Imperialism

Imperialism is a policy or ideology of extending the rule over

peoples and other countries,[2] for extending political and
economic access, power and control, often through employing
hard power, especially military force, but also soft power. While
related to the concepts of colonialism and empire, imperialism is a
distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and
many forms of government.

Contents
Etymology and usage
Colonialism versus imperialism
Age of Imperialism
Theories of imperialism Cecil Rhodes and the Cape-Cairo
Issues railway project. Rhodes aimed to
Orientalism and imaginative geography "paint the map red" (red representing
the British Empire).[1]
Cartography
Expansionism
Cultural imperialism
Social imperialism
Justification
Environmental determinism
Anti-imperialism
Imperialism by country
Roman
Ming
Mongolian
Mali
Austria-Hungary
Belgium
Brazil
Britain
China
Denmark
France
Education policy
Germany
Italy
Japan
 Netherlands
Ottoman Empire
Portugal
The Russian Empire & the Soviet Union
United States
Spain
Imperialism in the Caribbean basin
Scholarly debate and controversy
Sweden
See also
References
Further reading
External links

Etymology and usage

The word imperialism originated from the Latin word imperium,[3] which means supreme power,
"sovereignty", or simply "rule".[4] It first became common in the current sense in Great Britain during the
1870s, when it was used with a negative connotation.[5] Previously, the term had been used to describe
what was perceived as Napoleon III's attempts at obtaining political support through foreign military
interventions.[5] The term was and is mainly applied to Western and Japanese political and economic
dominance, especially in Asia and Africa, in the 19th and 20th centuries. Its precise meaning continues to
be debated by scholars. Some writers, such as Edward Said, use the term more broadly to describe any
system of domination and subordination organized around an imperial core and a periphery.[6] This
definition encompasses both nominal empires and neocolonialism.

Colonialism versus imperialism

The term "imperialism" is often conflated with "colonialism";
however, many scholars have argued that each has its own
distinct definition. Imperialism and colonialism have been
used in order to describe one's perceived superiority,
domination and influence upon a person or group of people.
Robert Young writes that while imperialism operates from the
centre, is a state policy and is developed for ideological as Imperial powers in 1800[7]
well as financial reasons, it is simply development for
settlement or commercial intentions. However, colonialism
still includes invasion.[8] Colonialism in modern usage also
tends to imply a degree of geographic separation between the
colony and the imperial power. Particularly, Edward Said
distinguishes the difference between imperialism and
colonialism by stating; "imperialism involved 'the practice, the
theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center
Imperial powers in 1898
ruling a distant territory', while colonialism refers to the
'implanting of settlements on a distant territory.'[9] Contiguous
land empires such as the Russian or Ottoman have traditionally been excluded from discussions of
colonialism, though this is beginning to change, since it is accepted that they also sent populations into the
territories they ruled.[9]: 116

Imperialism and colonialism both dictate the political and economic advantage over a land and the
indigenous populations they control, yet scholars sometimes find it difficult to illustrate the difference
between the two.[10]: 107 Although imperialism and colonialism focus on the suppression of another, if
colonialism refers to the process of a country taking physical control of another, imperialism refers to the
political and monetary dominance, either formally or informally. Colonialism is seen to be the architect
deciding how to start dominating areas and then imperialism can be seen as creating the idea behind
conquest cooperating with colonialism. Colonialism is when the imperial nation begins a conquest over an
area and then eventually is able to rule over the areas the previous nation had controlled. Colonialism's core
meaning is the exploitation of the valuable assets and supplies of the nation that was conquered and the
conquering nation then gaining the benefits from the spoils of the war.[10]: 170–75 The meaning of
imperialism is to create an empire, by conquering the other state's lands and therefore increasing its own
dominance. Colonialism is the builder and preserver of the colonial possessions in an area by a population
coming from a foreign region.[10]: 173–76 Colonialism can completely change the existing social structure,
physical structure, and economics of an area; it is not unusual that the characteristics of the conquering
peoples are inherited by the conquered indigenous populations.[10]: 41 Few colonies remain remote from
their mother country. Thus, most will eventually establish a separate nationality or remain under complete
control of their mother colony.[11]

The Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin suggested that "imperialism was the highest form of capitalism, claiming
that imperialism developed after colonialism, and was distinguished from colonialism by monopoly
capitalism".[9]: 116 This idea from Lenin stresses how important new political world order has become in
the modern era. Geopolitics now focuses on states becoming major economic players in the market; some
states today are viewed as empires due to their political and economic authority over other nations.

European expansion caused the world to be divided by how developed and developing nations are
portrayed through the world systems theory. The two main regions are the core and the periphery. The core
consists of areas of high income and profit; the periphery is on the opposing side of the spectrum consisting
of areas of low income and profit. These critical theories of geo-politics have led to increased discussion of
the meaning and impact of imperialism on the modern post-colonial world.

Age of Imperialism
The Age of Imperialism, a time period beginning around 1760,
saw European industrializing nations, engaging in the process of
colonizing, influencing, and annexing other parts of the world.[12]
19th century episodes included the "Scramble for Africa."[13]

Entrance of the Russian troops in In the 1970s British historians John Gallagher (1919–1980) and
Tiflis, 26 November 1799, by Franz Ronald Robinson (1920–1999) argued that European leaders
Roubaud, 1886 rejected the notion that "imperialism" required formal, legal control
by one government over a colonial region. Much more important
was informal control of independent areas.[14] According to Wm.
Roger Louis, "In their view, historians have been mesmerized by formal empire and maps of the world with
regions colored red. The bulk of British emigration, trade, and capital went to areas outside the formal
British Empire. Key to their thinking is the idea of empire 'informally if possible and formally if
necessary.'"[15] Oron Hale says that Gallagher and Robinson looked at the British involvement in Africa
where they "found few capitalists, less capital, and not much pressure from the alleged traditional promoters
of colonial expansion. Cabinet decisions to annex or not to annex were made, usually on the basis of
political or geopolitical considerations."[16]: 6

Looking at the main empires from 1875 to 1914, there

was a mixed record in terms of profitability. At first,
planners expected that colonies would provide an
excellent captive market for manufactured items. Apart
from the Indian subcontinent, this was seldom true. By
the 1890s, imperialists saw the economic benefit
primarily in the production of inexpensive raw materials
to feed the domestic manufacturing sector. Overall,
Great Britain did very well in terms of profits from
India, especially Mughal Bengal, but not from most of
the rest of its empire. The Netherlands did very well in
the East Indies. Germany and Italy got very little trade
or raw materials from their empires. France did slightly
better. The Belgian Congo was notoriously profitable Africa, divided into colonies under multiple
when it was a capitalistic rubber plantation owned and European empires, c. 1913
operated by King Leopold II as a private enterprise. Belgium
However, scandal after scandal regarding very badly Germany
mistreated labour led the international community to Spain
force the government of Belgium to take it over in France
1908, and it became much less profitable. The United Kingdom
Philippines cost the United States much more than
Italy
expected because of military action against
Portugal
rebels.[16]: 7–10

Because of the resources made available by

imperialism, the world's economy grew significantly and became much more interconnected in the decades
before World War I, making the many imperial powers rich and prosperous.[17]

Europe's expansion into territorial imperialism was largely focused on economic growth by collecting
resources from colonies, in combination with assuming political control by military and political means.
The colonization of India in the mid-18th century offers an example of this focus: there, the "British
exploited the political weakness of the Mughal state, and, while military activity was important at various
times, the economic and administrative incorporation of local elites was also of crucial significance" for the
establishment of control over the subcontinent's resources, markets, and manpower.[18] Although a
substantial number of colonies had been designed to provide economic profit and to ship resources to home
ports in the 17th and 18th centuries, D. K. Fieldhouse suggests that in the 19th and 20th centuries in places
such as Africa and Asia, this idea is not necessarily valid:[19]

Modern empires were not artificially constructed economic machines. The second expansion
of Europe was a complex historical process in which political, social and emotional forces in
Europe and on the periphery were more influential than calculated imperialism. Individual
colonies might serve an economic purpose; collectively no empire had any definable function,
economic or otherwise. Empires represented only a particular phase in the ever-changing
relationship of Europe with the rest of the world: analogies with industrial systems or
investment in real estate were simply misleading.[10]: 184

During this time, European merchants had the ability to "roam the high seas and appropriate surpluses from
around the world (sometimes peaceably, sometimes violently) and to concentrate them in Europe".[20]
European expansion greatly accelerated in the 19th century. To
obtain raw materials, Europe expanded imports from other
countries and from the colonies. European industrialists sought raw
materials such as dyes, cotton, vegetable oils, and metal ores from
overseas. Concurrently, industrialization was quickly making
Europe the centre of manufacturing and economic growth, driving
resource needs.[21]
British assault on Canton during the
Communication became much more advanced during European
First Opium War, May 1841
expansion. With the invention of railroads and telegraphs, it
became easier to communicate with other countries and to extend
the administrative control of a home nation over its colonies. Steam
railroads and steam-driven ocean shipping made possible the fast, cheap transport of massive amounts of
goods to and from colonies.[21]

Along with advancements in communication, Europe also continued to advance in military technology.
European chemists made new explosives that made artillery much more deadly. By the 1880s, the machine
gun had become a reliable battlefield weapon. This technology gave European armies an advantage over
their opponents, as armies in less-developed countries were still fighting with arrows, swords, and leather
shields (e.g. the Zulus in Southern Africa during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879).[21] Some exceptions of
armies that managed to get nearly on par with the European expeditions and standards include the
Ethiopian armies at the Battle of Adwa, and the Japanese Imperial Army of Japan, but these still relied
heavily on weapons imported from Europe and often on European military advisors.

Theories of imperialism
Anglophone academic studies often base their theories regarding imperialism on the British experience of
Empire. The term imperialism was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s
by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British Prime Minister
Benjamin Disraeli. Supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain quickly appropriated the
concept. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was
characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed.

