From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Western imperialism)
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Imperialism (disambiguation).
Cecil Rhodes and the Cape-Cairo railway project. Rhodes founded the De Beers Mining Company, owned the British South Africa Company and had his name given to what became the state of Rhodesia. He liked to "paint the map British red" and declared: "all of these stars ... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets".[1]

Imperialism originated from the latin word "imperium" meaning to rule. Imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means".[2] In academia, the definition of Imperialism is still widely debated. Lewis Samuel Feuer identifies two major subtypes of imperialism; the first is the "regressive imperialism" identified with pure conquest, unequivocal exploitation, extermination or reductions of undesired peoples, and the settlement of desired peoples into such territories.[3] The second type identified by Feuer is "progressive imperialism" founded upon a cosmopolitan view of humanity, that promotes the spread of civilization to allegedly backward societies to elevate living standards and culture in conquered territories, with the allowance of a colonised people to assimilate into the imperial society, an example being the Portuguese Empire which claimed to give their subjects a number of advantages.[4]

The term imperialism has been applied to Western political and economic dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some writers, such as Edward Said, use the term more broadly to describe any system of domination and subordination organised with an imperial center and a periphery.[5] From a Marxist perspective, imperialism is a natural feature of a developed capitalist nation state as it matures into monopoly capitalism. In Lenin's work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, he observed that as capitalism matured in the Western world, economies shifted away from manufacturing towards banking, finance, and capital markets, as production was outsourced to the empires' colonies. Lenin concluded that competition between empires and the unfettered drive to maximize profit would lead to wars between the empires themselves, such as the contemporary First World War, as well as continued future military interventions and occupations in the colonies to establish, expand, and exploit less developed markets for the monopolist corporations of the empires.

It is mostly accepted that modern-day colonialism is an expression of imperialism and cannot exist without the latter. The extent to which "informal" imperialism with no formal colonies is properly described remains a controversial topic amongst historians.[6] Both colonisation and imperialism have been described by Tom Nairn and Paul James as early forms of globalization:

Even if a particular empire does not have a "global reach" as we would define it today, empires by their nature still tend to contribute to processes of globalization because of the way that imperial power tends to generate counter-power at its edge-lands and send out reverberations far beyond the territories of their immediate control.[7]

The word imperialism became common in the United Kingdom in the 1870s and was used with a negative connotation.[8] In Great Britain, the word had until then mostly been used to refer to the politics of Napoleon III in obtaining favorable public opinion in France through foreign military interventions.[8]

Colonialism vs. imperialism[edit]

Territories that were once part of the British Empire.

The term "imperialism" should not be confused with "colonialism". Robert Young writes that while imperialism operates from the center, is a state policy, and is developed for ideological as well as financial reasons, colonialism is simply the development for settlement or commercial intentions. Colonialism in modern usage also tends to imply a degree of geographic separation between the colony and the imperial power. Particularly, Edward Said emphasized how imperialism involved ruling a territory from a distinct and distant metropolitan centre.[9] Contiguous land empires such as the Russian or Ottoman are generally excluded from discussions of colonialism.[10]:116 Thus it can be said that imperialism includes some form of colonialism, but colonialism itself does not automatically imply imperialism, as it lacks a political focus.[further explanation needed]


A controversial aspect of imperialism is the defense and justification of empire-building based on seemingly rational grounds. J. A. Hobson identifies 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'".[11] 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 imperialist and therefore justified imperialism.[12]

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".[13] British imperialism often used the concept of Terra nullius (Latin expression which stems from Roman law meaning 'empty land'). The country of Australia serves as a case study in relation to British settlement and colonial rule of the continent in the eighteenth century, as it was premised on terra nullius, and its settlers considered it unused by its sparse Aboriginal inhabitants.


