NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NU”)

International crises :

| 1779? |
| --- |
| 1789-1871 |
| 1877-78 | Russia against Turkey |
| 1885 | Russia against Britain |
| 1895 | Russia+Germany+France against Japan |
| 1898 | Britain against France |
| 1904-05 | Russia against Japan |
| 1905 | France against Germany |
| 1911 | France (France+Britain) against Germany |

| |
| --- |
| | | |
| | 1872- 79 | (“Triple” Alliance) | |
| 1879-1891 | (Franco-Russian alliance) |
| 1891-1898 | (up to Fashoda) |
| 1898-1904 | (up to Russo-Japanese war) |
| 1904-1914 | (up to World War) |
| 1914 |
| |
| |

Landmarks of diplomatic history:

1879: alliance of Germany and Austria (1881+Italy).

1891: Franco-Russian alliance.

1898: Fashoda

1904: Anglo-French agreement.

1907: Anglo-Russian, Russo-Japanese, Franco-Japanese agreements.

Speaking of the abolition of slavery and of European congresses on the subject (—1890—several! p. 132), the author points out that the United States abolished slavery, “but ever since then more and more Negroes in the southern States have been forced back into a state of feudal dependence, so that in many places they have as good as lost the right to vote” (132).

| | “It seems to me that people pretty well always have the same amount of freedom.... Europe has now abol- ished slavery, but a sailor on a European ship would be despised by a Swahili slave for his low, exhausting labour; and what are many men and women workers in the big cities but serfs obedient to every gesture of their master?... The audacity of an Aristophanes is unheard-of today, and in our time Luther would be prosecuted a hundred times a day for insulting the church and bringing it into contempt, incitement to class hatred, and lèse-majesté. Such is the case also as regards slavery” (133). |
| --- | --- |
| | | not bad! |

| In a small chapter on Ireland, the author says: “Pressure evokes counter-pressure, but mildness is interpreted as capitulation and weakness. What then should be done? I think that everything depends on the specific nature of the weaker people one wants to win over. The Albanians will never be made to submit by coercion. In Alsace-Lorraine, too, a con- ciliatory policy was the correct one.... The British exterminated the Tasmanians to the last man. But the Irish are not Tasmanians! They can’t simply be exterminated” (133). | |
| --- | --- |
| | | N.B. |

The 1880s: Irish rising—martial law—Parnell, etc.

| “Soon after Shimonoseki, Japanese writers were comparing the war against China with Prussia’s war against Austria” (187), then would come an alliance against Europe. This view was especially sharply expressed by Prince Konoye , president of the Japanese Upper Chamber. | | | | | N.B. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | on an appraisal of 1894-95 war |
| |

| p. 299: “the imperialist era” (now)—and, passim. ((E.g. p. 5, in the first passage of the book.)) | | | N.B. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| |

“Stagnation of the German Empire” (p. 306 et seq.). 1899-1911 no acquisitions.

| (p. 309) | Germany — | 541,000 | sq. | km. | in | 1870 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | 3,200,000 | ” | ” | ” | 1903 |
| | France — | 536,000 | ” | ” | ” | overseas |
| | | 6,600,000 |

railway construction in Asia :

| Germany: | 1,100 | km. | (1884-1904) | !! | (p. 311) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Russia: | 13,900 | km. | (1886-1904) |

One of the “problems” of Africa (South): the Negroes multiply much more rapidly than the whites.

| sic!! | | | | “Many settlers positively want an uprising in order to check the dangerous growth of the Kaffir population and deprive it of its rights and landownership” (385) | chapter on “Changes in Africa”.

p. 396: European possessions in Africa (Hänsch: Geographische Zeitschrift , 1912):

| well said! | | | | “Carlyle says that already in the eighteenth century it was ‘the job’ of continental states to fight Britain’s wars for her” (408). |

| N.B. | | | “The whole world is now involved in one or other system of alliances, taking part in one of the two great concerns which lay claim to possession of the world: the Triple Alliance reinforced by Rumania, or the group led by Great Britain. America alone still remains aloof. Things there are taking such a remarkable turn that both the above-mentioned concerns, which confront each other with such hosti- lity in the entire Old World, stand united in support- ing South America against North America” (411). |

The population of Persia is far from nationally homogeneous: Persians, Kurds (2 million), Bakhtiari; Arabs; Baluchis; Armenians, Jews, Turks (1½ million) and many others (416).

