It is now widely suggested that Empire was extremely “unprofitable” (1991, p43), and the beneficiaries of the policy were private individuals who made money at a time when this policy was “costing the nation more than it bought in” (Brunschwig 1966, p166). Hobson’s fundamental argument is that empire did not benefit the nation as a whole but merely served to further the prosperity of the elites. Hobson states that Imperialism “represented the pervasion of true capitalism by a minority of businesses elites and vested interests for their own selfish purpose” (Hobson, 1938). However historian Schumpeter goes further adding that it was the “government and society of older pre-capitalist social groups” (1994, p9) whom stood to gain from the acquisition of an Empire.
Hobson saw colonial policy as an “expansion of autocracy (1994, p9) and that although imperialism for certain parts of European society was beneficial, for the large majority it was “bad business for the nation” (1994, p9). Aggressive imperialism was a financial burden to European societies; in many nations taxes were raised to meet the growing cost and national debt soured: by 1912 Germany owed more than “490,000,000 marks” (19911, p19), it was of little value to manufacturers and traders, and while the upper middle class were feasting upon “Helioland lobster” and “smoked veal” (1991, p81), Germany’s working class were living in severely cramped over-crowed accommodation and sharing the same bed on a “shift basis” (Greary, p105). The profiteers of imperialism were growing wealthy at the expense of the nation; Lenin states that “surplus capital will be utilised not for the purpose of raising the standards of living of the masses but for the purpose of increasing profits” (1916, p37); Hobson suggested that surplus capital and goods could have been absorbed into the local economy, commenting that the savings made “could find employment in home industries” (1916, p37); thus being of benefit to European society.
By 1900 it had clearly been shown that French colonial expansion was not “profitable” (1985, p19), yet this did not stop the government from pursuing further expansion. French colonial ambitions do not fit the theory of economic imperialism; they conquered an empire when their overseas trade was at a “minimum” (1985, p19) and the material profits which empire yielded were tiny. Brunshwig argues that French industry did not develop the “voracious demand for food and raw materials” nor the surplus of goods and capital for export (1985, pvii). Economically speaking France had no need for an Empire, Brunswig argues that the French painted the map blue not for economic reasons, but to “pump up their prestige as a great nation (1985, pvii)”.
Manipulated social imperialism’ is the discourse of social historians; they see empire as a response to the rise of the working class which was becoming a threat to the old order; it was a manipulation of nationalism to divert a nation’s attention from a socialist revolution. “It was at the beginning of the 19th century that the average man became conscious of the fact that he belonged to a nation” (1985, p20). The Franco-Prussian war ignited nationalistic feeling within society for both the German and the French nations: “war like nationalism spread among the people’s of the continent to an extent which had never been so general and so passionately felt” (1985, p20). ‘Hans Ulrich Wehler maintains that colonial expansion was a movement conceived by the German upper classes to “distract the working class from socialism” (1994, p32). Wilhelmine naval policy and the rise of the Social Democratic Party in Germany illustrate this point.
The growth of the German battle fleet between 1890 and 1914 was one of the most “startling military developments in the world”; fundamentally it was ‘anti-British’, a planned drive for world power, which historians now refer to as the policy of ‘Weltpolitik’ (1991, p37). The key figure to German naval expansion was Tirpitz. In 1898 Tirpitz influenced naval law that stipulated that Germany should have 19 battleships by 1905, and further extensions to this law secured thirty battleships by 1910. Tirpitz also established a section for news and general Parliamentary affairs whose focus was the “mobilisation of the masses”. Germany’s ever growing power within Europe “gave a feeling of pride to its citizens”. A letter to Tirpitz in 1895 where he mentions the “possibility that the appeal of a fleet might lessen that of social democracy” (1991, P93) also supports the discourse of manipulated social imperialism.
In both France and Germany imperialism was seen as an act by the conservative elite to maintain its “dominance in the face of the twin challenges of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat”: Socialism and Liberalism (Porter & Armour, 1991). Using the example of socialism, it could be argued that the moderation of the SDP was a victory for the governing elite, and thus Bulow’s policy of ‘Samlungspolitik’, a policy of rallying the public against socialism was successful. Lenin supports this concept when he confirmed that Imperialist ideology had penetrated the “working class”, and criticises the “so called” German SDP party (Lenin, 1916).
