Sign In Sign-Up

Chapter 26 Supplemental Material [Home][Chapter 27 Questions]

52. International Association for the Exploration and Civilization of Central Africa

In the earlier years of his reign King Leopold the Second of Belgium began to display that interest in Central Africa which for a long time was ascribed to nobility and philanthropy, until the contrast between such motives, and the actual unscrupulous commercialism, became too glaring to be sustained. So far back as the year 1876 he called a conference of humanitarians and travellers, who met at Brussels for the purpose of debating various plans by which the Dark Continent might be opened up. From this conference sprang the so-called International African Association, which, in spite of its name was almost entirely a Belgian body, with the Belgian King as President. Its professed object was the exploration of the country and the founding of stations which should be rest-houses for travellers and centres of civilization.

http://www.boondocksnet.com/congo/congo_crime01.html

55. Matthew Perry

From the year 1639 on, the Tokugawa pursued a policy of almost pure seclusion from the outside world. The only contact was through Dutch sailors who had the Tokugawa's permission to land in Edo once a year. This policy was abandoned only when US Commodore Matthew Perry forced Japan to sign a "message of peace" from the US government while cannon was aimed at Japanese soil. This enabled the US government to construct a refueling depot for US trade and warships. This act hastened the return of the emperor to true power in the nation once again and it was he who originally sent the imperial Iwakura on missions all over the world to create ties to other governments and to study and learn of the West's achievements and their strengths, thus steering Japan on a one way course to Modernization. (http://www.strelec.com/vicky/perry.htm)
Perry, Matthew Calbraith, 1794-1858, American naval officer, b. South Kingstown, R.I.; brother of Oliver Hazard Perry. Appointed a midshipman in 1809, he first served under his brother on the Revenge and then was aide to Commodore John Rodgers on the President, which defeated the British ship Little Belt before the War of 1812 had been formally declared. Perry saw little action in that war because he was assigned to the United States, which the British bottled up at New London. He received his first command in 1821. From 1833 to 1843 he was assigned to the New York (later Brooklyn) navy yard, where he pioneered in the application of steam power to warships, commanding (1837) the Fulton, first steam vessel in the U.S. navy, and encouraged the broadening of naval education. Promoted to captain in 1837, Perry received the title of commodore in 1841 and in the same year became commandant of the New York navy yard. In 1843-44 he commanded the African squadron, which was engaged in suppressing the slave trade. In the Mexican War, as commander of the Gulf Fleet, he supported Gen. Winfield Scott in taking Veracruz. Perry was ordered (Mar., 1852) to command the East India squadron and charged with the delicate task of penetrating isolationist Japan. On July 8, 1853, he anchored his four ships, including the powerful steam frigates Mississippi and Susquehanna, in lower Tokyo (then Yedo) Bay. The Japanese ordered him to go to Nagasaki, the only port open to foreigners, where the Dutch operated a limited trading concession under humiliating conditions, but Perry firmly declined. On July 14 he presented his papers, including a letter from President Millard Fillmore to the Japanese emperor, requesting protection for shipwrecked American seamen, the right to buy coal, and the opening of one or more ports to trade. The expedition then retired to the China coast, returning, with an increased fleet, in Feb., 1854. Perry's show of pomp (at which he was expert) and power obviously impressed the insecure Tokugawa shogunate, and on Mar. 31, 1854, near Yokohama a treaty was concluded that acceded to American requests, opening the ports of Shimoda and Hakodate to U.S. trade. For his successful expedition Perry was awarded $20,000 by Congress, which also paid for publication of the official Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan (3 vol., 1856), compiled under Perry's supervision.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/10044.html