The population of Turkey (1909): Turks—9 million; Arabs— 7 million; Greeks—2½-3; Albanians—2½; Kurds 1½; Armenians—1¼; Bulgarians—1; Levantines—1; Serbs —¾; Jews—⅔; Wallachians—0.5; Berbers and Negroes in Tripoli—0.7; others—1. Total=29 million (p. 422)....

| “The most important event in Persia’s recent development, which is becoming ever more confused, was certainly the big loan issued jointly by Great Britain and Russia. It is the biggest in the history of Persia: 70,000,000 marks. A typical business deal of modern imperialism . Exactly the same thing was done in Morocco. A country excites the covetous- ness of some modern powerful state. The country— it might be Cuba, or Liberia, or Iran—finds itself in difficulties; disorders occur, which, however, could be settled if there were no outside interfer- ence. The foreign power does not allow the wounds to heal; it intensifies existing disorders and provokes new ones. It happens that a provocateur is killed— for example, Dr. Mauchamp in Marrakech or North American filibusters in Nicaragua—or the police in Tabriz are blamed for the disappearance of a Rus- sian soldier who has deserted (and is found some days later in a distant maize field). In the search for the deserter, houses are broken into, even the harem of the high priest. Embitterment naturally arises against the foreign instigators of the disorders. Popular pas- sions reach explosion point, there are atrocities. In reprisal, the foreign power sends in troops and at the same time presents the invaded country with a bill for the cost of the invasion. The country cannot pay it. What is to be done? With a friendly smile, the invading power announces it is prepared to help its dear friend out of this little difficulty and offers a loan. The interest is, of course, not so very low, for the security offered is very unreliable. Caught in the usurer’s claws, the country can no longer es- cape its fate—it is to be civilised by the invading friendly power” (p. 443). | |
| --- | --- |
| | | | N.B. |
| |

“Italian imperialism is manifested not only in conquests, but in a growing feeling of mutual guarantee, in pan-Italianism. An all-Italian rally was held in Rome as early as October 1908, and another in 1912 in Forli”.... Italo-Americans, etc. ... “there are six million Italian subjects abroad”... (476).

| very typical!! | | | | “Even now, Albania is less known than the greater part of Central Africa” (50). |

| | “In earlier overseas expansion, there was always a margin of elbow-room left, all Western nations had adequate place for development in their respective ‘New Europes’ and rivalry gave rise only to fruitful competition. But now North America will not hear of more immigrants, Australia is already closing its doors, Siberia is open only to citizens of one particular country, while South Africa is revealing, with horrible clarity, the grim fact that emigration can no longer help, as it has hitherto, to obtain a place in a world, which has shrunk; one European will have to strangle another. There is still plenty of land even now, but the former small states have become big powers, and the form- er big powers have become world powers and must already look about for adequate space for their future populations. The Yankees will not allow us a single acre of Brazil, and the French envy the Italians’ possession of the barren wastes of Tripoli. The harder struggle for existence aggravates hostility among the Europeans and leads to attempts at mutual annihilation. That, in its turn, is to the advantage of the East” (215). |
| --- | --- |
| N.B. | | | | |
| |
| N.B. | | | | |
| N.B. | | | | |
| |
| N.B. | | | | |

Chapter: “The War over Cuba”:

| “The Yankees started out by preaching the equality of all men and aspiring for an ideal state full of peaceful, complacent happiness. They are ending with the conviction that men are incorrigibly unequal, and with a policy of con- quest by force. They began with freedom in everything, freedom of trade and intercourse, toleration of other religions, races and states. They have arrived at the steepest protective tariffs, growing hostility to Roman Catholics and outright aggressiveness towards foreign races and states. First they prohibited the immi- gration of Chinese and deprived them of citizen- ship, then, factually, though not juridically, abolished the rights of the Negroes, the very people for whom they have so uselessly and foolishly fought the great Civil War, and, finally, by all kinds of petty methods they have restricted the influx of those same white immi- grants whom they previously so passionately desired. United States world policy is attended by an increasingly intensive policy of self-isola- tion. Only dictatorship is lacking to crown this progressive exclusiveness and centralisation” (252).... | ⋕ |
| --- | --- |
| | | | N.B. N.B. ha-ha!! |
| | | |

| |
| --- |
| | ⋕Idem, p. 345: “At bottom, the war (the Civil War) had no meaning, for the Negro, on whose behalf it. was waged, is now again well on the way to being deprived of all rights.” | | | N.B. |
| |

The sharpening friction between Germany and the United States (Samoa (*)), Germany and Great Britain, Great Britain and France (Fashoda), the growth of armaments.... “The catchword used to denote all this general mood of aggressiveness was ‘imperialism’” (253).

