Scramble for Power: the Partition of Africa and German Aggression

North Alabama Historical Review Volume 5 North Alabama Historical Review, Volume 5, 2015 Article 4 2015 Scramble for Power: The Partition of Africa and German Aggression Dylan Tucker University of North Alabama Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.una.edu/nahr Part of the European History Commons, and the Public History Commons Recommended Citation Tucker, D. (2015). Scramble for Power: The Partition of Africa and German Aggression. North Alabama Historical Review, 5 (1). Retrieved from https://ir.una.edu/nahr/vol5/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNA Scholarly Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Alabama Historical Review by an authorized editor of UNA Scholarly Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles 42 Scramble for Power: The Partition of Africa and German Aggression Dylan Tucker It is a well-known fact that there were multiple factors that ultimately brought the world into its first great war. Some of these events were the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Balkan Wars, and the July Ultimatum. People tend to forget the European tensions that arose from the Partition of Africa in 1884. During this time, Germany was growing as an imperial power and seeking out any possible way to surpass Great Britain as the world super power. Germany wanted more power as years passed; they wanted to dominate commerce, land, and sea. In 1884, a conference in Berlin marked the climax of the European competition for territory in the continent of Africa. This conference would go on to create many rivalries and tensions between the European powers. Due to the conflict and rivalries that stemmed from the Berlin Conference, Africa can be seen as a microcosm for the events that sparked World War I. Articles 43 Berlin Conference of 1884 Geopolitically, Africa was a major area of interest for most European countries. European diplomacy treated Africans the same as they did the New World natives by forming trade relationships with the tribal chiefs. By the mid-1800s, many Europeans considered Africa to be disputed for trade, settlement, and exploration. Europeans ignored the inner continent itself due to outer trading posts along the coastlines. King Leopold II of Belgium did not try to cloak his ambitions and desire for Africa. He felt that colonies existed for one reason: to make him and his empire rich.1 He formed the International African Society in 1876 to help with research of the interior. Two years later, he formed The International Congo Society, which focused heavily on economic goals rather than on research or civilizing the continent. Leopold discreetly bought off foreign investors in the Congo Society, and the African Society became a philanthropic front. Tensions between the European imperialists began to rise as political leaders discussed the division of West Africa. During this time, Germany began to launch their own expeditions in Africa. This event caused a major concern for both British and French diplomats as they 1 Adam Hochschild, King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), 38. Articles 44 saw that Germany was trying to expand. Leopold was able to convince France and Germany that common trade would be in the best interest for the countries.2 On April 26, 1884, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck talked with the French ambassador in Berlin. He informed European Powers that Germany was keen to discuss colonial affairs with the other Powers and definitely with France.3 Bismarck took responsibility for settling the Congo dilemma. During the months of August and September, he contacted major European countries to attend his international conference held in Berlin. Reactions to the conference were favorable.4 Other countries included in the conference were the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and the United States. The others invited were just for show, as the letter of invitation stated, ―to ensure general agreement on the conference resolutions.‖5 The conference would deal with the following objectives: 1. Freedom of trade in the basin and mouth of the Congo. 2. Freedom of navigation on the Congo and the Niger based on the same principles as applied for the Danube. 2 H. L. Wesseling, Divide and Rule: The Partition of Africa, 1880-1914 (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996), 111. 3 Ibid, 114. 4 Ibid, 115. 