56. Boers

In 1652, a group of people from the Netherlands settled in South Africa. The Netherlands are also known as Holland, and the people who live there are "Dutch." These settlers came to be known as Boers because Boer is the Dutch word for farmer.
The Boers thought that their new home was empty, but it was a homeland for nomadic Africans. Nomads travel from place to place in search of food. They need a large area to dwell in because they do not cultivate crops. The African attempted to fight for their land, but their spears were no match for the Europeans' guns. The Boers enslaved many of the Africans, and forced them to work on their farms.
Great Britain took control of South Africa in 1795 after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe. The Dutch settlers were unhappy with British rule and became even angrier when the British outlawed slavery in 1835. The British government paid owners for their slaves, but the Boers complained the payments were too small. The British outlawed slavery twenty-three years before the United States. Gold and diamonds were discovered in South Africa in 1867, causing a large number of people from Great Britain to move to the land. Tensions between the parties led to the "Boer Wars" from 1899 to 1902, where the British soundly defeated the Boers.
Boer is an inhabitant of South Africa of Dutch or French Huguenot descent. Boers are also known as Afrikaners. They first settled (1652) near the Cape of Good Hope in what was formerly Cape Province. After Great Britain annexed (1806) this territory, many of the Boers departed (1835-40) on the Great Trek and created republics in Natal (see KwaZulu-Natal), the Orange Free State (see Free State), and the Transvaal. Hostility between the Boers and the British resulted in the South African War (1899-1902), after which the Boer territories were annexed and the Union of South Africa formed. There has been some tension between South Africans of British descent and the Boers. South Africa withdrew (1961) from the Commonwealth of Nations and became a republic, an event that was strongly supported by Afrikaner nationalists. Afrikaans, derived from Dutch, is an official language of the republic, along with English and several indigenous African languages. Boer politicians were largely responsible for the inauguration of the policy of apartheid, which was applied to the nonwhite population of South Africa for most of the latter half of the 20th cent.
There were really two Boer Wars. The first, in 1880-81, began after D'Israeli had annexed the South African Boer Republics--the Transvaal and the Orange Free State--in 1877. After making repeated attempts to repeal annexation, the Boers under Kruger revolted and secured limited self-government. After gold and diamonds were discovered in the Transvaal, tensions between native Boers and British "uitlanders," aggravated by guerilla raids and the repressive policies of the British Governor of the Cape, became more intense.
After the Boers attacked Cape Colony and Natal in October 1899, the second war, which lasted until 1902, was underway. British forces at Ladysmith, Mafeking, and Kimberley were surrounded and besieged until relieved by counter-attacks by forces under Roberts, the British commander-in-chief who had been the hero of the Indian mutiny. Between September 1900 and the peace of Vereenigning in May 1902, Boer commandos fought a prolonged guerilla war against the British, who responded by putting Boer civilians in concentration camps.
The presence of the Boers in South Africa provided the British with a major problem to contend with in order to establish their presence on the African continent. The Boers and British engaged in some minor skirmishes during the second half of the 19th century, culminating in the Boer War from 1899-1902. The British had no reason to reign over the Boers, but they spent almost 100 years trying to subjugate the Boer population. The Boers, on the other hand, were fighting for the right to their way of life.
The Boer people were Dutch farmers who settled in the southern part of Africa in the 17th century. They intermingled with other European settlers and established the Afrikaner or Boer (Dutch for farmer) community. Although the Boer population was actually a mix of various Europeans, the predominant culture was Dutch Protestant. The Boers became a very independent people, and soon cut off all ties with the Netherlands. One of the major aspects of the Boer way of life was racial superiority; slavery was common among them. They, as members of the Dutch Reformed Church, were also very rabid in their beliefs and very anti-Catholic; they even believed that the Anglican Church was not a true Protestant church, but actually a disguised arm of the Catholic church.
After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the British gained control of South Africa and soon developed their own settlements. In 1833, the British officially outlawed slavery in South Africa. The Boers responded in 1836 by embarking on their Great Trek to find a new place to live. By the 1850s, they had established two independent Boer states, Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The Boers and British lived separately and peacefully for the next decade.
In 1866, gold and diamonds was discovered in Transvaal. This discovery sparked a surge in British immigration, and the British took control of the state in 1877. The Boers revolted in 1881 and regained control of their homeland. In the famous Battle of Majuba, the Boer army of farmers destroyed the world famous British army. This defeat followed the defeat of the British at the hands of the Zulus, the first time the a European army had fallen to an African army, and completely discredited the British as a fighting force.
The British had never taken action toward the Boers because of their racial practices, but they moved right in as soon as there was money to be made. But when this happened, one of the reasons the British continually gave to justify their invasion of Boer lands was that they were righting the moral wrongs of the Boer people. At the very same time, the British were themselves engaged in committing human rights violations in other parts of the world.
After the British were removed from power, the new Boer government led by President Kruger treated them with very little respect. A British expedition led by Sir Jameson staged an attack to overthrow the government of Transvaal in 1895. The attack was repelled, but it angered the British into devoting more resources to South Africa, causing the Boer War.
Throughout their history, the Boers have tended to live in a state of semi-isolation and not concern themselves with the affairs of the world at large. The British, however, insisted on intruding into their lives for no reason other than greed. They were faced with a surprising amount of resistance and spirit from the supposedly inconsequential farmers. The subsequent British actions in South Africa became the center of international attention and served to isolate the British as the specter of World War I approached. The resources and time invested by the British in order to subjugate the Boer community was not well spent and ended up harming the British in the long run. This was a classic situation of immediate gratification of British pride dominating a long term African policy dictated by common sense.

58. Heinrich von Treitschke

http://www.stabi.hs-bremerhaven.de/mondwurf/englisch/primaer/imperialismus/treitschke.htm
Heinrich von Treitschke on Colonies, 1897

If it is stated that the emigration of Germans to America is beneficial for Germany, then this is stupid statement. What was the benefit for Germany in thousands of its best sons, who could not make a living in their home region, to turn their backs on their fatherland ? They were lost forever ... Almost a third of the Nortyh American population is of German ancestry. How many of the most valuable forces did we lose due to emigration, and do we continue to lose day by day, without even the most minute compensation. Both their labour and their capital are lost to us. What immesurable financial advantages would these people offer us as colonials.

So any colonization which preserves the original nationality has become a factor of immense importance for the future of the world. On it it will depend inhowfar every nation will join in the white race's rule over the world; it is very well imaginable, that once a land without colonies will not be ranked any more among Europe's powers, no matter how powerful it may be otherwise. So we may not fall into the condition of paralyzation, which is the consequence of a foreign policy exclusively oriented on the continent, and the result of our next successful war has to be the acquisition of any colony.

But not only farming colonies, others too are of great importance to the motherland. So plantation colonies, where permanent presence of European peoples is not possible, but where indigenous people can work in the service of the motherland and deliver valuable plantation products. Whoever crosses the Dutch border from Kleve to Nijmegen can imagine what economic miracles are possible in the tropics. Cleve is a prosperous town of medium size, not at all poor. But if you come to Nijmegen, you are in a different world : splendid villas everywhere, with columns and perrons ! This is the wealth of India, of Java and Sumatra; luxury everywhere, of a kind German cities of medium size are not aware of.

from : Treitschke, H.v., Politik, Vorlesungen (Politics, Lectures), Vol. 1. Leipzig 1897, p. 123ff.; Translator: A. Ganse

http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13036.html
Treitschke, Heinrich von
Pronounced As: hinrikh fn trichk , 1834-96, German historian. A fervid partisan of Prussia, he left Baden at the outbreak of the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and became professor of history at Kiel (1866), Heidelberg (1867), and Berlin (1874). He edited (1866-89) the monthly Preussische Jahrbücher and became (1886) Prussian state historiographer. As a young man, he was strongly nationalistic and liberal; as he grew older his political views became more nationalistic and less liberal. Although a member of the Reichstag, he was not especially successful as a practical politician. His writings, however, reflected his political views, his deep hope for the unity and greatness of Germany under Prussian leadership, and his admiration of Bismarck and the Hohenzollerns. They also reflected his strong anti-Semitism. His theories had great impact on the new generation and in academic circles. Treitschke's histories, stirring and graphic and excellent in workmanship, are nevertheless distorted by his fanatic nationalism and his pernicious biases. His masterpiece is his History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century (tr., 7 vol., 1915-19). Among his other works are Politics (tr. 1916) and Origins of Prussianism (tr. 1942).

