REASONS FOR EMERGENCE OF ‘NEW IMPERIALISM’

By the middle of the 19th century, interest in colonies had declined. There was more free trade so political control was unnecessary. However, between 1870-1900 the empires of the European nations underwent a spectacular expansion e.g by 1900 the British Empire comprised 1/5 of the world.

Mercantilism- an eco policy based on belief that there was only a limited amount of wealth in the world.

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL MOTIVES FOR IMPERIALISM EXPANSION

The desire to find and exploit new trading opportunities had been one of the main reasons for imperial expansion in the 16th-18th centuries. Following a policy of mercantilism, the most powerful EU nations aimed to increase wealth through trade. Their govs established firm control over all aspects of trade w the aim of limiting cost of imports and increasing value of exports, so nations could accumulate large amounts of gold and silver. Gaining overseas possessions provided a cheap source of raw materials and labour, and products like spices and silks, not available in EU. At the same time, the overseas possessions provided a guaranteed and lucrative market for EU goods.

Many EU businesses and private companies were able to become extremely wealthy by exploiting this trading situation, e.g slave trade. From as early as 16th century, ships had sailed from EU ports to coast of Africa. There the Europeans would acquire slaves, either by bartering w local chieftains or kidnapping ppl. The human cargo was then sold to plantation owners in USA and Caribbean to pick cotton, or harvest tobacco and sugar, and then these resources would return to EU on the ships.

Empires were neither stable nor permanent constructs. Belief in mercantilism began to decline during the 18th century. Maintaining control over overseas possessions and protecting vital trade routes from rival nations was expensive and often led to wars, in 2nd half of 18th century e.g B fought caro wars in an attempt to keep North America. At the same time S empire in Latin America was collapsing- Brazil independent from Portugal in 1927.

New eco theories suggested nation’s wealth shouldn’t be judged by gold and silver it possessed, but its ability to produce goods and services.

ECONOMIC MOTIVES FOR IMPERIAL EXPANSION: INDUSTRIALISATION

During the 19th century, however, a new eco motive for imperial expansion developed. The industrial rev, based on mechanisation, meant that EU industry expanded rapidly. Goods were mass produced at such a scale it became essential to find new sources of raw materials with which to make them and new markets at which to sell them. Also entrepreneurs sought new places to invest their money.

As the 1st country to undergo an industrial rev, B enjoyed enormous eco advantages during 1st half 19th cent. Dev of steam powered machinery revolutionised B’s industries. B was ‘The Workshop of the World’ able to produce goods quicker and cheaper than any other.

As the industrial rev spread across EU, B’s advantageous eco situation ended. In the 2nd half od 19th century, B began to face growing comp from Eu rivals and also from the USA, which was rapidly emerging as an eco power in its own right. By 1850, the eco of the G states had been transformed by the dev of railways and the formation of customs union. By the time of its unification in 1871, G had emerged as a serious eco challenger to B. Though much slower to industrialise than G, F too was making a concerted effort to extend trading. W a trading outpost in Senegal, F increased commercial interests in Africa w the conquest of Algeria. Bt 1850 and 1870, F developed the 2nd most powerful navy in the world.

ECONOMIC MOTIVES FOR IMPERIAL EXPANSION: THE ‘LONG DEPRESSION’

This comp was enhanced by what became known as the ‘Long Depression’ a period of price deflation that lasted from 1873- 1896. As a result of rapid industrialisation across EU and the USA, principally in G and B, the production of goods was outstripping demand. Businessmen and industrialists were forced to lower their prices, which in turn led to declining wages and job losses. Govs were put under pressure to protect and promote their countries’ economies. Euro countries therefore began competing for new overseas possessions which would provide guaranteed markets for industrial products.

ECONOMIC MOTIVES FOR IMPERIAL EXPANSION: COMPETITION FOR RAW MATERIALS

Just as EU’s industrialised nations needed to find new markets for the huge increase in their output of manufactured products, they needed to find new resources, such as cotton, copper, rubber and tin. Large quantities of these can be found in Africa and Asia. Raw cotton in Mozambique and India, copper in SA, rubber in the Congo and tin in British Malaya. Africa and Asia also offered other products that were highly valued in Europe - like tea and silk in China, gold and diamonds and palm oil.

