•World War I

•World War II

1.What were the main motivations behind each conflict or war, and how
did those motivations differ from one another?
2.What role did imperialism play in each conflict or war?
3.What were the main results of each conflict or war, and how did those
results differ from one another?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- To quote the author of our text book, “The war [WW1] began because of the
culmination of nationalist rivalries, fears, and hatreds...The single most significant
background factor to the war was the rivalry that existed between Europe’s
“great powers” by the beginning of the twentieth century.” My contention is that
the ongoing policies of each “great power” included imperialism, and that
ideology played a constituent part of how and why there was a world war. It was
the war spilling over into the colonies that made this war world-wide, and it was
concern over the resources in those colonies as well as Europe that provoked the
rivalries, fears, and hatreds.
While it can be argued that “Europe had, in some ways, stumbled into World War
I”, That cannot be said for WW2. “World War II was instead a war of aggression
launched by a single belligerent, Germany, supported by its allies.” Despite this
major difference, the fact that the great powers of this war all still had their own
colonies and imperialist tendencies contributed heavily to the conflict. When the
cult of personalities of people such as Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill get added to
the mix, complexities emerged which made WW2 different in scope from all
wars before it.
At the start of the first World War, all of the major European nations had at least
one colony they were determined to protect and use in their war effort. The
Russia Empire included Poland, Finland and large parts of Transcaucasia. (Alaska
was sold to America in 1867, 64 years after the U.S. bought Louisiana from
France to finance yet another European war.) Germany had four African
colonies in 1914: Togo (today: Togo and territory in eastern Ghana), Cameroon
(Cameroon and territory in northeastern Nigeria), German Southwest Africa
(Namibia) and German East Africa (Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania except
Zanzibar). France had a plethora with the most significant being French West
Africa, French Equatorial Africa, French Indochina, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco,
Madagascar, French Somaliland, New Caledonia, and French Polynesia. The
British had even more, including India which at the time included Pakistan and
what is now Bangladesh, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt,
Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Jamaica (and nearby islands), the
Falklands, and even Cyprus, to name a few. Italy too had colonies in Eritrea,
Somalia, and Libya. The Austro-Hungarian empire exercised control over a great
number of European satellites with its only overseas component being a city in
China called Tianjin, and the Ottoman Empire was still clinging to various
principalities across three continents including Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
In short, every major player in this war (with the exception of Bulgaria depending
on how important one views them in this war) had colonial holdings that affected
their decision making processes. While it may often be overlooked, the colonies
owned by each player contributed manower and resources to a war that began in
Europe but bled over onto each continent not named Antartica. Thus, while each
European country fighting the first war had interests at home, they also had
economic and socio-political interests abroad needed to provide financing and
resources for that country’s war effort and survival. These countries saw their
colonies as a financial means to an end, and as a basis of prestige on the world
stage, and while that in hindsight can be seen as a shortcoming, at the time it was
perceived to be paramount. Apparently no one had learned the lessons taught by
the collapse of the Spanish Empire which succumbed primarily because the cost
of empire defense outstripped the revenue earned from the empire.
The war ended when the Central Powers concluded they had neither the
manpower nor the resources to completely attrit their opponents before being
worn down themselves. At the Treaty of Versailles, the map of Europe was
redrawn by the Allied victors, and the status of many colonies became
precarious. I would posit that while the war did not begin with an intent to end
imperialism, the die was cast and changes were coming.
With the advent of WW2, most of the major parties still had considerable if not
more colonies. Certainly America, although a late entrant to both wars, had more,
and the victors were quick to gobble up the most desireable ones taken from the
losers. This became a trend which continued as late as the 1970s. Some colonies
ended up as independent states, but not many and so while the world map
chnged, the alliances did not necessarily follow.
World War II changed everything. Because America, France and England “won”
the Great War, they maintained control of their empires and Imperialism was still
seen as a viable state policy. By 1939, England still had all the colonies controlled
in 1914 and had even added to the colletion. France too came out well, and
while neither of those countries fared as well economically as Germany, it is
difficult to imagine that being possible were it not for them having colonies to
exploit. The problem for France and Britain was the same as it is was earlier for
Spain, though: Imperialism bears the promise of riches, but the fruit is often
poisoned. When a country brings in $1 but spends $1.20 to do so, the costs
outweigh the benefits. The unrealistic promise of imperialism was a $2 return on
a $1 dollar investment and as a result, the ponzi scheme ultimately fails just as
capitalism will.
Imperialism in the second world war therefore began much the same as it it did
for thr first war except that some of the players were different. The motivations
of imperialism had not changed at all, but the