Imperialism has played a part in the histories of Japan, the Assyrian Empire, the Chinese Empire, the Roman Empire, Greece, the Byzantine Empire, the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Egypt, the British Empire, India, and many other empires. Imperialism was a basic component to the conquests of Genghis Khan during the Mongol Empire, and of other war-lords. Historically recognized Muslim empires number in the dozens. Sub-Saharan Africa has also featured dozens of empires that predate the European colonial era, for example the Ethiopian Empire, Oyo Empire, Asante Union, Luba Empire, Lunda Empire, and Mutapa Empire. The Americas during the pre-Columbian era also had large empires such as the Aztec Empire and the Incan Empire.

Although normally used to imply forcible imposition of a foreign government's control over another country or over conquered territory that was previously without a unified government, "imperialism" is sometimes used[by whom?] to describe loose or indirect political or economic influence on weak states by more powerful ones.[14] If the dominant country's influence is felt in social and cultural circles, such as "foreign" music being popular with young people, it may be described as "cultural imperialism".

Imperialism has been subject to moral or immoral censure by its critics[which?], and thus the term is frequently used in international propaganda as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive foreign policy.[14]

Age of Imperialism[edit]

The Age of Imperialism, a time period beginning around 1700, saw (generally European) industrializing nations engaging in the process of colonizing, influencing, and annexing other parts of the world in order to gain political power.[citation needed] Although imperialist practices have existed for thousands of years, the term "Age of Imperialism" generally refers to the activities of nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States from the early 18th century through to the middle of the 20th century, for example, the "The Great Game" in Persian lands, the "Scramble for Africa" and the "Open Door Policy" in China.[15]

Africa, divided into colonies under multiple empires, circa 1913.

During the 20th century, historians John Gallagher (1919-1980) and Ronald Robinson (1920-1999) constructed a framework for understanding European imperialism. They claim that European imperialism was influential, and Europeans rejected the notion that "imperialism" required formal, legal control by one government over another country. "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.'"[attribution needed][16] 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. Although a substantial number of colonies had been designed[by whom?] to provide economic profit and to ship resources to home ports (mostly through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), Fieldhouse suggests that in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in places such as Africa and Asia, this idea is not necessarily valid:[18]

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.[19]

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 center of manufacturing and economic growth, driving resource needs.[21]

Communication became much more advanced during European 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. Railroads and globalized shipping assisted in transporting massive amounts of goods to and from colonies.[21]

Along with advancements in communication, Europe also continued to advance military technologies. European chemists made deadly explosives that could be used in combat, and with innovations in machinery they were able to manufacture improved firearms. By the 1880s, the machine gun had become an effective 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]

Theories of imperialism[edit]

In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. 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. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. 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. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Many theoreticians on the left have followed either or both in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time 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 squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.[22][23]

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. 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's impact on Europe, as well as contributed 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. Conversely, should the state not intervene, rentiers (people who earn income from property or securities) would generate socially negative wealth that fostered imperialism and protectionism.[24][25]

Environmental determinism[edit]

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission.[26]

Imperialism by country[edit]


French poster about the "Madagascar War"

The "First colonial empire", that existed until 1814, by which time most of it had been lost, and the "Second colonial empire", which began with the conquest of Algiers in 1830 and came for the most part to an end with the granting of independence to Algeria in 1962.[27] The French history was marked by numerous wars, large and small, and also by significant help to France itself from the colonials in the world wars.[28]

During the 16th century, the French colonization of the Americas began with the creation of New France. It was followed by the establishment of trading posts in Asia and Africa in the 17th century.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, it was the second-largest colonial empire in the world behind the British Empire, extending over 12,347,000 km² (4,767,000 sq. miles) at its height in the 1920s and 1930s. France controlled nearly 1/10th of the Earth's land area, with a population of 110 million people on the eve of World War II (5% of the world's population at the time).[29]

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, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. 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.[30]

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".[31] Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon.[32] 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 World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost bitter wars in Vietnam and Algeria in the 1950's. Its 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 suppress insurrection and coup d’état.[33]


From their original homelands in Scandinavia and northern Europe, Germanic tribes expanded throughout northern and western Europe in the middle period of classical antiquity; southern Europe in late antiquity, conquering Celtic and other peoples; and by 800 CE, forming the Holy Roman Empire, the first German Empire. However, there was no real systemic continuity from the Western Roman Empire to its German successor which was famously described as “not holy, not Roman, and not an empire”,[34] as a great number of small states and principalities existed in the loosely autonomous confederation. Although by 1000 CE, the Germanic conquest of central, western, and southern Europe (west of and including Italy) was complete, excluding only Muslim Iberia. There was, however, little cultural integration or national identity, and “Germany” remained largely a conceptual term referring to an amorphous area of central Europe.