POLITICAL MOTIVES FOR IMPERIAL EXPANSION: GROWTH OF NATIONALISM

By 1871, the pol map of Europe had been settled. New nation states were declared in I and G, and borders within EU had been agreed. Only war could change these borders, something all were keen to avoid. Although R and Austria continued to eye the Balkans following uprisings against the ruling Ottoman Empire, there was little possibility of expansion within EU itself. Countries needed to look overseas in order to enhance their own industrialisation and increase wealth, power, prestige.

The late 19th century witnessed an increase of nationalism within EU. G and I were keen to establish themselves as newly unified nations. F was determined to recover from FPW (1870-71) defeat. Confronted w increasing eco comp, B proudly boasted about the size of its empire and the power of its navy.

In the Naval Defence Cat (1889) B adopted the ‘two power standard’. This aimed to ensure B navy remained as powerful as the combined strength of the next two largest (F and R at the time).

EU govs increasingly portrayed overseas possessions as symbols of national pride and power. F govs, e.g argued it was France’s destiny to be superior to other nations and to spread its language, culture and beliefs to the rest of the world through overseas expansion.

F missionaries in Indo-China however, did more than spread Christianity and F culture. Their leaders actively helped F military forces take control over parts of vietnam.

POLITICAL MOTIVES FOR IMPERIAL EXPANSION: IMPERIALISM AS SOCIAL POLICY

By 1870, pol power in Europe remained largely in the hands of wealthy landowners, businessmen and entrepreneurs. Many stood to gain from overseas expansion. HW, their pol control was being threatened, industrialisation had led to they emergence of a large and increasingly organised working class, who demanded social, eco and pol reform.

In an effort to reduce this threat, govs portrayed oe as beneficial for everyone. Sr pols viewed imperialism as a means of diverting popular attention away from inequalities. Argued that imperialism would provide countries w the finance needed for social reform, and improve conditions for the working class by ensuring steady employment. Govs, therefore, used imperialism as a way of uniting their people behind a common aim- dev of pol and eco power of their country through oe.

POLITICAL MOTIVES FOR IMPERIAL EXPANSION: STRATEGIC CONTROL OF KEY REGIONS

Prior to 1869, trading w India and the Far East hd involved Europeans in a lengthy and hazardous journey around the Southern tip of Africa. To supply and protect its ships on this vital trade route, B had established a port in Cape Colony in SA. Bt 1859 and 1869, the Suez Canal Company, financed largely by B and F entrepreneurs, constructed a canal linking the Mediterranean and Red seas across Egyptian territory. This enabled EU ships to travel to and from India and Far East more quickly and cost-effectively. HW, the instability of the Egyptian gov threatened this, and so in 1882, B reluctantly took administration of Egypt. Many historians believe this encouraged other nations to gain territory in Africa. What originated as a strategy to facilitate commercial activity became a pol motive for seeking overseas possessions.

THE EMERGENCE OF NEW IMPERIALISM

The period from 1871-1914 witnessed a new wave of imperialism that is referred to as ‘new imperialism’. Historians disagree on how ‘new’ it actually was.

NATURE OF ‘NEW IMPERIALISM’

Had three main characteristics.

1. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE:

   whereas previous imperialism had been largely focusses on the ‘New World’ (North and South America), ‘New Imperialism’ centred on Africa and Asia. Explorers had shown that the African Interior contained an abundant supply of valuable materials inc. rubber and tin. One of the most famous explorers was David Livingstone, a Scottish missionary who discovered the source of the Nile. His African expeditions were largely funded by B gov, which realised the potential of his discoveries. Meanwhile, the crumbling Chinese Empire offered opportunities to increase trade links w the far East. The French explorer Henri Mount led several expeditions to Siam, Cambodia and Laos, and subsequently F had imperial control over large parts of Indo-China.

2. MAINTAINING PEACEFUL RELATIONS:

   although the rush to gain new oe inevitably involved EU rivalry, there was an attempt to prevent this leading to the constant warfare characteristic of ‘old imperialism’. The Treaty of Berlin (1885) laid down rules by which EU countries should carry out plans for expansion in Africa. In China, imperial nations occupied their own discrete areas of influence and were prepared to collaborate against the chinese.