5 Ibid, 115. Articles 45 3. The definition of the formalities to be observed when taking possession of new territory on the African coast.6 This conference would become known as the Berlin Conference. The Conference opened up at two o‘clock on November 15, 1884. The three months of the Conference managed to fix multiple points in the joint policy of the African continent. The Conference managed to resolve an end to slave trade, establish the Congo Free State as private property of the Congo Society, establish free trade throughout the Congo Basin, the Niger and Congo Rivers were free for ship travel, and European powers had a right to pursue legal ownership of land.7 The Conference closed on February 26, 1885. France and Portugal, who were major rivals, had feverish debates about the recognition of the Congo Free State. Recognizing that the Congo Free State was private property of the Congo Society, the leaders signed the General Act of Berlin.8 Germany and Britain gave most of the Congo Basin to Leopold. Henri Blowitz, who was a Times correspondent in Paris, established a theory that Britain would come off worst at the end of the 6 Ibid, 116. 7 Olusoga, David; Erichsen, Casper W. (2010). The Kaisers's Holocaust: Germany's Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism. (London, UK: Faber and Faber), 394. 8 H. L. Wesseling, Divide and Rule: The Partition of Africa, 1880-1914. (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996), 118. Articles 46 conference. Bismarck aimed to dismantle the relations between Great Britain and France, and planned to expose Britain‘s weakness to withstand the united will of the new allies, Germany and France. Blowitz hated Bismark with a burning passion. His theory seemed to coincide with that of the French government. French ambassador to Berlin, Baron de Courcel, expected Bismarck to diminish Britain‘s maritime ascendancy, just as he had diminished France‘s military fifteen years before. Courcel reported to Paris, ―Indications tend to prove that he is preparing a fundamental attack on English power, calculated that to reach its vital parts, and to ruin England to the advantage of Germany‘s industrial and commercial greatness.‖9 The ‗vital parts‘ that Courcel mentioned in his report referred to the Niger and Britain‘s empire on the east and west coast of Africa. Although the Conference expressed internationalist intentions and imperialist effects, it did prove to be a precursor to the partition of Africa. The Conference was also Germany‘s first steps into emerging as an imperial power and showed threats of German aggression.10 Jameson Raid and the Kruger Telegram 9 Thomas Pakenham, The Scramble for Africa, 1876-1912. (New York: Random House, 1991), 250. 10 Ibid, 250. Articles 47 Technology is a power wielded over the natural world which provides defense against hostile environments and improves one‘s condition. Technology is often used to overpower people. The military rifles of the 1850s surpassed their previous counterparts, the muskets, in both accuracy and consistency. Muskets were usually slow, awkward to use, and fouled easily in damp conditions. The paper cartridges were vulnerable to moisture and difficult to load within the rifle. The major flaw of the musket was that soldiers had to stand whilst loading their rifles making them an open target for the enemy. The flaws of the muskets and the expansion of military called for a new technological innovation: breech loading rifles. In 1870, Europeans arrived with quick-firing breech-loaders that started an arms race within Africa. This gave Africans a powerful lure to acquire these new weapons. Africans were able to purchase weapons directly from the manufacturers on rare occasions.11 Africans obtained rifles from various European countries. When the French rearmed with Gras rifles in 1874, their old Chassepots rifles were rebuilt and were available along African coasts. Africans in South Africa were able to obtain modern weapons from white settlers living in their territory. 11 Daniel R. Headrick, The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), 109. Articles 48 Settlers had modern rifles that they either lost or gave away. Many of the mine operators realized that they could recruit Black laborers by offering the rifles as compensation for their work. Desperate for revenue, governments benefitted from the high taxes issued on firearms. Missionaries like David Livingstone provided most of their converts with rifles as a form of self-defense.12 Due to the increase in weapon rates, many Africans could obtain a gun without having to struggle to acquire one. The Anglo-Zulu War in 1879 was supposed to increase British standing in South Africa, but it actually had the opposite effect on the area. Non-violent Boer opposition had increased even though the Zulu and Pedi lost the war. As years passed, the Boers realized that passive resistance was becoming futile. By 1895, Britain was gaining confidence in taking South Africa. Appointed to Colonial Secretary the following year, Joseph Chamberlain joined forces with Cecil Rhodes to develop and promote the British Empire in South Africa. The Drift Crisis between the Cape, Colony, and the Transvaal increased. The Cape finished constructing a railway line to Johannesburg and tried to reduce rates on the Transvaal‘s railway traffic.

Load more