In Imperialism: A Study (1902), John A. Hobson developed a highly influential interpretation of

imperialism that expanded on his belief that free enterprise capitalism had a negative impact on the majority
of the population. In Imperialism he argued that the financing of overseas empires drained money that was
needed at home. It was invested abroad because of lower wages paid to the workers overseas made for
higher profits and higher rates of return, compared to domestic wages. So although domestic wages
remained higher, they did not grow nearly as fast as they might have otherwise. Exporting capital, he
concluded, put a lid on the growth of domestic wages in the domestic standard of living. By the 1970s,
historians such as David K. Fieldhouse[22] and Oron Hale could argue that "the Hobsonian foundation has
been almost completely demolished."[16]: 5–6 The British experience failed to support it. However,
European Socialists picked up Hobson's ideas and made it into their own theory of imperialism, most
notably in Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). Lenin portrayed Imperialism as the
closure of the world market and the end of capitalist free-competition that arose from the need for capitalist
economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that
necessitated colonial expansion. Later Marxist theoreticians echo this conception of imperialism as a
structural feature of capitalism, which explained the World War as the battle between imperialists for control
of external markets. Lenin's treatise became a standard textbook that flourished until the collapse of
communism in 1989–91.[23]
Some theoreticians on the non-Communist left have emphasized the structural or systemic character of
"imperialism". Such writers have expanded the period associated with the term so that it now designates
neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a
period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As
the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes:
the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect—among other
shifts in sensibility—a growing unease, even great distaste, with the pervasiveness of such power,
specifically, Western power.[24][22]

Historians and political theorists have long debated the correlation between capitalism, class and
imperialism. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph
Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these
non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar
years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and its impact on Europe, as well as
contributing to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s.
Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by
removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost
broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.[25][26]

Walter Rodney, in his 1972 classic How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, proposes the idea that
imperialism is a phase of capitalism "in which Western European capitalist countries, the US, and Japan
established political, economic, military and cultural hegemony over other parts of the world which were
initially at a lower level and therefore could not resist domination."[27] As a result, Imperialism "for many
years embraced the whole world – one part being the exploiters and the other the exploited, one part being
dominated and the other acting as overlords, one part making policy and the other being dependent."[27]

Imperialism has also been identified in newer phenomena like space development and its governing
context.[28]

Issues

Orientalism and imaginative geography

Imperial control, territorial and cultural, is justified through discourses about the imperialists' understanding
of different spaces.[29] Conceptually, imagined geographies explain the limitations of the imperialist
understanding of the societies (human reality) of the different spaces inhabited by the non–European
Other.[29]

In Orientalism (1978), Edward Said said that the West developed the concept of The Orient—an imagined
geography of the Eastern world—which functions as an essentializing discourse that represents neither the
ethnic diversity nor the social reality of the Eastern world.[30] That by reducing the East into cultural
essences, the imperial discourse uses place-based identities to create cultural difference and psychologic
distance between "We, the West" and "They, the East" and between "Here, in the West" and "There, in the
East".[31]

That cultural differentiation was especially noticeable in the books and paintings of early Oriental studies,
the European examinations of the Orient, which misrepresented the East as irrational and backward, the
opposite of the rational and progressive West.[29][32] Defining the East as a negative vision of the Western
world, as its inferior, not only increased the sense-of-self of the West, but also was a way of ordering the
East, and making it known to the West, so that it could be dominated and controlled.[33][34] Therefore,
Orientalism was the ideological justification of early Western imperialism—a body of knowledge and ideas
that rationalized social, cultural, political, and economic control of other, non-white peoples.[31][9]: 116

Cartography

One of the main tools used by imperialists was cartography. Cartography is "the art, science and technology
of making maps"[35] but this definition is problematic. It implies that maps are objective representations of
the world when in reality they serve very political means.[35] For Harley, maps serve as an example of
Foucault's power and knowledge concept.

To better illustrate this idea, Bassett focuses his analysis of the role of 19th-century maps during the
"scramble for Africa".[36] He states that maps "contributed to empire by promoting, assisting, and
legitimizing the extension of French and British power into West Africa".[36] During his analysis of 19th-
century cartographic techniques, he highlights the use of blank space to denote unknown or unexplored
territory.[36] This provided incentives for imperial and colonial powers to obtain "information to fill in blank
spaces on contemporary maps".[36]

Although cartographic processes advanced through imperialism, further analysis of their progress reveals
many biases linked to eurocentrism. According to Bassett, "[n]ineteenth-century explorers commonly
requested Africans to sketch maps of unknown areas on the ground. Many of those maps were highly
regarded for their accuracy"[36] but were not printed in Europe unless Europeans verified them.

Expansionism

Imperialism in pre-modern times was common in the form of expansionism

through vassalage and conquest.

Cultural imperialism

The concept of cultural imperialism refers to the cultural influence of one

dominant culture over others, i.e. a form of soft power, which changes the
moral, cultural, and societal worldview of the subordinate country. This
means more than just "foreign" music, television or film becoming popular
with young people; rather that a populace changes its own expectations of
life, desiring for their own country to become more like the foreign country
depicted. For example, depictions of opulent American lifestyles in the
soap opera Dallas during the Cold War changed the expectations of
Romanians; a more recent example is the influence of smuggled South
Korean drama series in North Korea. The importance of soft power is not
lost on authoritarian regimes, fighting such influence with bans on foreign Ottoman wars in Europe
popular culture, control of the internet and unauthorised satellite dishes etc.
Nor is such a usage of culture recent, as part of Roman imperialism local
elites would be exposed to the benefits and luxuries of Roman culture and lifestyle, with the aim that they
would then become willing participants.

Imperialism has been subject to moral or immoral censure by its critics, and thus the term is frequently used
in international propaganda as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive foreign policy.[37]
Social imperialism

The political concept social imperialism is a Marxist expression first used in the early 20th century by Lenin
as "socialist in words, imperialist in deeds" describing the Fabian Society and other socialist
organizations.[38] Later, in a split with the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong criticized its leaders as social
imperialists.[39]

Justification
Stephen Howe has summarized his view on the beneficial effects of the
colonial empires:

At least some of the great modern empires – the British,

French, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and even the Ottoman –
have virtues that have been too readily forgotten. They
provided stability, security, and legal order for their subjects.
They constrained, and at their best, tried to transcend, the
potentially savage ethnic or religious antagonisms among the
peoples. And the aristocracies which ruled most of them were
often far more liberal, humane, and cosmopolitan than their
supposedly ever more democratic successors.[40][41]
A shocked mandarin in
Manchu robe in the back,
A controversial aspect of imperialism is the defense and justification of with Queen Victoria (British
empire-building based on seemingly rational grounds. In ancient China, Empire), Wilhelm II (German
Tianxia denoted the lands, space, and area divinely appointed to the Empire), Nicholas II
Emperor by universal and well-defined principles of order. The center of (Russian Empire), Marianne
this land was directly apportioned to the Imperial court, forming the center (French Third Republic), and
of a world view that centered on the Imperial court and went a samurai (Empire of Japan)
stabbing into a king cake
concentrically outward to major and minor officials and then the common
with Chine ("China" in
citizens, tributary states, and finally ending with the fringe "barbarians".
French) written on it. A
Tianxia's idea of hierarchy gave Chinese a privileged position and was
portrayal of New Imperialism
justified through the promise of order and peace. J. A. Hobson identifies
and its effects on China.
this justification on general grounds as: "It is desirable that the earth should
be peopled, governed, and developed, as far as possible, by the races
which can do this work best, i.e. by the races of highest 'social efficiency'".[42] Many others argued that
imperialism is justified for several different reasons. Friedrich Ratzel believed that in order for a state to
survive, imperialism was needed. Halford Mackinder felt that Great Britain needed to be one of the greatest
imperialists and therefore justified imperialism.[9] The purportedly scientific nature of "Social Darwinism"
and a theory of races formed a supposedly rational justification for imperialism. Under this doctrine, the
French politician Jules Ferry could declare in 1883 that "Superior races have a right, because they have a
duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races."[43] The rhetoric of colonizers being racially superior
appears to have achieved its purpose, for example throughout Latin America "whiteness" is still prized
today and various forms of blanqueamiento (whitening) are common.

The Royal Geographical Society of London and other geographical societies in Europe had great influence
and were able to fund travelers who would come back with tales of their discoveries.[9]: 117 These societies
also served as a space for travellers to share these stories.[9]: 117 Political geographers such as Friedrich
Ratzel of Germany and Halford Mackinder of Britain also supported imperialism.[9]: 117 Ratzel believed
expansion was necessary for a state's survival while Mackinder supported Britain's imperial expansion;
these two arguments dominated the discipline for decades.[9]: 117
Geographical theories such as environmental determinism also suggested that tropical environments created
uncivilized people in need of European guidance.[9]: 117 For instance, American geographer Ellen
Churchill Semple argued that even though human beings originated in the tropics they were only able to
become fully human in the temperate zone.[44]: 11 Tropicality can be paralleled with Edward Said's
Orientalism as the west's construction of the east as the "other".[44]: 7 According to Said, orientalism
allowed Europe to establish itself as the superior and the norm, which justified its dominance over the
essentialized Orient.[45]: 329

Technology and economic efficiency were often improved in territories subjected to imperialism through
the building of roads, other infrastructure and introduction of new technologies.

The principles of imperialism are often generalizable to the policies and practices of the British Empire
"during the last generation, and proceeds rather by diagnosis than by historical description".[46] British
imperialism in some sparsely-inhabited regions appears to have applied a principle now termed Terra
nullius (Latin expression which stems from Roman law meaning 'no man's land'). The country of Australia
serves as a case study in relation to British settlement and colonial rule of the continent in the 18th century,
that was arguably premised on terra nullius, as its settlers considered it unused by its original inhabitants.

Environmental determinism

The concept of environmental determinism served as a moral justification for the domination of certain
territories and peoples. The environmental determinist school of thought held that the environment in which
certain people lived determined those persons' behaviours; and thus validated their domination. For
example, the Western world saw people living in tropical environments as "less civilized", therefore
justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three major waves of European colonialism
(the first in the Americas, the second in Asia and the last in Africa), environmental determinism served to
place categorically indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

Some geographic scholars under colonizing empires divided the world into climatic zones. These scholars
believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral,
and upstanding human being. In contrast, tropical climates allegedly yielded lazy attitudes, sexual
promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need
of guidance and intervention from a European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social
structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism could promote a view of a
people based on their geographical location.[47]

Anti-imperialism
Anti-imperialism gained a wide currency after the Second World War and at the onset of the Cold War as
political movements in colonies of European powers promoted national sovereignty. Some anti-imperialist
groups who opposed the United States supported the power of the Soviet Union, such as in Guevarism,
while in Maoism this was criticized as social imperialism.

Imperialism by country

Roman

Ming
Mongolian

Mali

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

Brazil

Britain

England

England's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the 16th century as

the Tudor conquest of Ireland began in the 1530s. In 1599 the British East
India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in
the following year.[10]: 174 With the establishment of trading posts in India,
the British were able to maintain strength relative to other empires such as
the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India.[10]: 174

Scotland

Between 1621 and 1699, the Kingdom of Scotland authorised several

colonies in the Americas. Most of these colonies were either aborted or
collapsed quickly for various reasons. Tipu, Sultan of Mysore, an
ally of Napoleone
Great Britain Bonaparte, confronted
British East India Company
Under the Acts of Union 1707, the English and Scottish kingdoms were forces at the Siege of
merged, and their colonies collectively became subject to Great Britain Srirangapatna, where he
(also known as the United Kingdom). was killed.