3. NEW IMPERIAL COUNTRIES:

   earlier imperialism had been carried out by the main EU powers, B, F, S, Portugal and the Netherlands. W ‘new Imperialism’, the desire for overseas expansion was no longer confined to the big powers of Eu. Massive industrial growth led the USA to seek greater control over Central and South America, tg w access to greater trading rights in Asia. This required dev of a strong navy and the acquisition of new overseas bases from which it could operate. Meanwhile, J embarked on its own industrial and military revs, enabling it to seek greater power and influence within Asia. This was to bring J into immediate conflict w one of the major EU powers, R, and made subsequent rivalry w the USA more likely.

FACTORS ENABLING ‘NEW IMPERIALISM’

If ‘New Imperialism’ was motivated by political, economic and strategic issues, social and technological factors made is possible.

1. MEDICAL ADVANCEMENT:

   in the late 18th century, Africa was known as the ‘white man’s grave’ because of the dangers of diseases such as malaria. The medicine quinine, discovered by French scientists in 1817, proved to be an effective treatment. As fears of contracting and dying of diseases gradually faded, the African interior and the jungles of Asia became more accessible to Europeans.

2. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS:

   industrial revolution led to introduction of new methods of producing iron and steel both cheaply and in large quantities. Facilitated devs in railways and steamships, which made transport quicker and safer. Iron-hulled, steam-driven ships were able to navigate rivers such as the Congo, the Zambezi and the Niger, offering easier access to the African interior. Similarly, comms systems were greatly improved. A telegraph network was established. Made it far easier for imperial nations to administer and control their overseas possessions. Dev of fast firing rifles, machine guns and heavy artillery gave EUs a distinct advantage over poorly armed Africans. e.g although vastly outnumbered by their African opponents, the possession of machine guns allowed B soldiers to gain rapid victory in the Matabele War of 1893. With such effective machinery, territory in both Asia and Africa could be taken w little effective resistance from locals.

OPPOSITION TO SLAVERY

By 1820, most Eu govs had banned the slave trade, arguing slavery was ‘repugnant to the principles of natural justice.’ - P. E Lovejoy. It was known that slavery remained common in Africa and many African chieftains bartered in human beings. Many Eus believed they had a moral duty to put an end to this practice.

THE THEORY OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY

In the early 19th century, scientists such as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau developed theories regarding the classification of races. White people were classified as racially superior to other groups, such as Asians or Africans. The publication in 1959 of Charles Darwin’s influential book ‘On the Origin of Species’, was widely, if mistakenly, interpreted as providing further scientific justification for such theories. It appeared to imply that certain races were inferior, being less evolved and thus less human. These views, presented through poor science and consciously or unconciously motivated by political and ideological factors, were widely accepted in EU and in the USA. Convinced of their racial superiority, many Eus believed they had a duty to bring order, stability and civilisation to the lives of ‘pagan’ Africans and Asians. The missionary explorer David Livingstone, for example, argued it was essential to introduce Africans and Asians to the three ‘Cs"- commerce, Christianity and civilisation.

The claim that Eu nations were gaining overseas possessions in order to improve the lies of local people provided convenient justification for actions that were, in reality self-interest and characterised by exploitation. While recognising Africans may have benefitted from B’s presence on their continent, Lord Lugard, a B soldier and explorer who was later governor of the B colony of Nigeria, openly accepted B’s main motive was to ‘serve our own interest as a nation’ by enhancing trade. Though he saw nothing wrong with this, thought it was B’s “right”, and quickly dismissing those who thought africa ‘belonged to the native’. By saying this, he was implying that the rights and needs of EUs outweighed those of Africans. In this, he was conforming to the widespread belief in racial superiority.

In Germany, politician August Babel addressed the Reichstag in 1906 pledging SPD (social democrats) support for German Imperialism as a ‘great cultural mission.” even though in 1899 he has told the same assembly that ‘the substance of colonisation is to exploit a foreign population to the utmost degree.”

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE ‘SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA’

In 1870, only 10% of Africa was under direct European control, most of it in the coastal regions. EUs knew little about the interior, other than it seemed to be a mysterious, inhospitable and dangerous place. As medical advancements reduced the health risks and steam ships made river tranposrt more doable, explorers ventured into Africa. some, e.g DL, were missionaries, determined to bring Christianity to the ‘uncivilised’ natives. Others were financed by wealthy entrepreneurs, keen to find new resources and trading opportunities. Henry Morton Stanley was hired by King Leopold II of Belgium to secure treaties with local chieftains along the course of the Congo River.