60. Berlin conference of 1884-1885

http://www.africana.com/

The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 marked the climax of the European competition for territory in Africa, a process commonly known as the "Scramble for Africa." During the 1870s and early 1880s European nations such as Great Britain, France, and Germany began looking to Africa for natural resources for their growing industrial sectors as well as a potential market for the goods these factories produced. As a result, these governments sought to safeguard their commercial interests in Africa and began sending scouts to the continent to secure treaties from indigenous peoples or their supposed representatives. Similarly, Belgium's King Leopold II, who aspired to increase his personal wealth by acquiring African territory, hired agents to lay claim to vast tracts of land in Central Africa. To protect Germany's commercial interests, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who was otherwise uninterested in Africa, felt compelled to stake claims to African land.
Inevitably, however, the scramble for territory led to conflict among European powers, particularly among the British and French in West Africa, and Egypt, the Portuguese, and British in East Africa, and the French and King Leopold II in Central Africa. Rivalry between Great Britain and France led Bismarck to intervene, and in late 1884 he called a meeting of European powers in Berlin. In the subsequent meetings, Great Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, and King Leopold II negotiated their claims to African territory, which were then formalized and mapped. During the conference the leaders also agreed to allow free trade among the colonies and established a framework for negotiating future European claims in Africa. Neither the Berlin Conference itself nor the framework for future negotiations provided any say for the peoples of Africa over the partitioning of their homelands.
The Berlin Conference did not initiate European colonization of Africa, but it did legitimate and formalize the process. In addition, it sparked new interest in Africa. Following the close of the conference, European powers expanded their claims in Africa such that by 1900, European states had claimed nearly 90 percent of African territory.

http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/empires/0054.html

61. Fashoda Crisis of 1898

Hoping to cut off the British Cape to Cairo route, the French Government signed orders on February 24, 1896 instructing Captain Marchand to lead an expedition to the Upper Nile and occupy Fashoda. The Marchand Mission, seven French officers and a force of 120 Senegalese tirailleurs, landed at Fashoda on July 10, 1898 and raised the French flag.
On September 2, 1898, British General Kitchener opened the Sudan by defeating the Mahdists at the battle of Omderman. Having learned of the occupation of Fashoda from a captured band of Mahdists, Kitchener set out with five steamers carrying British and Sudanese soldiers. On September 19, Kitchener and his troops landed at Fashoda, where he met Captain Marchand. Kitchener protested the French occupation, claiming Fashoda for Britain by right of conquest (i.e., the victory at Omdurman), while Marchand maintained that the area belonged to France by virtue of the presence of French troops. When Marchand refused to leave, Kitchener raised the Egyptian flag alongside the French in keeping with Britain's "two flags" policy.
France expressed a desire to negotiate spheres of influence in Africa, but Britain refused to enter into negotiations until Marchand and his troops had evacuated Fashoda. On October 17, both the French and the British began shows of strength in strategic areas.
Eventually realizing the hopelessness of the situation, France agreed to remove her troops, and, on December 4, 1898, ordered the evacuation of Fashoda. On March 21, 1899 a convention was signed with France renouncing all claims to Fashoda.
From: http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr95/ffashoda1898.htm

62. John A. Hobson

English historicist economist closely associated to the Marxian and Socialist schools (he was particularly fond of John Ruskin). Hobson was nonetheless an accomplished author, journalist, historian, economist and critic of the materialist methodology of both Classical and Neoclassical economics, he is the closest thing to the American iconoclast Thorstein Veblen that the British Isles produced. However, professionally speaking, he was a more extreme outsider than Veblen: hounded first by the Classical and then the Marshallian orthodoxy, Hobson never attained an academic post, was basically barred from the Political Economy Club and ceaselessly ridiculed in that bastion of Marshallian thought, the Economic Journal.
Hobson's famous 1891 critique of the Classical theory of rent and proposed generalization anticipated the Neoclassical "Marginal Productivity" theory of distribution. However, he later (1909) disputed the "product exhaustion" thesis of that theory, a criticism which several contemporaries (such as Marshall) answered with difficulty. Hobson's fame rests perhaps on his development of a theory of underconsumption (1889, with the businessman and mountaineer A.F. Mummery), which anticipated that of John Maynard Keynes and a theory of imperialism (1902) anticipating Vladimir Lenin. He extended these ideas into an undercomponsumption theory of the trade cycle. His work on social welfare (1901, 1914, 1929) was only slightly better received in his day. Hobson's stock has since risen, not only for the afore-mentioned contributions, but also for his "evolutionist" outlook on economy and society (1894).