Not a maritime power, and not a nation-state, as it would eventually become, Germany’s participation in Western imperialism was negligible until the late 19th century. The participation of Austria was primarily as a result of Habsburg control of the First Empire, the Spanish throne, and other royal houses.[further explanation needed] After the defeat of Napoleon, who caused the dissolution of that Holy Roman Empire, Prussia and the German states continued to stand aloof from imperialism, preferring to manipulate the European system through the Concert of Europe. After Prussia unified the other states into the second German Empire after the Franco-German War, its long-time Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck (1862–90), long opposed colonial acquisitions, 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.[35]

However, in 1883–84 Germany began to build a colonial empire in Africa and the South Pacific, before losing interest in imperialism. Historians have debated exactly why Germany made this sudden and short-lived move.[36][verification needed] Bismarck was aware that public opinion had started to demand colonies for reasons of German prestige.[37] He was influenced by Hamburg merchants and traders, his neighbors at Friedrichsruh. The establishment of the German colonial empire proceeded smoothly, starting with German New Guinea in 1884.[38]

After the Treaty of Versailles and the collapse of the Third Reich, and the failure of its attempt to create a great land empire in Eurasia, Germany was split between Western and Soviet spheres of influence until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.


Japanese march into Zhengyangmen of Beijing after capturing the city in July 1937.

During the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894, Japan absorbed Taiwan. As a result of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, Japan took part of Sakhalin Island from Russia. Korea was annexed in 1910. During World War I, Japan took German-leased territories in China’s Shandong Province, as well as the Mariana, Caroline, and Marshall Islands. In 1918, Japan occupied parts of far eastern Russia and parts of eastern Siberia as a participant in the Siberian Intervention. In 1931 Japan conquered Manchuria from China. During the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, Japan's military invaded central China and by the end of the Pacific War, Japan had conquered most of the Far East, including what is now Hong Kong, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, the Philippine Islands, Indonesia, New Guinea and many islands of the Pacific Ocean. Its colonial ambitions were ended by the victory of the United States in the Second World War and the following treaties which remanded those territories to American administration or their original owners.[39][40][41]

Soviet Union[edit]

The maximum territorial extent of countries in the world under Soviet influence, after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and before the official Sino-Soviet split of 1961.

By the 18th century, the Russian Empire extended its control to the Pacific, forming a common border with the Qing Empire.

Bolshevik leaders had effectively reestablished a polity with roughly the same extent as that empire by 1921, but with an internationalist ideology: Lenin in particular asserted the right to limited self-determination for national minorities within the new territory.[42] Beginning in 1923, the policy of "Indigenization" [korenizatsiia] 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 Tsarist Empire in areas its forces occupied in Eastern Europe.[43] The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China supported post–World War II communists movements in foreign nations and colonies to advance their own interests, but were not always successful.[44]

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.

Though the Soviet Union declared itself anti-imperialist, critics argue that it exhibited tendencies common to historic empires.[45][46] Some scholars hold that the Soviet Union was a hybrid entity containing elements common to both multinational empires and nation states. It has also been argued that the USSR practiced colonialism as did other imperial powers and was carrying on the old Russian tradition of expansion and control,.[47] 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. Non Russian Marxists within the Russian Federation and later the USSR, like Sultan Galiev and Vasyl Shakhrai, considered the Soviet Regime a renewed version of the Russian imperialism and colonialism.