As increasing exploration reduced EU fears of Africa, the opportunities it offered became increasingly apparent. The last quarter of the 19th century witnessed the Scramble for vricxa, By 1900, over 90% of the African continent was under control of European Nations.

BRITAIN
B’s og concern had been to protect its total Indian Ocean trading routes, and this explains its interest in Egypt and South Africa. the discovery of gold, diamonds and other valuable materials oil the Boers’ independent republic in the Transvaal (SA) alerted B to the eco rewards that might be gained by acquiring further land in Africa. Determined to prevent other EU countries, esp F and G, from gaining these potentially mineral rich areas for themselves, b moved quickly to secure as much of Arica as possible. B took possession of most of Southern as East Africa in the last 20 years of 19th century. By 1900, B possessions in Africa included egypt, sudan, B east africa (kenya and uganda), British Somaliland, Southern and Northern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia), Beuchuanaland (botswana), Orange Free State and the Transvaal (SA), gambia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and Malawi. 30% of Africa’s population. Rhodes’ ambition was to build a railway and telegraph line from Cairo to Cape Town, thus reinforcing B’s commercial gain from its African possessions.

Given the USA’s own history of having to fight for independence from B, not surprising that many Americans were heavily critical of EU imperialism.

FRANCE

While B concentrated on East Africa,F was more active in the west and North-west. Earlier in the 19th century, eco and dip disputes, and the desire for a popular military success, had led France to invade what is now Algeria. Partly as a result of involvement in the slave trade, F controlled the coastal regions of Senegal. In the late 19th century, the French then moved inland in search of raw materials, such as palm oil and timber, and new markets for France’s industrial output. F pols, determined to enhance the country’s wealth, prestige and power following defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, saw the dev of a large overseas empire as essential.

BELGIUM

Bel itself had only been independent since 1830, but King Leopold II was determined to enhance his country’s prestige and his own wealth by claiming the enormous Congo Basin. Leopold was prepared to use his own money to pay for African territory that was considerably larger than Belgium itself. he saw the enormous financial advantage to be gained by exploiting the Congo’s large quantities of raw rubber, a commodity in much demand in Europe.

PORTUGAL

building on long standing contacts with the African Coast from the first wave of western exploration in the 16th century, and determined not to be left behind in the race to acquire Africa, Portugal extended its long established claims to Angola and Mozambique.

GERMANY

G entered the ‘scramble’ later than its EU rivals. G had only become a unified nation following the FP war of 1871. G’s location in the middle of Eu, surroidnrd by potential enemies, led its chancellor, Otto Van Bismarck, to concentrate on national security by forming alliances and avoiding unnecessary rivalry with other countries. By 1881, however, pressure from German businessmen and industrialists forced the gov to change its previous policy of resistance to African territory. A frenzy of activity left G in charge of Kamerun (cameroon and Nigeria), German East Africa, G south-west Africa, and Togoland. By the time of G’s entry into the race, most profitable areas had been taken, and Germany’s colonies cost much more than they were worth.

The ‘scramble for Africa’ may have begun for logical strategic and commercial reasons, but it rapidly descended into a mad rush for overseas possessions. EU countries seemed determined to see as much African land as possible, regardless of value, to merely stop it falling into the hands of their rivals. it was an issue of national pride and prestige.

THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM ON AFRICA

Had an enormous effect. Imperialists might point to benefits:

• developed states with administrative and governmental systems

• provided education for native inhabitants

• created new systems of transport and communications, building roads, railways snd running telegraph lines across the continent

• engineered water and sanitation systems and provided medical care and hospitals

• introduced more efficient methods of farming and new, more productive crops such as maize, pear, cassava, cotton, sisal and plantbhain.

However, these benefits came at a price

• Africa was randomly partitioned according to the needs and wishes of EUS who took no account of existing boundaries. W little knowledge of the local geography, no understanding of the tribal/ethnic groups of the local people and a steadfast refusal tp take the opinions of local chiefs into account, boundaries were arbitrarily drawn.

• Many A chiefs or kings were killed or sent into exile for resisting attempts by Eus to take over their land. Chief Mkwawa of the Hehe, for example, was beheaded for opposing German colonial rule in Tanganyika.