In 1767, the Anglo-Mysore Wars and other political activity

caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the
plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into
bankruptcy.[48] By the year 1670 Britain's imperialist ambitions
were well off as she had colonies in Virginia, Massachusetts,
Bermuda, Honduras, Antigua, Barbados, Jamaica and Nova
Scotia.[48] Due to the vast imperialist ambitions of European
countries, Britain had several clashes with France. This
competition was evident in the colonization of what is now known
as Canada. John Cabot claimed Newfoundland for the British The end result of the Boer Wars was
while the French established colonies along the St. Lawrence the annexation of the Boer Republics
River and claiming it as "New France".[49] Britain continued to to the British Empire in 1902.
expand by colonizing countries such as New Zealand and
Australia, both of which were not empty land as they had their own locals and cultures.[10]: 175 Britain's
nationalistic movements were evident with the creation of the commonwealth countries where there was a
shared nature of national identity.[10]: 147

Following the proto-industrialization, the "First" British Empire was based on mercantilism, and involved
colonies and holdings primarily in North America, the Caribbean, and India. Its growth was reversed by the
loss of the American colonies in 1776. Britain made compensating gains in India, Australia, and in
constructing an informal economic empire through control of trade and finance in Latin America after the
independence of Spanish and Portuguese colonies in about 1820.[50] By the 1840s, Britain had adopted a
highly successful policy of free trade that gave it dominance in the trade of much of the world.[51] After
losing its first Empire to the Americans, Britain then turned its attention towards Asia, Africa, and the
Pacific. Following the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, Britain enjoyed a century of almost
unchallenged dominance and expanded its imperial holdings around the globe. Unchallenged at sea, British
dominance was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace"), a period of relative peace in Europe
and the world (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon and adopted the
role of global policeman. However, this peace was mostly a perceived one from Europe, and the period
was still an almost uninterrupted series of colonial wars and disputes. The British Conquest of India, its
intervention against Mehemet Ali, the Anglo-Burmese Wars, the Crimean War, the Opium Wars and the
Scramble for Africa to name the most notable conflicts mobilised ample military means to press Britain's
lead in the global conquest Europe led across the century.[52][53][54][55]

In the early 19th century, the Industrial Revolution began to

transform Britain; by the time of the Great Exhibition in 1851 the
country was described as the "workshop of the world".[56] The
British Empire expanded to include India, large parts of Africa and
many other territories throughout the world. Alongside the formal
control it exerted over its own colonies, British dominance of much
of world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of
many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[57][58] Domestically,
political attitudes favoured free trade and laissez-faire policies and a
Smoke rises from oil tanks beside gradual widening of the voting franchise. During this century, the
the Suez Canal hit during the initial population increased at a dramatic rate, accompanied by rapid
Anglo-French assault on Egypt, 5
urbanisation, causing significant social and economic stresses.[59] To
November 1956
seek new markets and sources of raw materials, the Conservative
Party under Disraeli launched a period of imperialist expansion in
Egypt, South Africa, and elsewhere. Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand became self-governing dominions.[60][61]

A resurgence came in the late 19th century with the Scramble for Africa and major additions in Asia and
the Middle East. The British spirit of imperialism was expressed by Joseph Chamberlain and Lord
Rosebury, and implemented in Africa by Cecil Rhodes. The pseudo-sciences of Social Darwinism and
theories of race formed an ideological underpinning and legitimation during this time. Other influential
spokesmen included Lord Cromer, Lord Curzon, General Kitchener, Lord Milner, and the writer Rudyard
Kipling.[62] The British Empire was the largest Empire that the world has ever seen both in terms of
landmass and population. Its power, both military and economic, remained unmatched for a few decades.
After the First Boer War, the South African Republic and Orange Free State were recognised by Britain but
eventually re-annexed after the Second Boer War. But British power was fading, as the reunited German
state founded by the Kingdom of Prussia posed a growing threat to Britain's dominance. As of 1913,
Britain was the world's fourth economy, behind the U.S, Russia and Germany.
Irish War of Independence in 1919-1921 led to the сreation of
the Irish Free State. But Britain gained control of former
German and Ottoman colonies with the League of Nations
mandate. Britain now had a practically continuous line of
controlled territories from Egypt to Burma and another one
from Cairo to Cape Town. However, this period was also the
one of the emergence of independence movements based on
nationalism and new experiences the colonists had gained in
the war.

World War II decisively weakened Britain's position in the

world, especially financially. Decolonization movements An elaborate map of the British Empire in
arose nearly everywhere in the Empire, resulting in Indian 1910, marked in the traditional colour for
independence and partition in 1947 and the establishment of imperial British dominions on maps
independent states in the 1950s. British imperialism showed
its frailty in Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956. However,
with the United States and Soviet Union emerging from World War II as the sole superpowers, Britain's
role as a worldwide power declined significantly and rapidly.[63]

China

China was one of the world's oldest empires. Due to its long
history of imperialist expansion, China has been seen by its
neighboring countries as a threat due to its large population, giant
economy, large military force as well as its territorial evolution
throughout history. Starting with the unification of China under the
Qin dynasty, later Chinese dynasties continued to follow its form
of expansions.[64]

The most successful Chinese imperial dynasties in terms of

territorial expansion were the Han, Tang, Yuan, and Qing
dynasties.
Map of the Growth of China under
Qin Dynasty
Denmark

Danish overseas colonies that Denmark–Norway (Denmark after 1814) possessed from 1536 until 1953.
At its apex there were colonies on four continents: Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. In the 17th
century, following territorial losses on the Scandinavian Peninsula, Denmark-Norway began to develop
colonies, forts, and trading posts in West Africa, the Caribbean, and the Indian subcontinent. Christian IV
first initiated the policy of expanding Denmark-Norway's overseas trade, as part of the mercantilist wave
that was sweeping Europe. Denmark-Norway's first colony was established at Tranquebar on India's
southern coast in 1620. Admiral Ove Gjedde led the expedition that established the colony. After 1814,
when Norway was ceded to Sweden, Denmark retained what remained of Norway's great medieval
colonial holdings. One by one the smaller colonies were lost or sold. Tranquebar was sold to the British in
1845. The United States purchased the Danish West Indies in 1917. Iceland became independent in 1944.
Today, the only remaining vestiges are two originally Norwegian colonies that are currently within the
Danish Realm, the Faroe Islands and Greenland; the Faroes were a Danish county until 1948, while
Greenland's colonial status ceased in 1953. They are now autonomous territories.[65]

France
During the 16th century, the
French colonization of the
Americas began with the
creation of New France. It
was followed by French East
India Company's trading posts
in Africa and Asia in the 17th
century. France had its "First
colonial empire" from 1534
until 1814, including New
France (Canada, Acadia,
Newfoundland and
Louisiana), French West
Indies (Saint-Domingue,
Guadeloupe, Martinique),
French Guiana, Senegal
(Gorée), Mascarene Islands
(Mauritius Island, Réunion)
and French India.

Its "Second colonial empire"

began with the seizure of
The Qing Empire ca. 1820, marked the time when the Qing began to rule
Algiers in 1830 and came for
these areas.
the most part to an end with
the granting of independence
to Algeria in 1962.[66] The
French imperial history was marked by
numerous wars, large and small, and
also by significant help to France itself
from the colonials in the world
wars.[67] France took control of Algeria
in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild
its worldwide empire after 1850,
concentrating chiefly in North and West
Africa (French North Africa, French
West Africa, French Equatorial Africa),
as well as South-East Asia (French Map of the first (green) and second (blue — plain and hatched)
Indochina), with other conquests in the French colonial empires
South Pacific (New Caledonia, French
Polynesia). France also twice attempted
to make Mexico a colony in 1838–39 and in 1861-67 (see Pastry War and Second French intervention in
Mexico).

French Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her
own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw
materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading
French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World
Wars.[68] It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity
and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a
civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the
inferior".[69] Full citizenship rights – assimilation – were offered, although in reality assimilation was
 always on the distant horizon.[70] Contrasting from Britain, France sent
small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of
Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small
minority.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the French colonial empire was the second-
largest colonial empire in the world behind the British Empire, extending
over 13,500,000 km2 (5,212,000 sq. miles) at its height in the 1920s and
1930s. France controlled 1/10th of the Earth's land area, with a population
of 150 million people on the eve of World War II (8% of the world's
population at the time).[71]

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas
colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However,
French poster about the
after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France
"Madagascar War" fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the
war in Algeria, de Gaulle decided to grant Algeria independence anyway
in 1962. French settlers and many local supporters relocated to France.
Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and
diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing
insurrections and coups d'état.[72]

Education policy

French colonial officials, influenced by the revolutionary ideal of equality, standardized schools, curricula,
and teaching methods as much as possible. They did not establish colonial school systems with the idea of
furthering the ambitions of the local people, but rather simply exported the systems and methods in vogue
in the mother nation.[73] Having a moderately trained lower bureaucracy was of great use to colonial
officials.[74] The emerging French-educated indigenous elite saw little value in educating rural peoples.[75]
After 1946 the policy was to bring the best students to Paris for advanced training. The result was to
immerse the next generation of leaders in the growing anti-colonial diaspora centered in Paris.
Impressionistic colonials could mingle with studious scholars or radical revolutionaries or so everything in
between. Ho Chi Minh and other young radicals in Paris formed the French Communist party in 1920.[76]

Tunisia was exceptional. The colony was administered by Paul Cambon, who built an educational system
for colonists and indigenous people alike that was closely modeled on mainland France. He emphasized
female and vocational education. By independence, the quality of Tunisian education nearly equalled that
in France.[77]

African nationalists rejected such a public education system, which they perceived as an attempt to retard
African development and maintain colonial superiority. One of the first demands of the emerging nationalist
movement after World War II was the introduction of full metropolitan-style education in French West
Africa with its promise of equality with Europeans.[78][79]