63. Treaty of Nanking, 1842

www.encyclopedia.com

1839-42 and 1856-60, two wars between China and Western countries. The first was between Great Britain and China. Early in the 19th cent., British merchants began smuggling opium into China in order to balance their purchases of tea for export to Britain. In 1839, China enforced its prohibitions on the importation of opium by destroying at Guangzhou (Canton) a large quantity of opium confiscated from British merchants. Great Britain, which had been looking to end China's restrictions on foreign trade, responded by sending gunboats to attack several Chinese coastal cities. China, unable to withstand modern arms, was defeated and forced to sign the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the British Supplementary Treaty of the Bogue (1843). These provided that the ports of Guangzhou, Jinmen, Fuzhou, Ningbo, and Shanghai should be open to British trade and residence; in addition Hong Kong was ceded to the British. Within a few years other Western powers signed similar treaties with China and received commercial and residential privileges, and the Western domination of China's treaty ports began. In 1856 a second war broke out following an allegedly illegal Chinese search of a British-registered ship, the Arrow, in Guangzhou. British and French troops took Guangzhou and Tianjin and compelled the Chinese to accept the treaties of Tianjin (1858), to which France, Russia, and the United States were also party. China agreed to open 11 more ports, permit foreign legations in Beijing, sanction Christian missionary activity, and legalize the import of opium. China's subsequent attempt to block the entry of diplomats into Beijing as well as Britain's determination to enforce the new treaty terms led to a renewal of the war in 1859. This time the British and French occupied Beijing and burned the imperial summer palace (Yuan ming yuan). The Beijing conventions of 1860, by which China was forced to reaffirm the terms of the Treaty of Tianjin and make additional concessions, concluded the hostilities.

65. Sino-Japanese War

Following the Manchurian Incident (Sept., 1931), the Japanese Kwantung army occupied Manchuria and established the puppet state of Manchukuo (Feb., 1932). Japan pressed China to recognize the independence of Manchukuo, suppress anti-Japanese activities, and form autonomous regional governments in N China. The Japanese were partially successful in 1933 and 1935 when they forced China to form two demilitarized autonomous zones bordering Manchuria. 1937-45, conflict between Japanese and Chinese forces for control of the Chinese mainland. The war sapped the Nationalist government's strength while allowing the Communists to gain control over large areas through organization of guerrilla units. Thus, it was an important factor in the eventual Communist defeat of the Nationalist forces in 1949. In its early stage, the war was often called the China Incident.

66. The Congreee of Berlin

http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/01383.html

Berlin, Congress of, 1878, called by the signers of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 (see Paris, Congress of) to reconsider the terms of the Treaty of San Stefano, which Russia had forced on the Ottoman Empire earlier in 1878. Great Britain and Austria-Hungary were the powers most insistent on revision; Russia submitted the treaty to revision only after Great Britain threatened war and Bismarck had offered to mediate as "honest broker. He was chairman of the congress. Disraeli represented Great Britain; Count Andrássy, Austria-Hungary; William Henry Waddington, France; Aleksandr Gorchakov, Russia; Count Corti, Italy; and Alexander Karatheodori, the Ottomans. The agreements reached in the Treaty of Berlin and the accompanying British-Turkish pact deeply modified the Treaty of San Stefano. Montenegro, Serbia, and Romania were recognized as independent states; Romania, however, was forced to cede S Bessarabia to Russia in return for the less favored Dobruja. Greater Bulgaria, which had been created at San Stefano, was divided into N Bulgaria, a principality under nominal Ottoman suzerainty; Eastern Rumelia, to be governed, with certain autonomous rights, by a Christian appointee of the Ottoman emperor; and Macedonia (including Adrianople), under unrestricted Ottoman sovereignty. Bosnia and Hercegovina, original cause of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, were assigned to Austria-Hungary for administration and military occupation. In Asia, Russia acquired Ardahan, Batum, and Kars from the Ottomans. Cyprus was to be under temporary occupation by Great Britain through a separate agreement, and Crete was promised constitutional government. Other provisions included an important rectification of the Greco-Ottoman boundary, the demilitarization of the lower Danube, and the protection of the Armenians and other religious minorities in Turkey. Russia was antagonized by Bismarck's handling of the conference, thereby bringing to an end the first Three Emperors' League.

68. "total war"

Military conflict in which the contenders are willing to make any sacrifice in lives and other resources to obtain a complete victory, as distinguished from limited war. Throughout history, limitations on the scope of warfare have been more economic and social than political. Simple territorial aggrandizement has not, for the most part, brought about total commitments.
Total war led to the development of the totalitarian state. The totalitarian state was a modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen's duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society.
Various totalitarian systems, however, have different ideological goals. For example, of the states most commonly described as totalitarian-the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany, and the People's Republic of China under Mao-the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China sought the universal fulfillment of humankind through the establishment of a classless society (see communism); German National socialism on the other hand, attempted to establish the superiority of the so-called Aryan race.

69. Totalitarian

supplement: http://www.bartleby.com/65/to/totalita.html
totalitarianism
(ttl´´târ´nzm) (KEY) , a modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen's duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society. 1
Various totalitarian systems, however, have different ideological goals. For example, of the states most commonly described as totalitarian-the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany, and the People's Republic of China under Mao-the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China sought the universal fulfillment of humankind through the establishment of a classless society (see communism); German National Socialism, on the other hand, attempted to establish the superiority of the so-called Aryan race.

Characteristics Despite the many differences among totalitarian states, they have several characteristics in common, of which the two most important are: the existence of an ideology that addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, and a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. The party is generally led by a dictator and, typically, participation in politics, especially voting, is compulsory. The party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military, communications, and economic and education systems. Dissent is systematically suppressed and people terrorized by a secret police. Autocracies through the ages have attempted to exercise control over the lives of their subjects, by whatever means were available to them, including the use of secret police and military force. However, only with modern technology have governments acquired the means to control society; therefore, totalitarianism is, historically, a recent phenomenon. 3 By the 1960s there was a sharp decline in the concept's popularity among scholars. Subsequently, the decline in Soviet centralization after Stalin, research into Nazism revealing significant inefficiency and improvisation, and the Soviet collapse may have reduced the utility of the concept to that of an ideal or abstract type. In addition, constitutional democracy and totalitarianism, as forms of the modern state, share many characteristics. In both, those in authority have a monopoly on the use of the nation's military power and on certain forms of mass communication; and the suppression of dissent, especially during times of crisis, often occurs in democracies as well. Moreover, one-party systems are found in some nontotalitarian states, as are government-controlled economies and dictators.