United Kingdom[edit]

Smoke rises from oil tanks beside the Suez Canal hit during the initial Anglo-French assault on Egypt, 5 November 1956

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 Thirteen American colonies in 1783. 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 about 1820.[48] By the 1840s, Britain had adopted a general policy of free trade.

The independence of the Thirteen Colonies in North America in 1783 after the American War of Independence caused Britain to lose some of its oldest and most populous colonies. British attention soon turned 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. Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were reclassified as dominions.

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. Other influential spokesmen included Lord Cromer, Lord Curzon, General Kitchner, Lord Milner, and the writer Rudyard Kipling.[49] 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 well into the 20th century.

United States[edit]

Main article: American imperialism
Ceremonies during the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii, 1898

The early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct from its own Manifest Destiny, in policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. However, 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”[50] were often backed by military force, but more often affected from behind the scenes, consistent with the general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical empires.[51][52] 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.[53] American foreign policy was denounced as a "racket" by Smedley Butler, an American general. He said, "Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents".[54]

After the Second World War, the United States became joined with Western interests in a global conflict over spheres of influence with the Soviet Union, known as the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States did not diminish its global ability to project force and became a “hyper-power”. A system of "Unipolarity" came to define international politics, with the United States at the center.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ S. Gertrude Millin, Rhodes, London: 1933, p.138.
  2. ^ Oxford Dictionaries: id=5gCHckKszz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=dictionary+of+human+geography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nah1UdLTNYfgqAHcgoCQDg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA The Dictionary of Human Geography (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 373. ISBN 978-1-4051-3288-6
  3. ^ Lewis Samuel Feuer. Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind. Transaction Publishers, 1989. P. 4.
  4. ^
  5. ^ Edward W. Said. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Publishers, 1994. P. 9.
  6. ^ Barbara Bush (2006). Imperialism And Postcolonialism. Pearson Longman. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-582-50583-4. Retrieved 28 September 2012. 
  7. ^ James, Paul; Nairn, Tom (2006). Globalization and Violence, Vol. 1: Globalizing Empires, Old and New. London: Sage Publications. p. xxiv. 
  8. ^ a b Magnusson, Lars (1991). Teorier om imperialism (in Swedish). Södertälje. p. 19. ISBN 91-550-3830-1. 
  9. ^ Gilmartin, Mary "Colonialism/Imperialism"
  10. ^ Gallaher, Carolyn; Dahlman, Carl T.; Gilmartin, Mary; Mountz, Alison; Shirlow, Peter (2009). Key Concepts in Political Geography. London: SAGE. p. 392. ISBN 978-1-4129-4672-8. Retrieved July 31, 2014. 
  11. ^ Hobson, J. A. "Imperialism: a study." Cosimo, Inc., 2005. pg. 154
  12. ^ Gilmartin, Mary. "Colonialism/Imperialism." Key Concepts in Political Geography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009. 115-24. SAGE knowledge. Web. Key Concepts in Human Geography. 24 Jan. 2015.
  13. ^ Hobson, J. A. "Imperialism: a study." Cosimo, Inc., 2005. pg. V
  14. ^ a b "Imperialism." 'International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition.
  15. ^ "The United States and its Territories: 1870–1925 The Age of Imperialism". University of Michigan. Retrieved February 23, 2011. 
  16. ^ Louis, Wm. Roger. (1976) Imperialism page 4.