In Algeria, the debate was polarized. The French set up schools based on the scientific method and French
culture. The Pied-Noir (Catholic migrants from Europe) welcomed this. Those goals were rejected by the
Moslem Arabs, who prized mental agility and their distinctive religious tradition. The Arabs refused to
become patriotic and cultured Frenchmen and a unified educational system was impossible until the Pied-
Noir and their Arab allies went into exile after 1962.[80]
In South Vietnam from 1955 to 1975 there were two competing colonial powers in education, as the
French continued their work and the Americans moved in. They sharply disagreed on goals. The French
educators sought to preserving French culture among the Vietnamese elites and relied on the Mission
Culturelle – the heir of the colonial Direction of Education – and its prestigious high schools. The
Americans looked at the great mass of people and sought to make South Vietnam a nation strong enough to
stop communism. The Americans had far more money, as USAID coordinated and funded the activities of
expert teams, and particularly of academic missions. The French deeply resented the American invasion of
their historical zone of cultural imperialism.[81]

Germany

German expansion into Slavic lands begins in the 12th-

13th-century (see Drang Nach Osten). The concept of
Drang Nach Osten was a core element of German
nationalism and a major element of Nazi ideology.
However, the German involvement in the seizure of
overseas territories was negligible until the end of the
19th century. Prussia unified the other states into the German colonial empire, the third largest
second German Empire in 1871. Its Chancellor, Otto von colonial empire during the 19th century after the
Bismarck (1862–90), long opposed colonial acquisitions, British and the French ones[82]
arguing that the burden of obtaining, maintaining, and
defending such possessions would outweigh any
potential benefits. He felt that colonies did not pay for themselves, that the German bureaucratic system
would not work well in the tropics and the diplomatic disputes over colonies would distract Germany from
its central interest, Europe itself.[83]

However, public opinion and elite opinion in Germany demanded colonies for reasons of international
prestige, so Bismarck was forced to oblige. In 1883–84 Germany began to build a colonial empire in Africa
and the South Pacific.[84][85] The establishment of the German colonial empire started with German New
Guinea in 1884.[86]

German colonies included the present territories of in Africa: Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Namibia,
Cameroon, Ghana and Togo; in Oceania: New Guinea, Solomon islands, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Mariana
Islands, Caroline Islands and Samoa; and in Asia: Tsingtao, Chefoo and the Jiaozhou Bay. The Treaty of
Versailles made them mandates temporarily operated by the Allied victors.[87] Germany also lost part of the
Eastern territories that became part of independent Poland as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
Finally, the Eastern territories captured in the Middle Ages were torn from Germany and became part of
Poland and the USSR as a result of the territorial reorganization established by the Potsdam conference of
the great powers in 1945.

Italy

The Italian Empire (Impero italiano) comprised the overseas possessions of the Kingdom of Italy
primarily in northeast Africa. It began with the purchase in 1869 of Assab Bay on the Red Sea by an Italian
navigation company which intended to establish a coaling station at the time the Suez Canal was being
opened to navigation.[88] This was taken over by the Italian government in 1882, becoming modern Italy's
first overseas territory.[89] By the start of the First World War in 1914, Italy had acquired in Africa the
colony of Eritrea on the Red Sea coast, a large protectorate and later colony in Somalia, and authority in
formerly Ottoman Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (gained after the Italo-Turkish War) which were later unified
in the colony of Libya.
Outside Africa, Italy possessed the Dodecanese Islands off the
coast of Turkey (following the Italo-Turkish War) and a small
concession in Tianjin in China following the Boxer War of
1900. During the First World War, Italy occupied southern
Albania to prevent it from falling to Austria-Hungary. In
1917, it established a protectorate over Albania, which
remained in place until 1920.[90] The Fascist government that
came to power with Benito Mussolini in 1922 sought to
increase the size of the Italian empire and to satisfy the claims
of Italian irredentists.
The Italian Empire in 1940
In its second invasion of Ethiopia in 1935–36, Italy was
successful and it merged its new conquest with its older east
African colonies to create Italian East Africa. In 1939, Italy invaded Albania and incorporated it into the
Fascist state. During the Second World War (1939–1945), Italy occupied British Somaliland, parts of south-
eastern France, western Egypt and most of Greece, but then lost those conquests and its African colonies,
including Ethiopia, to the invading allied forces by 1943. It was forced in the peace treaty of 1947 to
relinquish sovereignty over all its colonies. It was granted a trust to administer former Italian Somaliland
under United Nations supervision in 1950. When Somalia became independent in 1960, Italy's eight-
decade experiment with colonialism ended.[91][92]

Japan

For over 200 years, Japan maintained a feudal society during

a period of relative isolation from the rest of the world.
However, in the 1850s, military pressure from the United
States and other world powers coerced Japan to open itself to
the global market, resulting in an end to the country's
isolation. A period of conflicts and political revolutions
followed due to socioeconomic uncertainty, ending in 1868
with the reunification of political power under the Japanese
Emperor during the Meiji Restoration. This sparked a period
of rapid industrialization driven in part by a Japanese desire
for self-sufficiency. By the early 1900s, Japan was a naval
power that could hold its own against an established
European power as it defeated Russia.[93]
The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Despite its rising population and increasingly industrialized Sphere in 1942
economy, Japan had relatively little territory and lacked
significant natural resources. As a result, the country turned to
imperialism and expansionism in part as a means of compensating for these shortcomings, adopting the
national motto "Fukoku kyōhei" ( 富国強兵 , "Enrich the state, strengthen the military").[94]

And Japan was eager to take every opportunity. In 1869 they took advantage of the defeat of the rebels of
the Republic of Ezo to incorporate definitely the island of Hokkaido to Japan. For centuries, Japan viewed
the Ryukyu Islands as one of its provinces. In 1871 the Mudan incident happened: Taiwanese aborigines
murdered 54 Ryūkyūan sailors that became shipwrecked. At that time the Ryukyu Islands were claimed by
both Qing China and Japan, and the Japanese interpreted the incident as an attack on their citizens. They
took steps to bring the islands in their jurisdiction: in 1872 the Japanese Ryukyu Domain was declared, and
in 1874 a retaliatory incursion to Taiwan was sent, which was a success. The success of this expedition
emboldened the Japanese: not even the Americans could defeat the Taiwanese in the Formosa Expedition
of 1867. Very few gave it much thought at the time, but this was the first move in the Japanese
expansionism series. Japan occupied Taiwan for the rest of 1874
and then left owing to Chinese pressures, but in 1879 it finally
annexed the Ryukyu Islands. In 1875 Qing China sent a 300-men
force to subdue the Taiwanese, but unlike the Japanese the
Chinese were routed, ambushed and 250 of their men were killed;
the failure of this expedition exposed once more the failure of Qing
China to exert effective control in Taiwan, and acted as another
incentive for the Japanese to annex Taiwan. Eventually, the spoils
for winning the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894 included
Taiwan.[95] Japanese Marines preparing to land
in Anqing China in June 1938.
In 1875 Japan took its first operation against Joseon Korea,
another territory that for centuries it coveted; the Ganghwa Island
incident made Korea open to international trade. Korea was annexed in 1910. As a result of winning the
Russo-Japanese War in 1905, Japan took part of Sakhalin Island from Russia. Precisely, the victory against
the Russian Empire shook the world: never before had an Asian nation defeated a European power, and in
Japan it was seen as a feat. Japan's victory against Russia would act as an antecedent for Asian countries in
the fight against the Western powers for Decolonization. During World War I, Japan took German-leased
territories in China's Shandong Province, as well as the Mariana, Caroline, and Marshall Islands, and kept
the islands as League of nations mandates. At first, Japan was in good standing with the victorious Allied
powers of World War I, but different discrepancies and dissatisfaction with the rewards of the treaties
cooled the relations with them, for example American pressure forced it to return the Shandong area. By
the '30s, economic depression, urgency of resources and a growing distrust in the Allied powers made
Japan lean to a hardened militaristic stance. Through the decade, it would grow closer to Germany and
Italy, forming together the Axis alliance. In 1931 Japan took Manchuria from China. International reactions
condemned this move, but Japan's already strong skepticism against Allied nations meant that it
nevertheless carried on.[96]

During the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Japan's military

invaded central China. Also, in 1938-1939 Japan made an attempt
to seize the territory of Soviet Russia and Mongolia, but suffered a
serious defeats (see Battle of Lake Khasan, Battles of Khalkhin
Gol). By now, relations with the Allied powers were at the bottom,
and an international boycott against Japan to deprive it of natural
resources was enforced. Thus a military move to gain access to
them was needed, and so Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing
the United States to World War II. Using its superior technological
advances in naval aviation and its modern doctrines of amphibious Japanese march into Zhengyangmen
and naval warfare, Japan achieved one of the fastest maritime of Beijing after capturing the city in
July 1937.
expansions in history. By 1942 Japan had conquered much of East
Asia and the Pacific, including the east of China, Hong Kong,
Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma (Myanmar), Malaysia, the
Philippines, Indonesia, part of New Guinea and many islands of the Pacific Ocean. Just as Japan's late
industrialization success and victory against the Russian Empire was seen as an example among
underdeveloped Asia-Pacific nations, the Japanese took advantage of this and promoted among its
conquered the goal to jointly create an anti-European "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". This plan
helped the Japanese gain support from native populations during its conquests, especially in Indonesia.
However, the United States had a vastly stronger military and industrial base and defeated Japan, stripping
it of conquests and returning its settlers back to Japan.[97]

Netherlands
Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire was an imperial state that lasted from 1299 to
1922. In 1453, Mehmed the Conqueror captured Constantinople
and made it his capital. During the 16th and 17th centuries, in
particular at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the
Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a powerful multinational,
multilingual empire, which invaded and colonized much of
Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and
the Horn of Africa. Its repeated invasions, and brutal treatment of
Slavs led to the Great Migrations of the Serbs to escape
Ottoman troops marching in Aleppo
persecution. At the beginning of the 17th century the empire
contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these
were later absorbed into the empire, while others were granted
various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.[98]

Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually
declined, losing control of much of its territory in Europe and Africa.