(*) Cf. p. 269: “From March to May 1899, the Germans and Samoans were engaged in an open fight against the British and Americans at Apia.”

Chapter: “The Pacific Ocean and Australia”:

| | “When Great Britain decided to allow her North American possessions to unite in the Dominion of Canada, the majority of the British people vehemently opposed continuation of such a risky policy. In particular, they be- lieved there was a great danger that Australia would follow suit. Often enough one could hear the opinion expressed that the creation of such colonial allied states as Canada would be merely the prelude to separation from the Mother- land. Today the emergence of an Australian Com- monwealth is regarded in Britain as a triumph of colonial policy, and Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, is praised to the skies as the enlarger and strengthener of the Empire! Nothing has con- tributed more to this than Britain’s experience in the South African war. Instead of utilising Britain’s difficulties in their own interests, instead of seeking to loosen their ties with Britain, as pessimists had predicted, all the colonies without exception most warmly support- ed Great Britain in her struggle. They displayed not merely patriotism, but a degree of chauvinism that removed all doubt about the correctness of decades of liberal colonial policy. Australia headed the colonies that contributed troops to help the mother country. Her sacrifices should be appraised the more highly since all the Austra- lian colonies were in severe financial difficulties. Britain’s swift approval of the Union concluded between them is a recognition of their patriotism and testifies to the mother country’s faith in their loyalty” (271) |
| --- | --- |
| N.B. | | | |
| |
| ? India? | | | |
| | | | |
| |
| | | | |

| |
| --- |
| | | |
| | N.B.: a union of the privileged, of participants in monopoly, in Australia—the monopoly owners of a vast territory—for jointly plundering the “yellows” and “blacks”, etc. | |
| |
| |

| | A. von Peez, Great Britain and the Continent , 1910. Roloff, European Historical Calendar ... [i.e., Schulthess’s] Zimmermann, World Politics , 1901. |
| --- | --- |
| ? ?? | | |

The “ double-insurance ” treaty (when? arose in 1884 ; renewed in 188 7 until 1890). Germany+ Russia pledged themselves to benevolent neutrality in the event of an attack by a third power. By whom? Great Britain or Austria!! (A secret German move against Austria.)

On the history of the Franco-Russian alliance: Boulangerism 1886-89: January 7, 1886—Boulanger becomes a member of the government. April 4, 1889—accused of high treason, Boulanger flees to Brussels (September 30, 1891—Boulanger commits suicide).

Incidentally: Wirth gives figures on the results of the policy towards the Poles in Prussia: 1890-1910 German population in Prussia+29.37 per cent, Polish population +23.48 per cent (p. 101). Hundreds of millions of marks for “settling” the area!!

| |
| --- |
| | | Literature : |
| | Schmitz, The Art of Politics , 1912, Berlin. Descamps, New Africa . |
| | | |
| N.B. | | | | Leopold (Belgium)—business manipulator, financier, swindler; bought the Congo for himself and “devel- oped” it. Slick operator!! [2] |
| |
| | | |
| | Warneck, History of the Evangelical Missions . (The role of the Missions in colonial plunder.) |
| | | |
| | | Wirth, p. 85: Mission activity “almost doubled” in 1880-1900. |
| | | |
| |
| |

---
Notes:
[1] These figures show population in millions.— Ed .

[2] King Leopold II of Belgium (1835-1909) resorted to intrigue, violence and bribery to take possession of a vast territory on the Congo River (1879-84). The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 endorsed its conversion into the personal property of Leopold II under the title of “the Congo Free State”. Its conquest was accompanied by savage atrocities towards the African tribes. In 1908 Leopold “ceded” his personal rights to the Congo to Belgium, at great profit to himself, and it became a Belgian colony. Capitalist monopolies— Belgian, British, French and others—were complete masters of the country. Merciless capitalist exploitation led to repeated antiimperialist actions by the people, which were brutally suppressed by the colonialists. Under pressure of the national liberation movement, independence was proclaimed on June 30, 1960, but foreign monopolies’ domination continues