• While in many of its possessions, such as Northern Nigeria, B developed a form of indirect control, governing through local chiefs, other nations preferred more direct rule. In both cases, gov was based on a clear administrative hierarchy. w EUs at the top and As below. Structure reflected the EU assumption As were inferior. Stanley- ‘In order to rule them and keep one’s ;life among them, it is necessary to regard them as children.”

• Traditional African cultures were undermined as the Eus introduced western style edu, clothes, buildings and religion.

• Intro of money fully changed eco

• As ownership of lands changed hands to Eus, many As couldn’t farm their former land, and took jobs as cheap labour on public works, such as building roads and railways.

• There was large-scale exploitation of A resources. Raw materials taken to support EU industrial expansion, stopping A developing systems themselves.

• Inhumanity, KL II amassed a huge fortune from Congo basin rubber plantations. he used forced labour, a form of slavery. Workers who didn’t meet their quotas were beaten, mutilated and killed.

  • KL2 claimed Bel was doing a civilisation mission in the Congo

• A resistance to Eu rule sometimes led to harsh retribution. Bt 1904-1907, the Herero and Nama people rebelled against G rule in Namibia (G SWA). G drove them out into the Kalahari desert, where most were to die of thirst or starvation. The allegation that G soldiers poisoned desert wells has led to charges of genocide.

REASONS FOR, AND EXTENT OF, DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR OVERSEAS EXPANSION IN B, F AND G

While there was some opposition to ‘new imperialism’, many F, B and G people appeared to enthusiastically support their countries’ involvement in overseas expansion late 1800s. While reasons for this varied, all reflected the increase in nationalism that characterised the late 19th century.

BRITAIN

Even before the emergence of NI, B possessed a vast imperial empire, far larger than that of any other European nation. B people were accustomed to the fact their country had influence in or control over, distant foreign lands. That the empire was a symbol of national pride, power and prestige was heavily stressed in numerous ways during late 1800s.

Support for B imperialism was encouraged from a young age through the intro of compulsory state education. In addition to teaching reading and writing basics, schools aimed to encourage national pride and loyalty. maps of B empire were proudly displayed on classroom walls. As literacy levels increased and new technology reduced printing costs, more people had access to newspapers. owned and controlled by wealthy pro-imperialists (Lord Northcliffe (daily mail), newspapers aimed to shape public opinion in favour of overseas expansion. Stories about mysterious foreign lands and their strange inhabitants seen as barbaric were hugely popular.

B heroes fighting against ‘savages” in order to ‘civilise’ them were also pop. These articles, usually exaggerated and often untrue, reinforced belief in Eu racial superiority and encouraged nationalistic feelings in their readers.

Pop lit also helped shape public opinion. The novel Kim by B writer Rudyard Kipling, for example, justified B rule in India by implying that the Indian people were fortunate B was willing to help them, and emphasising Indian people cooperating and participating in B activities. Much of lit produced for children, esp boys, was even more blatant in encouraging support for imperialism and patriotism. In B, e.g, magazines such as Union Jack published stories of B ;heroes’ fighting to defend parts of B empire against barbaric local inhabitants and other Eus determined to steal territory which ‘rightfully’ belonged to b.

Common items such as tea packets and biscuit tins, were adorned with pictures of exotic foreign lands and heroic images of soldiers defending B’s imperial possessions. At a time there was very little in the way of public entertainment, music halls became extremely pop. Performers, often dressed in colourful military uniform, sang songs about the glories of imperialism.

In various ways, the pos aspects of imperialism were stressed while evidence of mistreatment and exploitation of native peoples were ignored. This was particularly evident on the issue of slavery. Having banned slavery in 1807, B had a duty to free slaves and end it in A. B was carrying out its moral responsibility to bring civilisation to other races, a responsibility described by Rudyard Kipling as the ‘white man’s burden’.

FRANCE

Unlike in B, the gov played the leading role in encouraging pop support for imperialism in F. f pride had been severely damaged by the humiliating defeat in the FPW 1871. Gaining overseas possessions was seen as a way of restoring French prestige. Patriotism was fostered through the intro of a state education system. F children were encouraged to be proud of their country’s achievements and its growing empire. They were taught that they had a duty to their country, which was unique, superior to all others, and had both the right and responsibility to spread its culture across the world.

Working closely with a number of missionary societies, whose agents were spread across Asia and Africa, the F gov formally adopted a policy known as the “Mission Civilisatrice”. roman catholic church stressed the civilising aspects of french im in publications such as La Croix. Helping ppl rather than exploiting. Bringing christianity, civilisation and f culture to people in distant lands whose customs included human sacrifice, slavery, and other forms of brutality.