By 1810 Egypt was effectively independent. In 1821-

1829 the Greeks in the Greek War of Independence
were assisted by Russia, Britain and France. In 1815
to 1914 the Ottoman Empire could exist only in the
conditions of acute rivalry of the great powers, with
Britain its main supporter, especially in the Crimean
war 1853–1856, against Russia. After Ottoman defeat
in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), Bulgaria,
Serbia and Montenegro gained independence and
Britain took colonial control of Cyprus, while Bosnia
and Herzegovina were occupied and annexed by
Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1908.
The Ottoman Empire in 1683; core possessions in
The empire allied with Germany in World War I with dark green; vassal or autonomous areas in light
the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, green.
but it dissolved in the aftermath of its decisive defeat.
The Kemalist national movement, supported by
Soviet Russia, achieved victory in the course of the Turkish War of Independence, and the parties signed
and ratified the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 and 1924. The Republic of Turkey was established.[99]

Portugal

The Russian Empire & the Soviet Union

By the 18th century, the Russian Empire extended its control

to the Pacific, peacefully forming a common border with the
Qing Empire and Empire of Japan. This took place in a large
number of military invasions of the lands east, west, and south Areas across the world that were, at one
of it. The Polish–Russian War of 1792 took place after Polish point in their history, part of the
Portuguese Empire
nobility from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth wrote the
Constitution of 3 May 1791. The war resulted in eastern
Poland being conquered by Imperial Russia as a colony until
1918. The southern campaigns involved a series of Russo-Persian Wars, which began with the Persian
Expedition of 1796, resulting in the acquisition of Georgia (country) as a protectorate. Between 1800 and
1864, Imperial armies invaded south in the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, the Murid War, and the
Russo-Circassian War. This last conflict led to the ethnic cleansing of Circassians from their lands. The
Russian conquest of Siberia over the Khanate of Sibir took place in the 16th and 17th centuries, and
resulted in the slaughter of various indigenous tribes by Russians, including the Daur, the Koryaks, the
Itelmens, Mansi people and the Chukchi. The Russian colonization of Central and Eastern Europe and
Siberia and treatment of the resident indigenous peoples has been compared to European colonization of
the Americas, with similar negative impacts on the indigenous Siberians as upon the indigenous peoples of
the Americas. The extermination of indigenous Siberian tribes was so complete that a relatively small
population of only 180,000 are said to exist today. The Russian Empire exploited and suppressed Cossacks
hosts during this period, before turning them into the special military estate Sosloviye in the late 18th
century. Cossacks were then used in Imperial Russian campaigns against other tribes.[100]

But it would be a strong simplification to reduce expansion of Russia only to military conquests. The
acquisition of Ukraine by Russia commenced in 1654, when Polish rule brought the population of Ukraine
to revolts (see Pereyaslav Council). Another example is Georgia's accession to Russia in 1783. Given
Georgia's history of invasions from the south, an alliance with Russia may have been seen as the only way
to discourage or resist Persian and Ottoman aggression, while also establishing a link to Western Europe
(see Treaty of Georgievsk). Russia's support helped establish independent Mongolia (independent from
China) (see Mongolian Revolution of 1911).

Bolshevik leaders had effectively reestablished a polity with

roughly the same extent as that empire by 1921, however with an
internationalist ideology: Lenin in particular asserted the right to
limited self-determination for national minorities within the new
territory.[101] Beginning in 1923, the policy of "Indigenization"
[korenizatsiya] was intended to support non-Russians develop their
national cultures within a socialist framework. Never formally
revoked, it stopped being implemented after 1932. After World
War II, the Soviet Union installed socialist regimes modeled on
those it had installed in 1919–20 in the old Russian Empire, in
areas its forces occupied in Eastern Europe.[102] The Soviet Union
and later the People's Republic of China supported revolutionary
and communist movements in foreign nations and colonies to The maximum territorial extent of
advance their own interests, but were not always successful.[103] countries in the world under Soviet
The USSR provided great assistance to Kuomintang in 1926–1928 influence, after the Cuban Revolution
in the formation of a unified Chinese government (see Northern of 1959 and before the official Sino-
Expedition). Although then relations with the USSR deteriorated, Soviet split of 1961
but the USSR was the only world power that provided military
assistance to China against Japanese aggression in 1937-1941 (see
Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact). The victory of the Chinese Communists in the civil war of 1946-1949
relied on the great help of the USSR (see Chinese Civil War).

Trotsky, and others, believed that the revolution could only succeed in Russia as part of a world revolution.
Lenin wrote extensively on the matter and famously declared that Imperialism was the highest stage of
capitalism. However, after Lenin's death, Joseph Stalin established 'socialism in one country' for the Soviet
Union, creating the model for subsequent inward looking Stalinist states and purging the early
Internationalist elements. The internationalist tendencies of the early revolution would be abandoned until
they returned in the framework of a client state in competition with the Americans during the Cold War. In
the post-Stalin period in the late 1950s, the new political leader Nikita Khrushchev put pressure on the
Soviet-American relations starting a new wave of anti-imperialist propaganda. In his speech on the UN
conference in 1960, he announced the continuation of the war on imperialism, stating that soon the people
of different countries will come together and overthrow their imperialist leaders. Although the Soviet Union
declared itself anti-imperialist, critics argue that it exhibited traits common to historic empires.[104][105][106]
Some scholars hold that the Soviet Union was a hybrid entity containing elements common to both
multinational empires and nation states. Some also argued that the USSR practiced colonialism as did other
imperial powers and was carrying on the old Russian tradition of expansion and control.[106] Mao Zedong
once argued that the Soviet Union had itself become an imperialist power while maintaining a socialist
façade. Moreover, the ideas of imperialism were widely spread in action on the higher levels of
government. Some Marxists within the Russian Empire and later the USSR, like Sultan Galiev and Vasyl
Shakhrai, considered the Soviet regime a renewed version of the Russian imperialism and colonialism.[107]

Soviet imperialism involved invasion of Hungary in 1956 to destroy democratic forces.[108] Soviet
imperialism was roundly condemned In 1979 when the USSR invaded Afghanistan to keep a friendly
government in power. The invasion "alerted the Third World, as no earlier Soviet intervention had done, to
the nature of Soviet imperialism.[109][110] It must be said that the USSR never called itself an "Empire"
unlike other world powers and the use of such a name carries a negative connotation.

United States

Made up of former colonies itself, the early United States

expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct
from its own Manifest Destiny, through policies such as the
Monroe Doctrine. However the US may have unsuccessfully
attempted to capture Canada in the War of 1812. The United States
achieved very significant territorial concessions from Mexico
during the Mexican-American War. Beginning in the late 19th and
early 20th century, policies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s
interventionism in Central America and Woodrow Wilson’s
mission to "make the world safe for democracy"[111] changed all Ceremonies during the annexation of
this. They were often backed by military force, but were more the Republic of Hawaii, 1898
often affected from behind the scenes. This is consistent with the
general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical
empires.[112][113] In 1898, Americans who opposed imperialism created
the Anti-Imperialist League to oppose the US annexation of the
Philippines and Cuba. One year later, a war erupted in the Philippines
causing business, labor and government leaders in the US to condemn
America's occupation in the Philippines as they also denounced them for
causing the deaths of many Filipinos.[114] American foreign policy was
denounced as a "racket" by Smedley Butler, a former American general
who had become a spokesman for the far left.[115]

At the start of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was opposed
to European colonialism, especially in India. He pulled back when
Britain's Winston Churchill demanded that victory in the war be the first
priority. Roosevelt expected that the United Nations would take up the Cartoon of belligerent Uncle
problem of decolonization.[116] Sam placing Spain on
notice, c. 1898
Some have described the internal strife between various people groups as a
form of imperialism or colonialism. This internal form is distinct from
informal U.S. imperialism in the form of political and financial hegemony.[117] This internal form of
imperialism is also distinct from the United States' formation of "colonies" abroad.[117] Through the
treatment of its indigenous peoples during westward expansion, the United States took on the form of an
imperial power prior to any attempts at external imperialism. This internal form of empire has been referred
to as "internal colonialism".[118] Participation in the African slave trade and the subsequent treatment of its
12 to 15 million Africans is viewed by some to be a more modern extension of America's "internal
colonialism".[119] However, this internal colonialism faced resistance, as external colonialism did, but the
anti-colonial presence was far less prominent due to the nearly complete dominance that the United States
was able to assert over both indigenous peoples and African-Americans.[120] In his lecture on April 16,
2003, Edward Said made a bold statement on modern imperialism in the United States, whom he described
as using aggressive means of attack towards the contemporary Orient, "due to their backward living, lack
of democracy and the violation of women’s rights. The western world forgets during this process of
converting the other that enlightenment and democracy are concepts that not all will agree upon".[121]

Spain

Spanish imperialism in the colonial era corresponds with the

rise and decline of the Spanish Empire, conventionally
recognized as emerging in 1402 with the conquest of the
Canary Islands. Following the successes of exploratory
maritime voyages conducted during the Age of Discovery,
such as those undertaken by Christopher Columbus, Spain
committed considerable financial and military resources
The areas of the world that at one time
towards developing a robust navy capable of conducting
were territories of the Spanish Monarchy
large-scale, transatlantic expeditionary operations in order to
or Empire.
establish and solidify a firm imperial presence across large
portions of North America, South America, and the
geographic regions comprising the Caribbean basin.
Concomitant with Spanish endorsement and sponsorship of transatlantic expeditionary voyages was the
deployment of Conquistadors, which further expanded Spanish imperial boundaries through the acquisition
and development of territories and colonies.[122]

Imperialism in the Caribbean basin

In congruence with the

colonialist activities of
competing European imperial
powers throughout the 15th –
19th centuries, the Spanish
were equally engrossed in
extending geopolitical power.
The Caribbean basin functioned
as a key geographic focal point
for advancing Spanish
imperialism. Similar to the
strategic prioritization Spain
placed towards achieving
victory in the conquests of the
Aztec Empire and Inca Empire, Spanish colonies and territories in the Caribbean basin (c. 1490 – c. 1660)
Spain placed equal strategic
emphasis on expanding the
nation's imperial footprint within the Caribbean basin.
Echoing the prevailing ideological perspectives regarding colonialism and imperialism embraced by Spain's
European rivals during the colonial era, including the English, French, and the Dutch, the Spanish utilized
colonialism as a means of expanding imperial geopolitical borders and securing the defense of maritime
trade routes in the Caribbean basin.

While leveraging colonialism in the same geographic operating theater as its imperial rivals, Spain
maintained distinct imperial objectives and instituted a unique form of colonialism in support of its imperial
agenda. Spain placed significant strategic emphasis on the acquisition, extraction, and exportation of
precious metals (primarily gold and silver). A second objective was the evangelization of subjugated
indigenous populations residing in mineral-rich and strategically favorable locations. Notable examples of
these indigenous groups include the Taίno populations inhabiting Puerto Rico and segments of Cuba.
Compulsory labor and slavery were widely institutionalized across Spanish-occupied territories and
colonies, with an initial emphasis on directing labor towards mining activity and related methods of
procuring semi-precious metals. The emergence of the Encomienda system during the 16th–17th centuries
in occupied colonies within the Caribbean basin reflects a gradual shift in imperial prioritization,
increasingly focusing on large-scale production and exportation of agricultural commodities.

Scholarly debate and controversy

The scope and scale of Spanish participation in imperialism within the Caribbean basin remains a subject of
scholarly debate among historians. A fundamental source of contention stems from the inadvertent
conflation of theoretical conceptions of imperialism and colonialism. Furthermore, significant variation
exists in the definition and interpretation of these terms as expounded by historians, anthropologists,
philosophers, and political scientists.