However there are flaws in this debate; the period between 1890 and 1918 saw a rapid growth in the popularity of the German social democratic party; figure one supports this argument, showing a rise from 35 seats in 1890 to 110 seats in 1912 in the Reichstag election (1991, p11); along with this there was also a rapid growth in trade union membership. Although we could come to the conclusion that empire thus did not have an impact on the lives of continental Europeans in the social sphere, the desire of conservative elites to resolve domestic difficulties by a nationally unifying war, referred to as the ‘escape forwards theory’, unquestionably impacted upon the lives of Europeans.
FIGURE ONE: RECEISTAG ELECTION RESULTS 1890 – 1918 FOR THE GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PORTER & ARMOUR 1991, P 111)
Imperialism became the ideology of millions; Chamberlain argues that the acquisition of empire was done so with little “opposition at home” (1999, p84). French colonial opposition provided the nation with a sense of achievement after a humiliation defeat at the hands of her neighbour in 1871; the nation’s motivation was clearly that of prestige rather than economic. However the growing rivalry of the European powers was “fraught with grave incalculable peril to the citizen” (Hobson, 1916), and placed for the first time in history a number of highly industrialised nations in a situation of “cut throat competition” (1999, p90); Joll states imperialism inevitably leads to “war” (1990). German historian Fischer even goes as far as arguing that “for the sake of world power, Germany had consciously brought about war” (1991, p2).
Arguably the most devastating effect Empire had on the lives of continental European’s was the Great War of 1914. Germany’s Weltpolitik was at the cost of “six million dead and wounded” (1991, p68), they were forced to surrender substantial territory and accept full responsibility of the War: thus incurring a huge financial liability. The war although popular to begin with left the German people “traumatised” and “embittered” by an unexpected defeat(1991, p68). Further more as Judt argues “world war was a thirty year war which began in 1914” (Judt 2005, p2); the social and economic tension created by world war one and the huge national debt that resulted from war, created the instability in the Weimer republic which led to the rise of fascism and Adolf Hitler. 1914 has been referred to as the ‘end of Innocence’, it was seen as destroying the progress of the 19th century in the mud of the trenches; it was a war that caused mass destruction yet a war that Europe welcomed due to the governing elites manipulation of nationalistic fever, that swept through European nations in the late 19th century. Thus Empire had an incalculable impact on the lives of continental Europeans.
It is somewhat difficult for one to calculate the full extent to which Empire had on the lives on Continental Europeans, however what is clear from the evidence available that on the whole Imperial policy was of far more benefit to the ‘conservative elite’ than it was to the nation as a whole. There was a less grim side to Empire: Europeans were now bought into contact with “primitive and exotic cultures”, which permeated into art, music and even into the science of Anthropology: Pablo Picasso influence’s of Empire contributed to a “revolution in painting”, and the sounds of oriental music could be heard at the “Great Paris International Exhibition of 1889”, whilst the study of the people of the new Empires saw the “questioning of established moral and social values”. However it is questionable whether it truly halted the rise of socialism, and were the benefits worth the expense of a world war?
In examining the impact Empire had on the lives of continental Europeans it is imperative to consider the political, social and economic discourses. Whilst yes one can conclude that economically colonial empires had the potential to serve the needs of growing populations , industry and capital; however empires proved to be unprofitable and served only the governing conservative elite who sought to manipulate it’s nation for its own purposes. Colonial Empires were an aggressive policy designed for the “prospect of conserving the status quo” at home and to further the political influence of the nation overseas; the ultimate price citisens paid was a war fought for ‘King and country’ rather than a war fought for the people; World war one “destroyed Europe” (2005, p6).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brunschwig, H. (1966) French Colonialism 1871 – 1914. London: Pall Mall Press
Chamberlain, M.E. (1999) 2nd ed the Scramble for Africa, Essex: Pearson Education
Geary, D. (1989) Socialism and the German Labour Movement before 1914, Oxford:Berg
Hobson, J.A. (1938) Imperialism: a study, London: Harper Collins
Joll, J. (1990) 4th ed Europe since 1870, Middlesex: Penguin
Lenin, V.I. (1916) Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism Moscow: Progress Publishers
Mazower, M. (1998) 2nd ed Dark Continent, Middlesex: Penguin
Porter, A. (1994) European Imperialism, 1860 – 1914, Hampshire: Palgrave
Porter, I and Armour, I. (1991) Imperial Germany 1890 – 1918, Essex: Pearson Education