Causes There is no single cause for the growth of totalitarian tendencies. There may be theoretical roots in the collectivist political theories of Plato Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Karl Marx. But the emergence of totalitarian forms of government is probably more the result of specific historical forces. For example, the chaos that followed in the wake of World War I allowed or encouraged the establishment of totalitarian regimes in Russia, Italy, and Germany, while the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled them to extend and consolidate their power.

71. Bolsheviks

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/OctRev.html

72. Principle of national self-determination

www.marxists.org/history/ussr/foreign/1918/January/2.htm
www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ead/2res91.htm

73. War reparations

Disarmament and Reparations
By the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was required to abolish compulsory military service; to reduce its army to 100,000; to demilitarize all the territory on the left bank of the Rhine River and also that on the right bank to a depth of 50 km (31 mi); to stop all importation, exportation, and nearly all production of war material; to limit its navy to 24 ships, with no submarines, the naval personnel not to exceed 15,000; and to abandon all military and naval aviation by October 1, 1919. Germany also agreed to permit the trial of former emperor William II by an international court on the charge of "a supreme offense against international morality." (The trial never took place.)
For damage incurred by the Allied powers during the war, Germany was required to make extensive financial reparation. In addition to money, payment was made in the form of ships, trains, livestock, and valuable natural resources. Difficulty arose in collecting payment, and the situation was not finally settled until the Lausanne Conference in 1932.
Ask.com
Peace Treaty of Versailles
ARTICLE 231.
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
ARTICLE: 232.
The Allied and Associated Governments recognise that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present Treaty, to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage.
The Allied and Associated Governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an Allied or Associated Power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air, and in general all damage as defined in Annex l hereto.
In accordance with Germany's pledges, already given, as to complete restoration for Belgium, Germany undertakes, in addition to the compensation for damage elsewhere in this Part provided for, as a consequence of the violation of the Treaty of 1839, to make reimbursement of all sums which Belgium has borrowed from the Allied and Associated Governments up to November 11, 1918, together with interest at the rate of five per cent (5%) per annum on such sums. This amount shall be determined by the Reparation Commission, and the German Government undertakes thereupon forthwith to make a special issue of bearer bonds to an equivalent amount payable in marks gold, on May 1, 1926, or, at the option of the German Government, on the 1st of May in any year up to 1926. Subject to the foregoing, the form of such bonds shall be determined by the Reparation Commission. Such bonds shall be handed over to the Reparation Commission, which has authority to take and acknowledge receipt thereof on behalf of Belgium.

74. Schlieffen Plan

Count Alfred von Schlieffen, who became Chief of the Great General Staff in 1891, submitted his plan in 1905; it was adopted, slightly modified, in 1914. The plan itself is described below.
The Army Quarterly, London (July, 1929), 18 (2): 286-90.