Among historians, there is substantial support in favor of approaching imperialism as a conceptual theory
emerging during the 18th–19th centuries, particularly within Britain, propagated by key exponents such as
Joseph Chamberlain and Benjamin Disraeli. In accordance with this theoretical perspective, the activities of
the Spanish in the Caribbean are not components of a preeminent, ideologically-driven form of imperialism.
Rather, these activities are more accurately classified as representing a form of colonialism.

Further divergence among historians can be attributed to varying theoretical perspectives regarding
imperialism that are proposed by emerging academic schools of thought. Noteworthy examples include
cultural imperialism, whereby proponents such as John Downing and Annabelle Sreberny-Modammadi
define imperialism as "...the conquest and control of one country by a more powerful one."[123] Cultural
imperialism signifies the dimensions of the process that go beyond economic exploitation or military force."
Moreover, colonialism is understood as "...the form of imperialism in which the government of the colony is
run directly by foreigners."[124]

In spite of diverging perspectives and the absence of a unilateral scholarly consensus regarding imperialism
among historians, within the context of Spanish expansion in the Caribbean basin during the colonial era,
imperialism can be interpreted as an overarching ideological agenda that is perpetuated through the
institution of colonialism. In this context, colonialism functions as an instrument designed to achieve
specific imperialist objectives.

Sweden

See also
Hegemony
Historiography of the British Empire
 Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism 1917 book by Lenin
International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)
International relations, 1648–1814
List of empires
List of largest empires
Political history of the world
Postcolonialism
Scramble for Africa, in late 19th century
Super-imperialism
Ultra-imperialism
Western European colonialism and colonization
14 Points esp. V and XII

