How did imperialism help to create a Europe that would eventually lead to WWI?

Question

In other words, in what ways was imperialism a background cause to WWI?

Answer 1

imrandomlikethat,

It's largely because of "lebensraum," a convenient excuse for imperialism.

Everybody who was anybody, that is, any empire that wanted to be a great empire, had a lot of land. What was an empire but imperial, you see. At the time Britain first and especially, but France, too, had many colonies. Well, when Germany finally rose to power--which it started to do when it was unified under Bismarck--most of the easily-colonized places had been, well, colonized. Mostly, that left Africa, so Germany went into Africa and began to colonize. That's what empires do: be imperial, especially with other peoples' land.

It wasn't enough, of course. France had entered Africa earlier, and so the room there, too was restricted. If you're a power that wants to become a Major Power, what do you do? You find a way to overcome the advantages of other Major Powers. At first, that meant through colonies, then through alliances. Thus was born the Dual Alliance, the Austro-Serbian Alliance, and the Triple Alliance.

Well, such alliances do not go unnoticed, and so the "other side" set up their own alliances and "ententes," between France, Russia, and Britain.

France, of course, was still smarting from the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which they started over the attempt to put a German King on the Spanish throne. The Germans trounced them badly, then declared themselves an empire under Wilhelm 1. This desire to be an empire was going to be the single greatest result of the Franco-Prussian War and the major motive for World War 1. They were going to keep what they conquered and conquer more. The French wanted their land (especially the Alsace-Lorraine) and respect back.

Germany wanted greatness.

But how does an empire become a great empire? They tried economics. German industry grew very fast after the 1870 war with France, and they searched hard for markets for their goods. The land was largely taken, and the economic competition with Britain was not going to be easy. This led to the idea that naval power would be a large part of Germany's increase, for it could sustain and protect trade routes. But Britain, too had a large and powerful navy, and two powerful navies are going to run into each other at some time. Looking for colonies, building a navy: this was going to lead to suspicion and anger from those already doing that. It would also lead to the major naval battle of the war, the Battle of Jutland, where these two powerful fleets met. They were so evenly matched that it's not easy deciding who won that battle. Germany sank more ships but Britain retained control of the seas. That sort of thing happens between imperialistic powers.

Now, here's where something seemingly completely unrelated enters the picture and shows how complicated human motives can be.

In the early 1830s, a newly-minted college graduate named Charles Darwin took a five-year voyage on His Majesty's Ship "Beagle," and his findings and conclusions changed the world in more ways than one.

First, of course, was the theory of evolution, which Darwin did not create--that was done, as far as we know, by the ancient Greek Anaximander a little after 600 bc.--but what Darwin did was to set forth the idea of natural selection as the process. Darwinian natural selection says that species adapt or die. Those that adapt best and most readily, live and thrive, competing and winning against those whose adaptation is worse or slower.

That was the decisive thought that inspired Wilhelm and Germany to the imperialism that resulted in World War One, for after Darwin (and Alfred Wallace) proposed natural selection, the idea of natural selection began to grow as the mechanism of all growth, not just biological growth.

Other growth like national growth.

In 1897, a German named Friedrich Ratzel coined a term which became important in both world wars: "Lebensraum," literally "living room" or "room for living." In order to be a great people, a nation had to have great space. Look at America--it was a great place, and thus it was an enviable country with an enviable people which was becoming great (this was part of Ratzel's argument). To be great, then, Germany, too, needed great space.

Well, then, thought Ratzel. If biology (all the rage then) was right, nations, too, were organic, like living beings, and it certainly can seem like it. They are "born," they "grow," they can even "die." And organic growth and life doesn't know anything about "borders." So neither should nations. They should grow as much as they can.

Others agreed with him, especially Friedrich von Bernhardi who wrote in 1912 (a book entitled "Germany and the Next War," so you can see that many Germans were already convinced that war, like the Franco-Prussian War, was needed to increase their greatness) that eastern europe was where they would have to go to get it. If it required war, then so be it.

So Germany believed in war for their own good. Such competition worked for species. Why not nations, then?

The ancient Greek Thucydides said:

"Nobody is driven into war by ignorance, and no one who thinks that he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear."

You can find that quote here:

http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/thucydides-passages.php?pleaseget=4.59-63

Germany had convinced itself that it had much to gain from war, as 1870 proved. To be great, one must compete. When nations compete, they fight.

So when they planned war, they knew that it would have to include France, an old enemy. Thus they developed that part of the Schlieffen Plan to attack France by sweepting through Belgium (the standard shorthand for that was "let the last man on the right brush the Channel with his sleeve." That quote can be found in "The Guns of August," a wonderful book about the war itself), the one thing that Germany was explicitly forbidden to do by the Triple Entente.

Well, Thucydides was right. By the time 1914 came around, Germany was determined to wage war for greatness, and his decision can be seen (largely in what Wilhelm does not say) in the saddening telegrams between the royal cousins Czar Nicholas of Russia and Emperor Wilhelm of Germany:

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1914/willynilly.html

Germany was set on war, and nothing would stop them.

Imperialism--it's a wonderful thing, isn't it? What's so different between it and envy?

Answer 2

Many. European imperialism was the basic cause of WWI.

The war was started by Austro-Hungary's imperial ambitions in the Balkans. The empire was gradually decaying, and it needed to prove that it was a modern state and military power, or the smaller countries that were part of it might try to seceede.

Austria-Hungary was backed by Germany, which was a rising imperial power which wanted to prove itself.

Against the two was Russia, which was also a decaying empire and under threat of revolution, which needed a war to keep the population loyal, France, which had a thriving overseas empire but felt threatened by Germany and wanted to keep it in check, and britain which wanted to restore the balance of power in Europe so it could get back to ruling India.

Answer 3

Lenin was correct. Imperialism played a major part in World War I. The Theories regarding the motive for World War I all support Imperialistic intentions. Imperialism is also referred to as Expansionism. Before political growth and negotiations, acquisition was the means for economic stabilization.

There were trade barriers among the countries and ambitions clearly outlined by the Schlieffen Plan indicate that Imperialism or Expansionism were the only strategies presented as a solution. Kaiser Wilhelm II is quoted as having said "Paris for lunch, dinner at St. Petersburg." He was hungry.

It was the lack of economic continuity among the countries that attributed to the war. Ambitious leadership with no diplomatic methods of resolution.

Later after a second war, also economically motivated, the Bretton Woods system was introduced and has proven to be an effective approach to economic conflicts. Europe had little reason for Expansionism since economic continuity among the countries could be obtained. It is much preferred to use political negotiations regarding economic policies than acquisition through expansionism.

When looking at our current situations and you can see that there is still much to learn and change in order to resolve economic issues. We have seen economic wars conducted by all countries. Ultimately, it is monetary policies and trade issues that continue to play a role in the battlefields today. The attitude of acquisition still exists. Countries are still hungry.

It goes to show you that, advancement in economic policies and negotiations can and do prevent war. In time, through trial and error, Governments will find alternatives to solve trade and economic issues. We have just begun to understand the cause.......with progressive leadership, we will find the solution.

Answer 4

Austria-Hungary was a dual-monarchy that ruled other territories, including the Slavic areas which came to be known as Yugoslavia.
The Slavic desire for self-control led a Bosnian to shoot the Archduke Ferdinand, starting the war.
Other nations joined one of the two sides based on treaties or allegence. Then it became a huge international conflict.

Answer 5

the imperialist wanted to rule europe and the world.