REVIEW OF THE SCHLIEFFEN PLAN
. . . All writers have . . . been in accord that Moltke made the left or defensive wing in Alsace and Lorraine stronger than Schlieffen designed, and that he did so at the expense of the right wing, the decisive one, which in swinging round was to sweep the French Armies against the back of their eastern frontier fortresses and against the Swiss frontier. It has been repeated by many German authorities (e.g. General Wilhelm Groener) that Schlieffen made the proportion of one wing to the other 1 to 7, whilst Moltke changed it to 1 to 3, but how these figures are arrived at they do not reveal. According to General Groener in Das Testament des Grafen Schlieffen, the deployment of the troops against France in the 1905 plan and in 1914 were, omitting Landwehr and Ersatz troops, for sieges and L. of C. purposes:
|========1905========|=======1914=======|======ARMY=======|
| | | |
| 11 corps | 8 corps | First and Second|
| 7 Reserve corps | 5 reserve corps | idem |
| <-----------(line just south of Namur)----->
|--------------------|------------------|-----------------|
| | | |
| 6 corps | 6 corps | Third and Fourth|
| 1/2 Reserve corps | 3 reserve corps | idem |
| <------------(line through Mezieres)------->
|--------------------|------------------|-----------------|
| | | |
| 8 corps | 3 corps | Fifth |
| 5 Reserve corps | 2 Reserve corps | idem |
| <------(line through Verdun and Metz)------>
|--------------------|------------------|-----------------|
| | | |
| 3 corps | 4 corps | Sixth |
| 1 Reserve corps | 1 Reserve corps | idem
| <----------(line through Strasbourg)------->
|--------------------|------------------|-----------------|
| | | |
| nil | 2 corps | Seventh |
| | 1 Reserve corps | idem |
|=========================================================|
| 41 1/2 (total) 35 (total) |
|=========================================================|
Schlieffen detailed 10 divisions for the Eastern front; Moltke, 8. Moltke, still less Schlieffen, never had the number of corps and divisions which the Schlieffen plan assumed to exist -- the latter's plan was only a "project." But, taking the above figures: In Schlieffen's plan the defensive wing is to the offensive as 4 to 37 1/2 ( 1 to 9 3/8 ), in Moltke's 8 to 27 (1 to 3 3/8); but Schlieffen's with the forces available in 1914, would have been 4 to 31 (1 to 7 3/8).
It has been left to Dr. Bredt, a member of the Reichstag and of the Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry into the loss of the war, to tell what was the real nature of the plan, how Moltke altered it, and why he did so (J. V. Bredt, Die Belgische Neutralität und der Schlieffensche Feldzugplan). His work, which shows a wide acquaintance with war literature, purports to contain portions of the Schlieffen plan of which the public had not yet heard, and which fully justify the reproach that Moltke changed it for the worse, much the worse, but not in the way hitherto imagined. Dr. Bredt, however, points out that Ludendorff was head of the Operations Section of the Great General Staff in 1908-09, at the time of the vital alterations, and from what we know of the First Quartermast er's ruthless methods and ignorance of the world, he probably had more to do with the changes than his courtier chief. Dr. Bredt recalls, what most of us have forgotten, if we ever knew, that in the January, 1909, number of the Deutsche Revue Graf Schlieffen anonymously protested against the changes -- it was, of course, surmised who wrote the article, and it is now included in his works....
The reasons for strengthening the left wing are given by Dr. Bredt as follows: Moltke could not abandon Alsace, as Schlieffen designed to do, for the Italians might take part on the German side; General Pollio, the Italian Chief of Staff until his death i n 1914, had assured him they would As they were to be brought to Alsace, Moltke considered it necessary to hold that province with two corps. If the Italians did not appear, then the question of the transport of the two corps to the right wing would arise. As we know, the French attack towards Mulhausen fatally delayed this. These two corps, plus the two corps sent from France to Russia, would, if added to the right wing, have made it as strong as Schlieffen intended.
It emerges incidentally that the Schlieffen plan was worked out for war on the Western front only; for when drawn up, Russia was still very weak as a result of the Manchurian War. It also contemplated additions to the army that did not take place. There w as only a general statement that in the case of Russia intervening, ten divisions should be withdrawn from the Western front and sent to the East, without altering the proportion of the two wings.
More important than the changes in the technical details was the alteration of the plan politically. In the Schlieffen plan 'there was no ultimatum to Belgium, but the German army, without any notification, was first to deploy on the Dutch-Belgian frontie r.' As the German plan would be divulged by this, it was assumed that the French would take countermeasures These, according to Schlieffen's views, could only be the occupation of the natural defensive position in the Meuse valley south of Namur; and thus the French would themselves violate Belgian neutrality. Such a plan must have been at least considered by the French, and in 1914 the German General Staff took it for granted that they would advance to the Meuse. All this presumed that Belgian neutrality would not be broken by Germany first. Such a step Graf Schlieffen desired, if possible, to avoid. He wished to leave sufficient time so that, in one way or another, the German statesmen would be able to evade the reproach of the violation of Belgian neutrality. 'Th at Liege would always be captured sufficiently soon after the entry of the German army into Belgium, to serve as the railway junction for reinforcements and supply, could be accepted.'
This was all changed in the deployment plan of the mobilization year 1908-09, by which Liege was to be captured by a coup de main, without artillery preparation, during the mobilization....
There was, Dr. Bredt points out, a further reason in favour of the idea of a coup de main against Liege. The German deployment as imagined by Schlieffen would stretch as far north as Crefeld, that is, along the Dutch frontier.
'Schlieffen did not consider it out of the question, in view of the then [1905] political situation, as he judged it, that German diplomacy might succeed on the outbreak of war against England in obtaining from the Netherlands Government by an ami cable arrangement (auf geftlichen Wege) permission for the German army to cross the Dutch province of Limburg (Maastrich, Roermond). By this means the fortress of Liege would be avoided by passing north of it, and could quickly be brought to surre nder by threatening it in the rear.'
Moltke did not believe that Holland would give permission to traverse her territory, and dropped the idea of an advance of the German right wing by this route. On the other hand he feared that Liège could not be taken quickly enough by an accelerated artillery attack to prevent a delay in the general advance of the right wing. It was most important not to give the Belgians time to put the fortress in a state of defence, and in particular to construct defences in the intervals between the forts and destroy the important railways passing through Liege. It also appeared to him that it was impossible to march an army between Liege and the Dutch frontier. He therefore decided to take Liege by a coup de main carried out by troops of the peace establishment without mobilization immediately on outbreak of war. 'Two days and the following night were allowed for the execution of the coup de main.'

75. Lawrence of Arabia

Thomas Edward (T.E.) Lawrence was born on August 16, 1888 in Wales. Popularly known as Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence became famous for his exploits as British Military liason to the Arab Revolt during the First World War.
Lawrence had been fascinated by archaeology since childhood. After graduating with honors from Oxford in 1910, he served as an assistant at a British Museum excavation in Iraq (then known as Mesopotamia). When war broke out with Germany in 1914, Lawrence spent a brief period in the Geographical Section of the General Staff in London, and was then posted to the Military Intelligence Department in Cairo. In 1916 the Arabs rebelled against the Turkish empire. Lawrence was sent to Mecca on a fact-finding mission, ultimately becoming the British liaison officer to the Arabs. His account of the revolt is chronicled in in his classic books, "Seven Pillars of Wisdom, A Triumph" and "Revolt in the Desert."
After the war Lawrence served in the British Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, where he promoted the cause of Arab independence. Despite his efforts Syria, Palestine and Iraq were mandated to France and Britain. Lawrence returned to England exhausted and disappointed. By the end of 1920, British attempts to impose a colonial rule in Iraq had provoked an open rebellion. Winston Churchill was appointed by the British Colonial Office to find a solution, and persuaded Lawrence to join him as adviser. By the summer of 1922 Churchill, with considerable aid from Lawrence, had achieved a settlement of the situation.
In 1922 Lawrence resigned his position with the Colonial Office and enlisted in the RAF under an assumed name. After four months he was discovered by the press and discharged. With the help of a highly-placed friends he re-enlisted in the Tank Corps as 'Thomas Edward Shaw'. Between 1922 and early 1927 Lawrence revising "Seven Pillars" for publication and edited an abridgement of the book called "Revolt in the Desert." Half way through this work he succeeded in transferring back to the RAF.
In March 1935 his twelve-year enlistment came to an end and he retired to "Clouds Hill " (the name of his cottage) in Dorset, England. Two months later he was thrown from his motorcycle while on a local errand. He suffered severe head injuries and died some days later without regaining consciousness.
If you are aware of books, movies, databases, web sites or other information sources about T.E. Lawrence or related subjects, or if you would like to comment please send us email.

