2K - Empires and rivalries: the ‘Scramble for Africa’
Learn why imperial expansion created rivalries in Africa and south-eastern Europe. Explain the interests of Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary, while distinguishing a dangerous rivalry from a dispute that governments could still settle.
The Scramble for Africa
The rapid extension of European rule in Africa during the late nineteenth century changed informal commercial influence into claims to control large territories. This Scramble for Africa accelerated in the 1880s and continued through the 1890s. African states and communities resisted, negotiated or sought alliances; European maps of imperial claims did not instantly create effective control on the ground.
Economic interests encouraged expansion. Merchants and investors wanted access to raw materials, trade, land and possible markets. These interests differed between regions and did not guarantee a profitable colony. Governments also valued ports, routes and strategic positions. British control of Egypt after the occupation of 1882 mattered especially because the Suez Canal shortened the sea route to India. France's expansion could enhance prestige after defeat by Germany in 1870–1871, while German colonial acquisition in the 1880s provided possessions that later supporters of Weltpolitik wanted to enlarge.
Imperialism
The extension of a state's power over other peoples or territories, through formal rule or economic, political and military influence. The interests and experiences of the people subjected to that power are part of its history.
The Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 set rules among European powers concerning trade and claims in parts of Africa. The principle of effective occupation encouraged a power claiming territory to demonstrate authority there, increasing incentives to establish posts and extend control. The conference did not draw every later African frontier or obtain African consent. Occupation required campaigns, coercion and local agreements, and often disrupted existing political systems and imposed forced labour or taxation.
Britain held interests in Egypt, the Nile valley, southern Africa and coastal territories. France expanded across much of west and equatorial Africa and established control over Madagascar in the 1890s. Germany held colonies in south-west and east Africa, Cameroon and Togo. Leopold II's Congo Free State was his personal possession, rather than a Belgian state colony before 1908. These distinctions matter because the different rulers and commercial arrangements produced different forms of imperial control.
Competition could become a dispute between European states when their claimed routes or territories overlapped. Yet colonial acquisition also offered territory that ministers could exchange or recognise in a bargain. Imperialism therefore produced both coercion against African peoples and negotiation among the powers. Explaining European diplomacy alone does not account for the violence by which an empire was established.
African rivalries and compromise
African competition was particularly dangerous where an imperial claim touched a route that a government regarded as essential. Britain's occupation of Egypt conflicted with French influence and investment there. In southern Africa, British ambitions interacted with the independence of the Boer republics, the discovery of mineral wealth and German diplomatic interest. These were different disputes, rather than one united European contest for a single resource.
In 1896 Wilhelm II sent the Kruger Telegram congratulating President Paul Kruger of the South African Republic, or Transvaal, after the failure of the Jameson Raid. The raid had been an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the Transvaal government. The telegram suggested German sympathy for a state resisting British pressure, provoking anger in Britain. It did not establish a German military alliance with the Boers. Its significance lay in the diplomatic signal and public reaction, not in an intervention that never occurred.
The Fashoda Crisis of 1898 brought Britain and France close to confrontation in the upper Nile region. A French expedition under Jean-Baptiste Marchand reached Fashoda in what is now South Sudan. British-led forces under Herbert Kitchener, advancing after the defeat of the Mahdist state at Omdurman, arrived there in September. France's attempt to extend influence across Africa conflicted with Britain's determination to control the Nile valley and protect Egypt.
Both states could treat withdrawal as a loss of prestige. However, Britain had the stronger local military position and a major naval advantage. France faced a wider security problem with Germany and could not count on Russia to support a colonial war against Britain. The French government ordered withdrawal, and a subsequent agreement in 1899 separated their spheres of influence in the region.
Fashoda therefore supplies two kinds of evidence. It shows that imperial competition could produce a serious war scare even between liberal states. It also shows that the balance of power, priorities and diplomatic bargaining could restrain escalation. An interpretation that treats every colonial dispute as one more automatic step towards a European war overlooks the actual decision to compromise. For Britain and France, the experience eventually encouraged efforts to remove colonial disagreements that distracted from more pressing concerns.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account