• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How can we explain the European conquest of Africa after 1870 ?

Extracts from this document...


Edward History 4 Periods Bennett 6Fra Homework : How can we explain the European conquest of Africa after 1870 ? Introduction There were many revolutions before 1870 : nationalist / internal (1830) , 'Years of revolutions' (1848) , Paris Commune (1871). Nationalism in that time led to : . A revolution against an Imperial power . A unification of separate elements . An exploitation of popular nationalism in an existing Liberalists did great things like creating a free trade on the level of the economy and on the political side there were rights and more freedom. In the 30 years after 1870 European countries expanded their empires a lot, acquired many new subjects and about a tenth of the world's population at that time.In 1870 , many European countries wanted to apply the concept that one nation should take over other territories as colonies : the beginning of Imperialism appeared. The question is 'What factors triggered off such a massive and rapid extansion ?' Well, some commentators at the time called it 'economic' imperialism : a search by industrialising powers for raw materials , for new markets, and for lucrative investment opportunities.Recent historians say it was more of a political cause. Other historians say that one set of factors cannot satisfactorily explain such a complicated phenomenon. It is clear that this new and explosive phase of European imperialism is a complex case and cannot be explained in simple terms. ...read more.


An American Historian, Profesor Hayes, argued in A Generation of Materialism (1871-1900) that the new imperialism was a nationalistic phenomenon. It created a very powerful Germany and a united Italy, which carried Russia out of sight of Constantinople, and left England fearful and France eclipsed. The French government was encouraged by Bismarck to expand in north and west Africa because (as Prime Minister Gambetta declared) 'France is recovering her position as a great power and to avoid officers getting officers under the command of Boulanger who wanted absolutely revenge against Germany in Europe. Historian A. J. P. Taylor says that Bismarck colonial claims/disputes were used to increase Anglo-French rivalry and at the same time promote the possibility of a Franco-German entente on colonial issues.Other historians thought that Bismarck's bid for colonies was a respones to a variety of domestic pressures. Political factors: the challenge of Germany The entry of Germany into the colonial arena in the period 1884-5 injected a new element of rivalry. European countries wanted more territories. People thought Bismarck's attitude was strange, as he said in 1881 that ' As long as I am Imperial Chancellor we shall not pursue a colonial policy' and then in 1884 he launches a bid for colonies. He was maybe making a plot. People shared Taylor's view s that Bismarck was seeking to protect Germany's position in Europe and his alliance system. ...read more.


This made a 'chain reaction' of rivalries and of annexations which spread to west Africa and further south. Britain really wanted to keep South Africa to safeguard the naval base and sea routes and east Africa for strategic reasons only. Many historians have argued that economic imperialism did increase competition after 1870 and inflame international rivalries. The opposing view has been put forward that colonial disputes acted as a 'safety valve' for European rivalries, rather than intensifying them, and as the powers applicate their ambitions on Africa or Asia , the likelihood of a serious war diminished .France, Russia, Britain in the early 20th century , indeed at that moment it was the consequent emergence of the 'Triple Entente' between those countries that increased the danger for war because the Germans got alarmed. Conclusion I think that this chapter highlights the many different elements which were involved in the European expansion of Africa after 1870. There were undoubtedly major forces at work which enabled a handful of powers to divide up so much of the globe by 1900. The results of this late 19th imperialism profoundly influenced international relations in the 20th century and at the same time increased rivality between the great powers . To me, all of this was the result of the first World War which was completely inevitable. People should have seen war coming as the countries were in a struggle for colonial expansion in Africa. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Hitlers Germany

    This increase was due to the greater attention given to females because of their voting potential, the development of specific organizations for women, and the example of upper-class women who joined the party and thereby attracted other women. A social profile of Nazi leaders shows little change from the period 1924-1929.

  2. Within the context of the period 1869-1914, to what extent was the British take-over ...

    This is even stranger when considering the British conquests of South Africa and the Transvaal will have been well known to the chief. For one reason or another, he came to the conclusion that Rhodes only wanted the gold. Prior to this, Rhodes had made a whirlwind trip to London

  1. Was Gladstone more responsible for the scramble for Africa than Disraeli?

    Therefore, from this factor it is evident that that Gladstone was more responsible for the scramble for Africa than Disraeli However Gladstone can also be seen as being less responsible for the scramble for Africa than Disraeli.

  2. Show how Bismarck negotiated the Triple Alliance in 1882. What were the purpose ...

    This was, after all, the most effective defence of the autocratic system against the disruption forces of liberalism and radicalism. It required considerable effort to bring the Kaiser behind his proposal. Bismarck himself threatened resignation. The Alliance provided for two eventualities, (1)

  1. "The first world war was the result of long-standing rivalries between the great powers". ...

    I believe the scramble for Africa cannot be considered to be an important long-standing rivalry between the European powers, due its effects. With respect to its time period, the scramble for Africa can be considered a long-standing rivalry, with respect to its consequences; it made for a weak and ineffective rivalry when considering its significance in bringing about war.

  2. How Successfully in the period 1870 to 1914 did the ruling elites of Germany ...

    Bismarck embraced these changes as an opportunity to gain co-operation from the National Liberal Party at first, (the largest party in the Reichstag at the time), and also to gain military advantage. The chancellor had no party of his own, had common aims with the liberals such as national unity.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work