References
1. S. Gertrude Millin, Rhodes, London: 1933, p. 138
2. "imperialism" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/imperialism). Retrieved 22 February 2019.
"[...] the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries,
or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies [...]"
3. "Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary, imperium (inp-)" (https://www.perseus.tuf
ts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dimperium).
Retrieved 11 September 2016.
4. Howe, 13
5. Magnusson, Lars (1991). Teorier om imperialism (in Swedish). p. 19. ISBN 978-91-550-
3830-4.
6. Edward W. Said. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Publishers, 1994. p. 9.
7. Clapp, C H (1912). "Southern Vancouver Island". Canada. Geological Survey. Memoirno.
13. Ottawa. doi:10.4095/100487 (https://doi.org/10.4095%2F100487).
hdl:2027/nyp.33433090753066 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027%2Fnyp.33433090753066).
8. Young, Robert (2015). Empire, colony, postcolony. p. 54. ISBN 978-1-4051-9355-9.
OCLC 907133189 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/907133189).
9. Gilmartin, Mary (2009). "Colonialism/Imperialism" (https://books.google.com/books?id=XpBJ
clVnVdQC&pg=PA115). In Gallaher, Carolyn; Dahlman, Carl; Gilmartin, Mary; Mountz,
Alison; Shirlow, Peter (eds.). Key Concepts in Political Geography. pp. 115–123.
doi:10.4135/9781446279496.n13 (https://doi.org/10.4135%2F9781446279496.n13).
ISBN 9781412946728.
10. Painter, Joe; Jeffrey, Alex (2009). Political Geography (2nd ed.). ISBN 978-1-4462-4435-7.
11. "Imperialism: A Study – Online Library of Liberty" (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hobson-impe
rialism-a-study).
12. John Haywood, Atlas of world history (1997) (https://archive.org/search.php?query=atlas%2
0world%20history%20haywood)
13. See Stephen Howe, ed., The New Imperial Histories Reader (2009) online review (https://h-
net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=32358).
14. R.E. Robinson and John Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians: The official mind of
imperialism (1966).
15. Wm. Roger Louis, Imperialism (1976) p. 4.
16. Hale, Oron J. (1971). The great illusion: 1900–14. Harper & Row.
17. Christopher, A.J. (1985). "Patterns of British Overseas Investment in Land". Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers. New Series. 10 (4): 452–66. doi:10.2307/621891 (https://
doi.org/10.2307%2F621891). JSTOR 621891 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/621891).
18. Joe Painter (1995). Politics, Geography and Political Geography: A Critical Perspective (http
s://archive.org/details/politicsgeograph00pain). p. 114 (https://archive.org/details/politicsgeo
graph00pain/page/114). ISBN 978-0-470-23544-7.
19. D. K. Fieldhouse, “'Imperialism': An Historiographical Revision.” Economic History Review
14#2 1961, pp. 187–209 online (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2593218)
20. David Harvey, Spaces of Global Capitalism: A Theory of Uneven Geographical
Development (Verso, 2006) p. 91
21. Adas, Michael; Stearns, Peter N. (2008). Turbulent Passage A Global History of the
Twentieth Century (4th ed.). pp. 54–58. ISBN 978-0-205-64571-8.
22. Fieldhouse, D. K. (1961). " 'Imperialism': An Historiographical Revision". The Economic
History Review. 14 (2): 187–209. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0289.1961.tb00045.x (https://doi.org/1
0.1111%2Fj.1468-0289.1961.tb00045.x). JSTOR 2593218 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2593
218).
23. Tony Brewer, Marxist theories of imperialism: a critical survey (2002)
24. Proudman, Mark F. (2008). "Words for Scholars: The Semantics of "Imperialism" ". Journal of
the Historical Society. 8 (3): 395–433. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2008.00252.x (https://doi.org/
10.1111%2Fj.1540-5923.2008.00252.x).
25. Cain, P. J. (2007). "Capitalism, Aristocracy and Empire: Some 'Classical' Theories of
Imperialism Revisited". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 35: 25–47.
doi:10.1080/03086530601143388 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F03086530601143388).
S2CID 159660602 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:159660602).
26. Peatling, G. K. (2004). "Globalism, Hegemonism and British Power: J. A. Hobson and Alfred
Zimmern Reconsidered". History. 89 (295): 381–398. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
229X.2004.00305.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-229X.2004.00305.x).
27. Walter., Rodney (1972). How Europe underdeveloped Africa. ISBN 978-0-9501546-4-0.
OCLC 589558 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/589558).
28. Alan Marshall (February 1995). "Development and imperialism in space" (https://www.resear
chgate.net/publication/222641231). Space Policy. 11 (1): 41–52.
Bibcode:1995SpPol..11...41M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995SpPol..11...41M).
doi:10.1016/0265-9646(95)93233-B (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0265-9646%2895%299323
3-B). Retrieved 2020-06-28.
29. Hubbard, P., & Kitchin, R. Eds. Key Thinkers on Space and Place, 2nd. Ed. Los Angeles,
Calif:Sage Publications. 2010. p. 239.
30. Sharp, J. (2008). Geographies of Postcolonialism. Los Angeles:London:Sage Publications.
pp. 16, 17.
31. Said, Edward. "Imaginative Geography and its Representations: Orientalizing the Oriental",
Orientalism. New York:Vintage. p. 357.
32. Sharp, J. Geographies of Postcolonialism. Los Angeles: London: Sage Publications. 2008.
p. 22.
33. Sharp, J. (2008). Geographies of Postcolonialism. Los Angeles:London: Sage Publications.
p. 18.
34. Said, Edward.(1979) "Imaginative Geography and its Representations: Orientalizing the
Oriental", Orientalism. New York: Vintage. p. 361
35. Harley, J. B. (1989). "Deconstructing the Map" (http://www.comitepp.sp.gov.br/MESTRADO/fi
les/Texto%2001%20-%20Harley%20A.pdf) (PDF). Cartographica: The International Journal
for Geographic Information and Geovisualization. 26 (2): 1–20. doi:10.3138/E635-7827-
1757-9T53 (https://doi.org/10.3138%2FE635-7827-1757-9T53). S2CID 145766679 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145766679). p. 2
36. Bassett, Thomas J. (1994). "Cartography and Empire Building in Nineteenth-Century West
Africa". Geographical Review. 84 (3): 316–335. doi:10.2307/215456 (https://doi.org/10.230
7%2F215456). JSTOR 215456 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/215456). S2CID 161167051 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:161167051). p. 316
37. "Imperialism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition.
38. Lenin, Vladimir (1987). Essential Works of Lenin (https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/Q
k_A74ZnjNMC?hl=en&gbpv=1). Mineola, New York: Dover Publications. p. 254.
ISBN 9780486253336.
39. Chambers Dictionary of World History, B.P.Lenman, T. Anderson, Editors, Chambers:
Edinburgh. 2000. p. 769.
40. Stephen Howe (2002). Empire: A Very Short Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=04lJ4TshmxcC&pg=PT164). p. 164. ISBN 978-0-19-160444-7.
41. Krishan Kumar (2017). Visions of Empire: How Five Imperial Regimes Shaped the World (ht
tps://books.google.com/books?id=iupuDQAAQBAJ). p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4008-8491-9.
42. Hobson, J.A. "Imperialism: a study." Cosimo, Inc., 2005. p. 154
43. Austen, Ralph, ed. (1969). Modern Imperialism. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath.
pp. 70–73.
44. Arnold, David (2000). " "Illusory Riches": Representations of the Tropical World, 1840–
1950". Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 21: 6–18. doi:10.1111/1467-9493.00060
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9493.00060).
45. Mountz, Alison (2009). "The other" (https://books.google.com/books?id=XpBJclVnVdQC&pg
=PA328). In Gallaher, Carolyn; Dahlman, Carl; Gilmartin, Mary; Mountz, Alison; Shirlow,
Peter (eds.). Key Concepts in Political Geography. pp. 328–338.
doi:10.4135/9781446279496.n35 (https://doi.org/10.4135%2F9781446279496.n35).
ISBN 9781412946728.
46. Hobson, J.A. "Imperialism: a study." Cosimo, Inc., 2005. p. v.
47. Compare: Gilmartin 2009, "[...] the practice of colonialism was legitimized by geographical
theories such as environmental determinism."
48. "British Empire" British Empire | historical state, United Kingdom | Encyclopædia Britannica
Online
49. "New France (1608–1763)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20141008091712/http://www.canad
iana.ca/citm/themes/pioneers/pioneers3_e.html). Canada in the Making. Archived from the
original (http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/pioneers/pioneers3_e.html) on October 8,
2014. Retrieved February 3, 2015.
50. Piers Brendon, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781–1997 (2008) p. 61
51. Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (1997) pp. 169–83
52. Johnston, Douglas M.; Reisman, W. Michael (2008). The Historical Foundations of World
Order (https://books.google.com/books?id=dVuwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA508). pp. 508–510.
ISBN 978-9047423935.
53. Porter, p. 332.
54. Sondhaus, L. (2004). Navies in Modern World History. London: Reaktion Books. p. 9.
ISBN 1-86189-202-0.
55. Porter, Andrew (1998). The Nineteenth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire
Volume III (https://books.google.com/books?id=oo3F2X8IDeEC). p. 332. ISBN 978-0-19-
924678-6.
56. "The Workshop of the World" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/workshop_of_t
he_world_01.shtml). BBC History. Retrieved 28 April 2013.
57. Porter, Andrew (1998). The Nineteenth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire
Volume III (https://books.google.com/books?id=oo3F2X8IDeEC). p. 8. ISBN 978-0-19-
924678-6.
58. Marshall, P.J. (1996). The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=S2EXN8JTwAEC). pp. 156–57. ISBN 978-0-521-00254-7.
59. Tompson, Richard S. (2003). Great Britain: a reference guide from the Renaissance to the
present (https://books.google.com/books?id=H5kcJqmXk2oC&pg=PA63). p. 63. ISBN 978-
0-8160-4474-0.
60. Hosch, William L. (2009). World War I: People, Politics, and Power. America at War. p. 21.
ISBN 978-1-61530-048-8.
61. James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (1997) pp. 307–18
62. William L. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism: 1890–1902 (2nd ed. 1950) pp. 67–100
63. Darwin, John. "Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/hi
story/british/modern/endofempire_overview_01.shtml). BBC. Retrieved 13 April 2017.
64. Chun-shu Chang, The Rise of the Chinese Empire: Nation, State, and Imperialism in Early
China, ca. 1600 B.C.–A.D. 8 (University of Michigan Press, 2007).
65. Prem Poddar and Lars Jensen, eds., A historical companion to postcolonial literatures
(Edinburgh UP, 2008), "Denmark and its colonies" pp 58-105.
66. Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion (1996)
67. Anthony Clayton, The Wars of French Decolonization (1995)
68. Winfried Baumgart, Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial
Expansion, 1880–1914 (1982)
69. Emmanuelle Jouannet (2012). The Liberal-Welfarist Law of Nations: A History of
International Law (https://books.google.com/books?id=docaDtxWPK8C&pg=PA142). p. 142.
ISBN 978-1-107-01894-5.
70. Raymond Betts, Assimilation and Association in French Colonial Theory, 1890–1914 (2005)
71. Martin Thomas, The French Empire Between the Wars: Imperialism, Politics and Society
(2007) covers 1919–1939
72. Tony Chafer, The End of Empire in French West Africa: France's Successful
Decolonization? (2002)
73. Clignet, Remi (1970). "Inadequacies of the Notion of Assimilation in African Education". The
Journal of Modern African Studies. 8 (3): 425–444. doi:10.1017/S0022278X00019935 (http
s://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0022278X00019935). JSTOR 158852 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/
158852).
74. Ọlọruntimẹhin, B. Ọlatunji (1974). "Education for Colonial Dominance in French West Africa
from 1900 to the Second World War". Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria. 7 (2): 347–
356. JSTOR 41857017 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41857017).
75. Genova, James E. (2004). "Conflicted Missionaries: Power and Identity in French West
Africa During the 1930s". The Historian. 66: 45–66. doi:10.1111/j.0018-2370.2004.00063.x
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0018-2370.2004.00063.x). S2CID 143384173 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:143384173).
76. Rice, Louisa (2013). "Between empire and nation: Francophone West African students and
decolonization". Atlantic Studies. 10: 131–147. doi:10.1080/14788810.2013.764106 (https://
doi.org/10.1080%2F14788810.2013.764106). S2CID 144542200 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:144542200).
77. Degorge, Barbara (2002). "The Modernization of Education: A Case Study of Tunisia and
Morocco" (https://www.academia.edu/33429271). The European Legacy. 7 (5): 579–596.
doi:10.1080/1084877022000006780 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F1084877022000006780).
S2CID 146190465 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:146190465).
78. Chafer, Tony (2001). "Teaching Africans to be French?: France's 'civilising mission' and the
establishment of a public education system in French West Africa, 1903-30". Africa. 56 (2):
190–209. JSTOR 40761537 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40761537). PMID 18254200 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18254200).
79. Gardinier, David E. (1974). "Schooling in the States of Equatorial Africa". Canadian Journal
of African Studies. 8 (3): 517–538. doi:10.1080/00083968.1974.10804447 (https://doi.org/10.
1080%2F00083968.1974.10804447).
80. Heggoy, Alf Andrew; Zingg, Paul J. (1976). "French Education in Revolutionary North
Africa". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 7 (4): 571–578.
doi:10.1017/S0020743800024703 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0020743800024703).
JSTOR 162510 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/162510).
81. Nguyen, Thuy-Phuong (2014). "The rivalry of the French and American educational
missions during the Vietnam War" (https://www.academia.edu/31337115). Paedagogica
Historica. 50 (1–2): 27–41. doi:10.1080/00309230.2013.872683 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F
00309230.2013.872683). S2CID 144976778 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1449
76778).
82. Diese deutschen Wörter kennt man noch in der Südsee, von Matthias Heine (https://www.we
lt.de/kultur/article168705897/Diese-deutschen-Woerter-kennt-man-noch-in-der-Suedsee.ht
ml) "Einst hatten die Deutschen das drittgrößte Kolonialreich[...]"
83. Thomas Pakenham, The Scramble for Africa: White Man's Conquest of the Dark Continent
from 1876 to 1912 (1992) ch 12
84. Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914 (1988) pp. 167–
83.
85. Wehler, Hans–Ulrich (1970), "Bismarck's Imperialism 1862–1890", Past and Present, 48:
119–55, doi:10.1093/past/48.1.119 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fpast%2F48.1.119)
86. von Strandmann, Hartmut Pogge (1969), "Domestic Origins of Germany's Colonial
Expansion Under Bismarck", Past and Present, 42: 140–59, doi:10.1093/past/42.1.140 (http
s://doi.org/10.1093%2Fpast%2F42.1.140)
87. Potter, Pitman B. (1922). "Origin of the System of Mandates Under the League of Nations" (h
ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1943638.pdf) (PDF). American Political Science Review. 16
(4): 563–583. doi:10.2307/1943638 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1943638). JSTOR 1943638
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/1943638).
88. Fuller, Mia (2014). "Italian Colonial Rule". Oxford Bibliographies in African Studies.
doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199846733-0150 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2FOBO%2F97801998467
33-0150).
89. Theodore M. Vestal, "Reflections on the Battle of Adwa and Its Significance for Today", in
The Battle of Adwa: Reflections on Ethiopia's Historic Victory Against European Colonialism
(Algora, 2005), p. 22.
90. Nigel Thomas, Armies in the Balkans 1914–18 (Osprey Publishing, 2001), p. 17.
91. Kelly, Saul (2000). "Britain, the United States, and the End of the Italian empire in Africa,
1940–52". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 28 (3): 51–70.
doi:10.1080/03086530008583098 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F03086530008583098).
S2CID 159656946 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:159656946).
92. Hofmann, Reto (2015). The Fascist Effect. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801456350.
JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt20d88b6 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt20d88b6).
93. Andrew Gordon, A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present (2013),
pp 114-25.
94. Paul Joseph, ed. (2016). The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=idw0DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA430). p. 430.
ISBN 9781483359885.
95. S.C.M. Paine, The Japanese Empire: Grand Strategy from the Meiji Restoration to the
Pacific War (2017) pp 15-48.
96. Louise Young, Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism
(1999) pp 3-54.
 97. Ramon H. Myers and Mark R. Peattie, eds., The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945
(1987) pp 61-127
98. Jane Hathaway, The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516–1800 (2008).
99. Caroline Finkel, (2005). Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923.
100. Willard Sunderland, "An Empire of Peasants. Empire-Building, Interethnic Interaction, and
Ethnic Stereotyping in the Rural World of the Russian Empire, 1800–1850s." Imperial
Russia. New histories for the Empire (1998): 174–198.
101. V.I. Lenin (1913). Critical Remarks on the National Question (https://www.marxists.org/archiv
e/lenin/works/1913/crnq/index.htm). Prosveshcheniye.
102. "The Soviet Union and Europe after 1945" (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?Modul
eId=10005506). The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved December 30, 2010.
103. Melvin E. Page (2003). Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political
Encyclopedia (https://books.google.com/books?id=qFTHBoRvQbsC&pg=PA138). p. 138.
ISBN 978-1-57607-335-3.
104. Beissinger, Mark R. (2006). "Soviet Empire as "Family Resemblance" ". Slavic Review. 65
(2): 294–303. doi:10.2307/4148594 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F4148594). JSTOR 4148594
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/4148594). S2CID 156553569 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:156553569).
105. Dave, Bhavna. 2007 Kazakhstan: Ethnicity, language and power. Abingdon, New York:
Routledge.
106. Caroe, Olaf (1953). "Soviet Colonialism in Central Asia". Foreign Affairs. 32 (1): 135–44.
doi:10.2307/20031013 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F20031013). JSTOR 20031013 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/20031013).
107. Velychenko, Stephen (2015). Painting Imperialism and Nationalism Red: The Ukrainian
Marxist Critique of Russian Communist Rule in Ukraine, 1918-1925. University of Toronto
Press. ISBN 9781442648517. JSTOR 10.3138/j.ctv69tft2 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.31
38/j.ctv69tft2).
108. Arendt, Hannah (1958). "Totalitarian Imperialism: Reflections on the Hungarian Revolution".
The Journal of Politics. 20 (1): 5–43. doi:10.2307/2127387 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2127
387). JSTOR 2127387 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2127387). S2CID 154428972 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154428972).
109. Richard Smith; Patrick Salmon; Stephen Robert Twigge (2012). The Invasion of Afghanistan
and UK-Soviet Relations, 1979-1982: Documents on British Policy Overseas, Series III (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=VfrIBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT520). p. 520.
ISBN 9781136325489.
110. Alvin Z. Rubinstein, "Soviet Imperialism in Afghanistan." Current History 79#459 (1980): 80-
83.
111. "Woodrow Wilson: War Message | Text of Original address (mtholyoke.edu)" (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/19970501050006/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww18.htm). Archived
from the original (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww18.htm) on May 1, 1997.
Retrieved June 13, 2015.
112. Boot, Max (July 15, 2004). "In Modern Imperialism, U.S. Needs to Walk Softly" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20060720214335/http://www.cfr.org/publication/7190/in_modern_imperialism
_us_needs_to_walk_softly.html). Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original (h
ttp://www.cfr.org/publication/7190/in_modern_imperialism_us_needs_to_walk_softly.html)
on July 20, 2006.
113. Oliver Kamm (October 30, 2008). "America is still the world's policeman" (http://www.timeson
line.co.uk/tol/comment/specials/article5047143.ece). The Times.
114. Ooi, K.G. (2004). Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor
(https://books.google.com/books?id=QKgraWbb7yoC). 1. p. 1075. ISBN 978-1-57607-770-2.
Retrieved June 13, 2015.
115. "Moore: War is just a racket, said a General in 1933" (http://www.federalobserver.com/archiv
e.php?aid=5776). federalobserver.com. Retrieved June 13, 2015.
116. D. Ryan; V. Pungong (2000). The United States and Decolonization: Power and Freedom (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?id=8D6JDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA64). pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-0-
333-97795-8.
117. Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 57.
118. Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 59.
119. Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 67.
120. Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 97.
121. Said, Edward (April 16, 2003). "orientalism" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JncXpQQo
ZAo). Retrieved April 7, 2015.
122. Roger Bigelow Merriman, The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New
(4 vol 1918-1933) online (https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%28Merriman%
2C%20Roger%20Bigelow.%20%29%20empire).
123. Downing, John; Ali Mohammadi; Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi (1995). Questioning the
media: a critical introduction (2, illustrated ed.). Sage. p. 482. ISBN 978-0-8039-7197-4.
124. Downing; Sreberny-Mohammadi (1995). p. 482.

