The British people therefore began to question whether or not the war had all been worth it. Furthermore, the fact that pro-Boer meetings were highly attended, is evidence of the fact that Imperialism lost prestige because of the war. In other words, the British people found the war morally wrong. At the pro-Boer meeting in Birmingham in 1901, leaded by the Liberal Lloyd George, Lloyd George claimed that it was not worth spending a huge amount of money and soldiers to
The First Anglo-Boer War was a fight to keep sovereignty by the South African Republic against British invasion. When the British annexed Transvaal in 1877 the Boers were angered. In 1877, the Pedi attacked the Boers of Transvaal, and Boers claimed the British had not adequately assisted them. The British wished to bring Transvaal by force into a union, which furthered chances of war. There were several causes of the First Anglo-Boer War and the cause were the expansion of the British Empire, problems within the Transvaal government, the British annexation of the Transvaal and the Boer opposition to British rule in the Transvaal.
As England tried to hold its grip on the becoming independent colonies, Britain was in need of a centralized colonial government that should have been established from the beginning. Due to the great distance between America and England and its inefficient policies, the colonies had a great deal of freedom. When Britain decided to enforce their influence and rule on America following the Seven Years War, there was many areas of disagreement that eventually lead to the American Revolution. Following the victory of the French and Indian War, Britain gained control of half of the continent by the scratch of a pen (94). Britain's national debt doubled during the course of the war and the cost of extended empire cause a dramatic increase in the cost of living.
FROM ATHENS TO AMERICA: WHY GREAT CIVILIZATIONS FAIL Roger D. Masters Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor Emeritus of Government Dartmouth College History shows that dominant powers (whether called Hegemons or Empires) confront challenges to their status as circumstances change. Toynbee called it “Challenge and Response.” Some hegemonic powers adapt successfully as did the Roman Republic when geographic expansion led to insufficient military strength and communications to police longer frontiers. Others, like ancient Athens, fail to change strategy and tactics when their expanding power confronted new obstacles. In this case, the result was a loss of Athenian primacy after the city was sacked and Alexander the Great’s Empire established rule over the Eastern Mediterranean. Alexander’s Empire was even more evanescent, however, because his military victories were never followed by effective planning for the inevitable transition from battlefield to administering law and order.
Therefore even though the Suez Crisis sparked a rise in nationalism which effectively hindered British imperialism, factors such as economics and economic debt pressures from abroad significantly impacted the decolonisation of Britain’s African Empire. The crisis wasn’t seen as a turning point in Britain’s African empire as supported by Anthony Eden, British prime minister at the time, stated in his note of review for Britain’s position, that “the alarming increase in the welfare state”this refers to the post world war two issues such as the end of lease programme and the substantial increase in the cost of the welfare state, which suggest Britain was facing economic problems and as stated by Peter Unwin a diplomat that worked in the Foreign Office in 1956, “Britain’s imperial positions were shaky before Suez, their attempt to reassert their proved impotence” both sources signify that decolonisation was inevitable due to the economic and financial difficulties the country was facing rather than the crisis of 1956. Furthermore, Ascherson supports Eden by emphasising that “the shattering of trust in government was followed by crumbling uncertainties” these uncertainties refer to Britain’s economic status and the decline of its global empire. However, in terms of assessing both
It is without a doubt that the great war was a major factor for the outbreak of the February revolution in 1917, however many other factors have to be taken into consideration when dealing with a complex issue such as this. Issues such as the decisions made by Tsar Nicholas II whilst in power, the lack of political reform since the October manifesto was issued in 1905, the socio-economic position of the proletariat which was ever worsening and the fact that this revolution was much more organized than the 1905 revolution all contributed to the outbreak of the February revolution. When Russia mobilised against Germany on its western front, families were to each send a male who was capable of fighting to conscript in the Russian military. The Russian military at the time was poorly trained and equipped compared to that of Germany. Russian train infrastructure was relatively new and underdeveloped, when war broke out the rail lines were used to transport troops and supplies for war, food shortages in cities were afflicting the masses, this caused discontent at home.
This is implying of course that the decision by Nicholas II to go to war against Germany and it’s allies in 1914 was wrong, but this is not the case. Russia actually had many reasons to risk war again; the war was weighed heavily in the allies favour as the combined forces of Great Britain, France and Russia were far stronger than that of Germany, Austria and Hungary. Russia was aware of it’s major failing though, it’s slow modernisation had left it trailing behind that of the other countries, and Russia would have to be prepared for the rapid social and economic change that a war brings. This was Russia’s best chance to modernise and not be left behind. Russia’s early hopes were soon dashed however.
How important was the Second Boer War (1899-1902) in changing attitudes in Britain to imperialism during the period 1880-1902? The Boer War of 1899-1902 was vital in regards to changing attitudes towards British imperialism in the time period of 1880-1902, as despite the early populist view during the war seeming to be pro-imperialist, following notable events such as mafficking (1900) and potentially even the 1900 General Election, there was a real sense of antagonism towards the brutal methods employed by the army and, as a result, towards Imperialism. To measure the levels of public opinion regarding this, phenomena such as music halls, religious instruction and the press will be considered, as well as the views on key events such as the death of Gordon (1885). However to assess fully [split infinitive] the effect of the Second Boer War in changing British attitudes to imperialism, we must first note the attitudes before the War. [Worth starting with the Midlothian campaigns, 1879-80] The First Boer War (1880-81) was a major shock to many in Britain, as, unlike the easy victory many had expected, the British forces were crushed following a series of tactical blunders, notably at Majuba Hill where Sir George Pomeroy Colley led his 405-strong infantry to camp at the top of the hill, and in the night they were stormed by Boer forces, suffering 285 casualties to the Boers 6.
Author PJ Larkin can be quoted saying that this war "was a mixture of religious crusade in favour of one idealogy or the other... striking out for advantage or expansion not only in Europe but all over the world." As tensions in the war became more and more tense, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had appointed John Foster Dulles as secretary of the state, whom created new foreign policies in which fought Communism aggressively and effectively. The United States and the Soviet Union's relations helped create tensions between the two largest superpowers in the world, and the race for dominance had soon
By doing this Wilhelm aggravated Britain because they had the largest navy in the world and because Wilhelm was colonizing along the borders of British colonies. Wilhelm’s increase in German navy fleets started an arms race with Britain in 1910; losing hope of an alliance with the country and also losing hope of keeping France isolated, a hope in which Bismarck also had. Because Bismarck (along with Wilhelm) dreaded a two front war with France he strung a web of alliances with countries such as Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy and was hoping to add Britain to his long list of allies. The differences that Bismarck