islands--thereby forcing her to withdraw military and naval commitments to the empire in favor of self-defence.

Germany in various ways sought to capitalize on Britain's needs in this regard by extracting diplomatic concessions in the European theater, pretty effectively during the tenure of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, one of the master diplomatists of the day. Not a very committed imperialist himself, Bismarck was once asked of Germany's interests in an African empire, and famously said while pointing to a map of Europe--"this is my map of Africa." In other words, while willing to pay lip-service to colonialists in Germany, he really viewed Europe's imperial thrusts into Africa and Asia as more or less tools to be used in securing Germany's interests in Europe.

Alas, everyone of us in this life will see our time come and go, and so too did the Iron Chancellor's time pass, and his power declined considerably under the new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, who would eventually lead his country into war. Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to secure Germany's "place in the sun" as he called it--a colonial empire in earnest. Unlike Bismarck, who cultivated a loose diplomatic relationship with Britain (he might have preferred a treaty, but the British tried to steer clear of commitments on the Continent) Wilhelm II was perfectly willing to offend the British and the French for that matter to secure colonial claims in Africa and the Far East. Perhaps more dangerous still, he was willing to build a substantial navy to press those interests and to protect them once acquired.

This resulted in a naval race the British could not afford to lose, whatever the cost, as to do so would compromise not only the security of the empire, but Britain's safety as well, as she had always relied upon control of the sea to prevent other powers from invading in time of war.

This combination of colonial conflicts, and Germany's rise as a naval power strained Anglo-German relations and essentially drove Britain into the arms of the Franco-Russian Alliance--not as member of the alliance, as Britain never was a signatory to that, but as a practical affiliate on several points. Among the most crucial of these was that Britain agreed to a naval understanding with France that, in time of war, would allow the French to move their fleet to the Mediterranean to offset the Ottoman and Italian navies, and that Britain wold essentially guarantee the Germany fleet would not enter the English Channel. Britain also guaranteed Belgian neutrality--that is to say if anyone invaded Belgium Britain would come to the aid of the other side.

The French, knowing this, built strong defenses along the Franco-German border as if to encourage the Germans, if war came, to flank those defenses through Belgium so as to trigger a British response against Germany--which of course is precisely what the Germans did in 1914. So even though Britain was not a formal ally of France or Russia at the outbreak of the war, her commitments on these issues forced her to side with them once war came--and one might well say that her colonial interests and interest in naval superiority to protect the empire were key factors in propelling her to that point. That is to say--colonial conflicts had a major impact in shaping the diplomatic alliances that led to WWI.

I could go on at considerably more length on this, as it is a subject I dearly love, but I have likely exceeded your interest in it already. Against the very slim chance that you may have questions, please feel free to contact me at your discretion.

Dr. David T. Pride
Executive Director
Supreme Court Historical Society

[e-mail]