Further reading
Abernethy, David P. The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires,
1425–1980 (Yale UP, 2000), political science approach. online review (https://muse.jhu.edu/
article/16319/summary)
Ankerl, Guy. Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharatai, Chinese, and
Western, Geneva, INU Press, 2000, ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
Bayly, C.A. ed. Atlas of the British Empire (1989). survey by scholars; heavily illustrated
Brendon, Piers. "A Moral Audit of the British Empire" (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/brit
ish_empire/). History Today, (Oct 2007), Vol. 57 Issue 10, pp. 44–47
Brendon, Piers. The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781–1997 (2008), ISBN 978-0-
307-27028-3, wide-ranging survey
Bickers, Robert and Christian Henriot, New Frontiers: Imperialism's New Communities in
East Asia, 1842–1953, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-7190-5604-
7
Blanken, Leo. Rational Empires: Institutional Incentives and Imperial Expansion (http://www.
themontrealreview.com/2009/Rational-Empires-Institutional-Incentives-and-Imperial-Expans
ion.php), University Of Chicago Press, 2012
Bush, Barbara. Imperialism and Postcolonialism (History: Concepts, Theories and Practice),
Longmans, 2006, ISBN 0-582-50583-6
Comer, Earl of. Ancient and Modern Imperialism, John Murray, 1910.
Cotterell, Arthur. Western Power in Asia: Its Slow Rise and Swift Fall, 1415 - 1999 (2009)
popular history excerpts (https://www.amazon.com/Western-Power-Asia-Slow-Swift/dp/0470
824891/)
Dabhoiwala, Fara, "Imperial Delusions" (review of Priya Satia, Time's Monster: How History
Makes History, Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 2020, 363 pp.; Mahmood
Mamdani, Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities,
Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 2020, 401 pp.; and Adom Getachew, Worldmaking
after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination, Princeton University Press, 2021 [?],
271 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVIII, no. 11 (1 July 2021), pp. 59–62.
Darwin, John. After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400–2000, (Penguin
Books, 2008), 576 pp
Darwin, John. The Empire Project (2011) 811pp free viewing (https://play.google.com/books/
reader?id=b7E83PeQAQMC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA23.w.1.1.99)
Davies, Stephen (2008). "Imperialism" (https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJY
C). In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. pp. 237–39.
doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n146 (https://doi.org/10.4135%2F9781412965811.n146).
ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2008009151).
OCLC 750831024 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/750831024).
Fay, Richard B. and Daniel Gaido (ed. and trans.), Discovering Imperialism: Social
Democracy to World War I. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2012.
Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, Penguin Books, 2004,
ISBN 0-14-100754-0
Gotteland, Mathieu. What Is Informal Imperialism? (https://middlegroundjournal.com/2017/0
9/05/on-teaching-column-what-is-informal-imperialism/), The Middle Ground Journal (2017).
Michael Hardt and Toni Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-674-00671-2
E.J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 1875–1914, Abacus Books, 1989, ISBN 0-349-10598-
7
E.J. Hobsbawm, On Empire: America, War, and Global Supremacy, Pantheon Books, 2008,
ISBN 0-375-42537-3
J.A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study, Cosimo Classics, 2005, ISBN 1-59605-250-3
Hodge, Carl Cavanagh. Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800–1914 (2 vol. 2007),
online
Howe, Stephen Howe, ed., The New Imperial Histories Reader (2009) online review (https://
h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=32358).
James, Paul; Nairn, Tom (2006). Globalization and Violence, Vol. 1: Globalizing Empires,
Old and New (https://www.academia.edu/3587722). Sage Publications.
Kumar, Krishan. Visions of Empire: How Five Imperial Regimes Shaped the World (2017).
Gabriel Kuhn, Oppressor and Oppressed Nations: Sketching a Taxonomy of Imperialism (htt
p://kersplebedeb.com/posts/oppressor-and-oppressed-nations/), Kersplebedeb, June 2017.
Lawrence, Adria K. Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism: Anti-Colonial Protest in the
French Empire (Cambridge UP, 2013) online reviews (https://issforum.org/roundtables/7-18-i
mperial-rule-nationalism)
Jackson Lears, "Imperial Exceptionalism" (review of Victor Bulmer-Thomas, Empire in
Retreat: The Past, Present, and Future of the United States, Yale University Press, 2018,
ISBN 978-0-300-21000-2, 459 pp.; and David C. Hendrickson, Republic in Peril: American
Empire and the Liberal Tradition, Oxford University Press, 2017, ISBN 978-0190660383,
287 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVI, no. 2 (February 7, 2019), pp. 8–10.
Bulmer-Thomas writes: "Imperial retreat is not the same as national decline, as many other
countries can attest. Indeed, imperial retreat can strengthen the nation-state just as imperial
expansion can weaken it." (NYRB, cited on p. 10.)
Merriman, Roger Bigelow. The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New
(4 vol 1918–1933) online (https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%28Merriman%
2C%20Roger%20Bigelow.%20%29%20empire).
Monypenny, William Flavelle (1905). "The Imperial Ideal" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The
_Empire_and_the_century/The_Imperial_Ideal). The Empire and the century. John Murray.
pp. 5–28.
Moon, Parker T. Imperialism and world politics (1926); 583 pp; Wide-ranging historical
survey; online
Ness, Immanuel and Zak Cope, eds. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-
Imperialism (2 vol 2015), 1456 pp
Page, Melvin E. et al. eds. Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political
Encyclopedia (2 vol 2003)
 Thomas Pakenham. The Scramble for Africa: White Man's Conquest of the Dark Continent
from 1876–1912 (1992), ISBN 978-0-380-71999-0
Poddar, Prem, and Lars Jensen, eds., A historical companion to postcolonial literatures:
Continental Europe and Its Empires (Edinburgh UP, 2008) excerpt (https://www.amazon.co
m/Historical-Companion-Postcolonial-Literatures-Continental/dp/0748623949/) also entire
text online (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g0b6vw)
Rothermund, Dietmar. Memories of Post-Imperial Nations: The Aftermath of Decolonization,
1945–2013 (2015), ISBN 1-107-10229-4; Compares the impact on Great Britain, the
Netherlands, Belgium, France, Portugal, Italy and Japan
Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism, Vintage Books, 1998, ISBN 0-09-996750-2
Simms, Brendan. Three victories and a defeat: the rise and fall of the first British Empire
(Hachette UK, 2008). to 1783.
Smith, Simon C. British Imperialism 1750–1970, Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-
521-59930-X
Stuchtey, Benedikt. Colonialism and Imperialism, 1450–1950 (http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nb
n:de:0159-20101025319), European History Online, Mainz: Institute of European History,
2011.
U.S. Tariff Commission. Colonial tariff policies (https://archive.org/details/colonialtariffpo00u
nit) (1922), worldwide; 922 pp
Vandervort, Bruce. Wars of Imperial Conquest in Africa, 1830―1914 (Indiana UP, 2009)
Winslow, E. M. (1931). "Marxian, Liberal, and Sociological Theories of Imperialism". Journal
of Political Economy. 39 (6): 713–758. doi:10.1086/254283 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F2542
83). JSTOR 1823170 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1823170). S2CID 143859209 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143859209).
Xypolia, Ilia (August 2016). "Divide et Impera: Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of British
Imperialism". Critique. 44 (3): 221–231. doi:10.1080/03017605.2016.1199629 (https://doi.or
g/10.1080%2F03017605.2016.1199629). hdl:2164/9956 (https://hdl.handle.net/2164%2F99
56). S2CID 148118309 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:148118309).

Primary sources

V. I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishers, New

York, 1997, ISBN 0-7178-0098-9
Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation
of Imperialism

External links
J.A Hobson, Imperialism a Study (https://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialis
m/index.htm) 1902.
The Paradox of Imperialism (https://www.mises.org/story/2383) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
November 2006.
Imperialism (http://www.polyarchy.org/documents/imperialism.html) Quotations
State, Imperialism and Capitalism (http://www.panarchy.org/schumpeter/imperialism.html) by
Joseph Schumpeter
Economic Imperialism (http://www.panarchy.org/taylor/imperialism.1952.html) by A.J.P.
Taylor
Imperialism Entry in The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed., Columbia University
Press. (https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/government/concepts/impe
rialism)
 [1] (https://web.archive.org/web/20110512015502/http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/staff/e
perreausaussine/imperialism.pdf) Imperialism by Emile Perreau-Saussine
The Nation-State, Core and Periphery: A Brief sketch of Imperialism in the 20th century. (htt
p://dostoevskiansmiles.blogspot.com/2008/10/nation-state-core-and-periphery-brief.html)
Mehmet Akif Okur, :Rethinking Empire After 9/11: Towards A New Ontological Image of
World Order", Perceptions, Journal of International Affairs, Volume XII, Winter 2007, pp. 61–
93 (https://web.archive.org/web/20090225004118/http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume
12/winter/winter-004-PERCEPTION%28mehmetakifokur%29%5B4%5D.pdf)
Imperialism 101, Against Empire By Michael Parenti Published by City Lights Books, 1995
(http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html), ISBN 0-87286-298-4, 978-0-87286-
298-2, 217 pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imperialism&oldid=1054682420"

This page was last edited on 11 November 2021, at 14:29 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.