At the same time, gov was proclaiming the social, pol and eco advantages that F would gain from overseas possessions. Im would enhance the wealth of F, enabling it to address the social and eco hardships of the lower class. The main beneficiaries of im businesses, banks and entrepreneurs, paid newspapers to carry stories about how their overseas activities were benefitting the F people.

In justifying F imperialism in the late 19th century, influential pol Jules Ferry argued ‘the superior races have a right regarding the inferior races because they have a responsibility to civilise them.”

GERMANY

Situation in G was very different to B and F. G had only become a unified nation in 1871, and its Chancellor, Bismarck, was initially reluctant to become involved in imperial expansion. He feared seeking op would bring G into conflict w other Eu nations, threatening the newly formed country’s security and dev. Under pressure from G businessmen, who noted their counterparts in other nations were gaining benefits, so Bismarck began to take a greater interest.

In addition to the eco advantages that G might achieve through gaining ops, G gov was keenly aware of its usefulness in promoting nationalism. As a country formed of ppl from diff social, pol, religious and cultural backgrounds, something was needed to unite them, give a genuine sense of G nationality. Imperialism provided this uniting factor, and, as in F, the gov was keen to stress the enormous social and eco advantages. Establishment of the Colonial Society and the Navy League were clear attempts to encourage support.

G missionaries, just like their F counterparts in Asia and Africa, were at the forefront of G imperial growth. W the justifications of bringing Christianity to ‘heathen’ populations, they provided the gov w info and connections that facilitated G’s acquisition of new territories.

G nationalism, and the country’s right and responsibility to extend its influence into foreign lands, were promoted in newspapers, lit, art and even postcards.

OPPOSITION TO IMPERIALISM

In all three countries and in a variety of ways,, the pos aspects were heavily stressed. Some hists argue that this ,meant majority of Eus genuinely supported their gov’s involvement. others say Eus had little real interest in this period, and no sig opinions about it.

• religious leaders, intellectuals, writers

• argued it was morally wrong to seize control of territory that rightfully belonged to the local inhabitants.

• Heart of Darkness by Pol-B author Joseph Conrad about imperialism and racism

• “imperialism is not a pretty thing when one looks into it too much.”

• B economist John Hobson in 1902 book “Imperialism: a study” concluded involvement in im harmed B eco, pol and socially. While some entrepreneurs benefitted, little increase in trade, and advantages outweighed by costs to run. Increased tensions, heightened by B’s involvement in wars (Boer War)

• Hobson claimed expenditure needed to maintain the empire made it impossible for B to carry out social reform to alleviate lower class issues.

Hobson’s arguments about eco impact of NI, reflected that of ‘Liberals’. Said they were shortsighted. Eu govs concentrated on dev of trade with ops. At the same time, they were trying to protect domestic industries by imposing tax on imports from rivals. Liberals campaigned for greater and tax-free trading links bt Eu countries, which they claimed would be of eco benefit to all. Also argued govs should reduce tax and expenditure, and therefore high costs involved in maintaining ops was unsustainable.

Hobsons view that im enhanced tensions in reflected in Bismarck’s inital reluctance to involve G in quest for ops. His priority was security of newly unified G. not want threaten bu conflict w others, which he believed would inevitably occur if G adopted imperial policies.

Anti-imperialistic sentiments grew stronger on B after it became necessary to mount a long and expensive campaign to maintain control of SA in 1880-1902, w wars against the Zulus, Boers, Matabele and others. Orgs such as the Stop the War Committee campaigned against b’s involvement in Boer War, arguing it was merely supported the greed of entrepenuers for gold and diamonds. Lib pols, such as Lloyd George accused the gov of using barbaric strategies to preserve and extend B influence in SA. Newspapers support im policy, as well as public shown by pro-im election success.

in f, esp, govs continued to promote imperialism as a means of encouraging unity and distraction from domestic issues. Once G embarked on quest for ops, Bismarck was careful to ensure gov expenditure was balanced between welfare provision and the dev of armed forces. This ensured he retained the support of G working class.

While there were frequent challenges, the fundamental principles of imperialism seemed to have been accepted, if not necessarily enthusiastically supported, by most Europeans.