  17. ^ Christopher, A.J. (1985). "Patterns of British Overseas Investment in Land". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. New Series 10 (4): 452–466. doi:10.2307/621891. 
  18. ^ Painter, J. & Jeffrey, A., (2009). Political Geography 2nd ed., Sage. pg. 183–184
  19. ^ Painter, J. & Jeffrey, A., (2009). Political Geography 2nd ed., Sage. pg.184
  20. ^ Harvey, D., (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism: A Theory of Uneven Geographical Development, Verso. pg. 91
  21. ^ a b c Adas, Michael; Peter N. Stearns (2008). Turbulent Passage A Global History of the Twentieth Century (Fourth Edition ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. pp. 54–58. ISBN 0-205-64571-2. 
  22. ^ Mark F. Proudman, "Words for Scholars: The Semantics of 'Imperialism'", Journal of the Historical Society, Sept. 2008, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p395-433
  23. ^ D. K. Fieldhouse, "Imperialism": A Historiographical Revision," South African Journal Of Economic History, (1992) 7#1 pp 45-72
  24. ^ P. J. Cain, "Capitalism, Aristocracy and Empire: Some 'Classical' Theories of Imperialism Revisited," Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, (2007) 35#1 pp 25-47
  25. ^ G.K. Peatling, "Globalism, Hegemonism and British Power: J. A. Hobson and Alfred Zimmern Reconsidered," History (2004) 89#295 pp 381-398
  26. ^ Mary Gilmartin "Colonialism/Imperialism" (incomplete reference)
  27. ^ Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion (1996)
  28. ^ Anthony Clayton, The Wars of French Decolonization (1995)
  29. ^ Martin Thomas, The French Empire Between the Wars: Imperialism, Politics and Society (2007) covers 1919-1939
  30. ^ Winfried Baumgart, Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion, 1880-1914 (1982)
  31. ^ Emmanuelle Jouannet (2012). The Liberal-Welfarist Law of Nations: A History of International Law. Cambridge UP. p. 142. 
  32. ^ Raymond Betts, ‘'Assimilation and Association in French Colonial Theory, 1890-1914 (2005)
  33. ^ Tony Chafer, ‘’The End of Empire in French West Africa: France’s Successful Decolonization?’’ (2002)
  34. ^ attributed to Voltaire
  35. ^ Thomas Pakenham, ‘’The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912 (1992) ch 12
  36. ^ Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914 (1988) ch 10
  37. ^ Hans-Ulrich Wehler, "Bismarck's Imperialism 1862–1890," Past & Present, (1970) 48: 119–55 online
  38. ^ Hartmut Pogge von Strandmann, "Domestic Origins of Germany's Colonial Expansion under Bismarck" Past & Present (1969) 42:140–159 online; Crankshaw, pp. 395–7
  39. ^ Joseph A. Mauriello. "Japan and The Second World War: The Aftermath of Imperialism". Lehigh University. Retrieved December 9, 2013. 
  40. ^ "Japanese Imperialism 1894–1945". National University of Singapore. Retrieved December 9, 2013. 
  41. ^ "The Japanese Empire 1942". The History Place. Retrieved December 9, 2013. 
  42. ^ V.I. Lenin (1913). Critical Remarks on the National Question. Prosveshcheniye. 
  43. ^ "The Soviet Union and Europe after 1945". The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved December 30, 2010. 
  44. ^ Melvin E. Page (2003). Colonialism: an international social, cultural, and political encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. 
  45. ^ Beissinger, Mark R. 2006 "Soviet Empire as 'Family Resemblance,'" Slavic Review, 65 (2) 294-303; Dave, Bhavna. 2007 Kazakhstan: Ethnicity, language and power. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
  46. ^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 1, Oct., 1953 - Soviet Colonialism In Central Asia by Sir Olaf Caroe
  47. ^ Caroe, O. (1953). "Soviet Colonialism in Central Asia". Foreign Affairs 32 (1): 135–144. JSTOR 20031013. 
  48. ^ Piers Brendon, ‘’The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997’’ (2008)
  49. ^ Wiliam L Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism: 1890-1902 (2nd ed. 1950) pp 67-100
  50. ^ Text of Original address (
  51. ^ Boot, Max (July 15, 2004). "In Modern Imperialism, U.S. Needs to Walk Softly". Council on Foreign Relations. 
  52. ^ Oliver Kamm (October 30, 2008). "America is still the world's policeman". The Times. 
  53. ^
  54. ^ Moore: War is just a racket, said a General in 1933

Further reading[edit]

Primary sources[edit]

External links[edit]