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95aug/lawrence.html
T. E. Lawrence became famous after the First World War because of the remarkable role he had played while serving as a British liaison officer during the Arab Revolt of 1916-18. When the war ended, an American journalist, Lowell Thomas, toured Britain and the Empire giving an outstandingly successful slide-show about Lawrence's achievements. The romantic story of Lawrence's campaigns in Arabia and Allenby's in the Holy Land appealed strongly to a British public sated with horrific accounts of trench warfare on the Western Front. From this beginning grew the legend of 'Lawrence of Arabia'.
Thereafter, the facts of Lawrence's war-adventures were often obscured by myth. Even today, his reputation is a favourite target for popular controversialists. Nevertheless, when the secret British archives of the Middle East campaigns were finally released in the 1960s and '70s, they showed that Lawrence's service with the Arabs had been no less remarkable than the legend.
Lawrence himself had little wish to be remembered as a war hero: he could hardly bear to think about his wartime role. His enduring ambition was to be a writer. He once confessed his hope that, "in the distant future, if the distant future deigns to consider my insignificance, I shall be appraised rather as a man of letters than a man of action."*
His literary reputation rests on a body of writing which is almost entirely autobiographical. It includes at least 6,000 letters written between 1906 and his death in 1935, and two autobiographical books. The first, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, is an account of his service with the Arab Revolt. The second, The Mint, is centred on his experiences as an anonymous recruit in the ranks of the RAF. It was there, to the astonishment and distress of many contemporaries, that he chose to spend his life after 1922.
Both in his books and letters, Lawrence was an acute observer of people, places, and events. Among the most memorable passages in Seven Pillars are the vivid descriptions of desert landscapes and of the bedouin irregulars whose life he shared. The Mint, written in a very different style to Seven Pillars, is, like Solzenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a work of observation written by a highly intelligent man who found himself effectively imprisoned. Lawrence distilled its spare descriptions from events that he had witnessed over and over again. Both Seven Pillars and The Mint have for many years ranked among Penguin's modern 'Classics'
Lawrence's letters are no less remarkable. His friendships ranged from fellow-servicemen in the ranks to leading figures in the worlds of literature, art, and politics. In many cases, letters were almost the only vehicle for these relationships, since the circumstances of his life meant that he could rarely meet his friends.
Should he be appraised as a writer or a man of action? At the close of the twentieth century the verdict remains open. Other men of action marked history more deeply; other writers earned higher acclaim; yet few of his contemporaries combined both practical and intellectual achievements to the degree that Lawrence did. That intriguing combination has helped to sustain the public's fascination with his life, as has the deeply introspective personality revealed in his writings.

http://www.castle-hill-press.com/teweb/life/lawrence.htm

76. Reinsurance Treaty

In 1879, Bismarck formed an alliance with the Austrians in order to restrain the Russians who were furious over the outcome of the Congress of Berlin. In 1882, Bismarck persuaded the Italians to join in a Triple Alliance. At the same time, working to contain Russo-Austrian hostility, he constructed a second alliance of the Three Emperors (1881-1887), which involved a pledge of friendly neutrality in the event that any of the three powers became involved in war with a fourth power. Tension in the Balkans led the Russians to withdraw from the agreement in 1887. Bismarck continued his efforts by negotiating a Russian-German Reinsurance Treaty, again pledging neutrality if the other were attacked.

The circumstances changed dramatically in the 1890's. Bismarck was forcibly retired by the new and young emperor, William II, and German foreign policy became less cautious and more bellicose. The Reinsurance Treaty was allowed to lapse. The Russians, looking for western investment, and the French, seeking to break out of their diplomatic isolation, began negotiations which led by 1894 to the Franco-Russian alliance. Germany commenced a naval build-up which threatened England's primacy on the high seas. A naval armaments race between England and Germany began. England shifted its foreign policy from avoiding alliances to actively seeking ways to protect themselves from the rising power of Germany. The English improved their relationship with the United States by consenting to accept settlement of a number of differences through arbitration. Upon demand by the United States, they withdrew a naval squadron from the waters of Venezuela where there had been a dispute concerning debt payments to English creditors.

77. The Algeciras Conference of 1906
Franco-German rivalry
Morocco on the northern coast of Africa was rich in mineral and agricultural wealth. Both Germany and France coveted the place. By her entente with Britain in 1904, France was given a free hand in Morocco. Kaiser William II, angry at France's influence and at Germany's exclusion, decided to intervene. In March 1905, the Kaiser landed at Tangier where he made a speech greeting the Sultan of Morocco as an independent sovereign and promising him German protection if France attempted to colonize his state. The German government followed this up by demanding an international conference to clarify the status of Morocco.
Germany's aim of calling a conference was to humiliate France and to split the Entente because from the point of view of international law, Morocco was an independent state and the French claim to Morocco was illegal. France was prepared to fight but at last she agreed to settle her conflict with Germany at a conference.
The Algeciras Conference
At the conference at Algeciras in 1906, Germany was supported by Austria while France was supported by Britain, Russia and the United States. In name Morocco was preserved as an independent state whose trade was to be open to all nations; but in fact France was given two special privileges: (i) she, in conjunction with Spain, was given control over the Moroccan police and (ii) she was to control the customs and arms supply of Morocco. Thus the Entente powers scored a diplomatic victory over the Dual Alliance of Germany and Austria.
Consequence
The Algerciras Conference could only offer a temporary solution to the Franco-German conflict. Germany was dissatisfied with the resolutions of the Conference because they would benefit France more. France also bore ill feeling towards Germany. She remembered that Germany had tried to browbeat France to give up Morocco by a threat of war. To prepare for the eventuality of a Franco-German war, France began to hold secret military conversations with Britain, which finally led to the sending of British army to fight alongside the French army during the First World War.

http://www.thecorner.org/wwi/crises.htm

78. Anglo-French Entente of 1904

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914m/entecord.html

The Entente Cordiale Between England and France

Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers London, 1911, Vol. CIII, Cmd. 5969
Formally titled, the 'Declaration between the United Kingdom and France Respecting Egypt and Morocco, Together with the Secret Articles Signed at the Same Time.'

The Franco-British Declaration, 1904
ARTICLE 1. His Britannic Majesty's Government declare that they have no intention of altering the political status of Egypt.
The Government of the French Republic, for their part, declare that they will not obstruct the action of Great Britain in that country....
It is agreed that the post of Director-General of Antiquities in Egypt shall continue, as in the past, to be entrusted to a French savant.
The French schools in Egypt shall continue to enjoy the same liberty as in the past.
ARTICLE 2. The Government of the French Republic declare that they have no intention of altering the political status of Morocco.
His Britannic Majesty's Government, for their part, recognise that it appertains to France, more particularly as a Power whose dominions are conterminous for a great distance with those of Morocco, to preserve order in that country, and to provide assistance for the purpose of all administrative, economic, financial , and military reforms which it may require.
They declare that they will not obstruct the action taken by France for this purpose, provided that such action shall leave intact the rights which Great Britain, in virtue of treaties, conventions, and usage, enjoys in Morocco, including the right of coasting trade between the ports of Morocco, enjoyed by British vessels since 1901.
ARTICLE 3. His Britannic Majesty's Government for their part, will respect the rights which France, in virtue of treaties, conventions, and usage, enjoys in Egypt, including the right of coasting trade between Egyptian ports accorded to French vessels.
ARTICLE 4. The two Governments, being equally attached to the principle of commercial liberty both in Egypt and Morocco, declare that they will not, in those countries, countenance any inequality either in the imposition of customs duties or other taxes, or of railway transport charges. The trade of both nations with Morocco and with Egypt shall enjoy the same treatment in transit through the French and British possessions in Africa. An agreement between the two Governments shall settle the conditions of such transit and shall determine the points of entry.
This mutual engagement shall be binding for a period of thirty years. Unless this stipulation is expressly denounced at least one year in advance, the period shall be extended for five years at a time.
Nevertheless the Government of the French Republic reserve to themselves in Morocco, and His Britannic Majesty's Government reserve to themselves in Egypt, the right to see that the concessions for roads, railways, ports, etc., are only granted on such conditions as will maintain intact the authority of the State over these great undertakings of public interest.
ARTICLE 5. His Britannic Majesty's Government declare that they will use their influence in order that the French officials now in the Egyptian service may not be placed under conditions less advantageous than those applying to the British officials in the service.
The Government of the French Republic, for their part, would make no objection to the application of analogous conditions to British officials now in the Moorish service.
ARTICLE 6. In order to ensure the free passage of the Suez Canal, His Britannic Majesty's Government declare that they adhere to the treaty of the 29th October, 1888, and that they agree to their being put in force. The free passage of the Canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of the last sentence of paragraph 1 as well as of paragraph 2 of Article of that treaty will remain in abeyance.
ARTICLE 7. In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not including, Melilla and the heights which command the right bank of the River Sebou.
This condition does not, however, apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
ARTICLE 8. The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government. The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Government.
ARTICLE 9. The two Governments agree to afford to one another their diplomatic support, in order to obtain the execution of the clauses of the present Declaration regarding Egypt and Morocco.
In witness whereof his Excellency the Ambassador of the French Republic at the Court of His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, duly authorised for that purpose, have signed the present Declaration and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at London, in duplicate, the 8th day of April, 1904.
(L.S.) LANSDOWNE
(L.S.) PAUL CAMBON

Secret Articles

ARTICLE 1. In the event of either Government finding themselves constrained, by the force of circumstances, to modify their policy in respect to Egypt or Morocco, the engagements which they have undertaken towards each other by Articles 4, 6, and 7 of the Declaration of today's date would remain intact.
ARTICLE 2. His Britannic Majesty's Government have no present intention of proposing to the Powers any changes in the system of the Capitulations, or in the judicial organisation of Egypt.
In the event of their considering it desirable to introduce in Egypt reforms tending to assimilate the Egyptian legislative system to that in force in other civilised Countries, the Government of the French Republic will not refuse to entertain any such proposals, on the understanding that His Britannic Majesty's Government will agree to entertain the suggestions that the Government of the French Republic may have to make to them with a view of introducing similar reforms in Morocco.
ARTICLE 3. The two Governments agree that a certain extent of Moorish territory adjacent to Melilla, Ceuta, and other presides should, whenever the Sultan ceases to exercise authority over it, come within the sphere of influence of Spain, and that the administration of the coast from Melilla as far as, but not including, the heights on the right bank of the Sebou shall be entrusted to Spain.
Nevertheless, Spain would previously have to give her formal assent to the provisions of Articles 4 and 7 of the Declaration of today's date, and undertake to carry them out.
She would also have to undertake not to alienate the whole, or a part, of the territories placed under her authority or in her sphere of influence.
ARTICLE 4. If Spain, when invited to assent to the provisions of the preceding article, should think proper to decline, the arrangement between France and Great Britain, as embodied in the Declaration of today's date, would be none the less at once applicable.
ARTICLE 5. Should the consent of the other Powers to the draft Decree mentioned in Article I of the Declaration of today's date not be obtained, the Government of the French Republic will not oppose the repayment at par of the Guaranteed, Privileged, and Unified Debts after the 15th July, 1910.
Done at London, in duplicate, the 8th day of April, 1904.