Co-opt Russia or destabilize Russia and cause chaos along
its entire frontier – this has been the foreign policy of first Britain, then
the United States, for well over 100 years.
It continues even today.
The
Silk Roads: A New History of the World, by Peter Frankopan.
Previously,
Frankopan offered an overview regarding Britain’s concern of the threat created
by Russia against her empire. In his
view, this was perhaps the primary cause of the Great War. Frankopan goes on to develop some of the
specifics:
…Russia’s influence and involvement
in the east continued to expand at accelerating speed as it developed its own
Silk Roads. The construction of the
Trans-Siberian Railway, and the connection with the Chinese Eastern Railway,
led to an immediate boom in trade, with volumes nearly trebling between 1895
and 1914.
In 1895, Russia established the Russo-Chinese bank, via its
embassy in Paris and capitalized by Russia and France. The bank opened an office in Shanghai shortly
thereafter. This bank helped finance the
Chinese Eastern Railway.
In 1894, before the railways had
opened up new possibilities, more than 80 per cent of all customs revenue
collected in China was paid by Britain and British companies – whose ships also
carried more than four-fifths of China’s total trade.
Better developed trade routes by land throughout this “world
island” would reduce the value (and leverage) of the trade routes via the
British-controlled seas and ports.
It was obvious that Russia’s rise,
and that of the new land routes that would bring produce to Europe, would come
at Britain’s expense.
Further, there was tremendous untapped wealth in this world
island – wealth that could drastically shift the global balance of power. As Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin told
the Duma in 1908:
“Our distant and inhospitable
frontier territory is rich in gold, woods, furs, and immense spaces suitable
for agriculture.”
It was during this time, in the late 1890s, that Russia
began to take steps to woo Persia. At a
time when the mountains effectively blocked Russia from Afghanistan (and,
hence, India), Persia offered a clear pathway to Britain’s crown jewel of the
sub-continent.
By this time, Russia had already built the Trans-Caspian
Railway, skirting the northern borders of both Persia and Afghanistan. By 1900, there were those in Russia
advocating the development of connecting lines into each of these neighboring
countries – and the British knew this.
At the same time that Britain faced these concerns, Russia
was undergoing internal turmoil. Strikes
in St. Petersburg in 1905 were only a foreshadowing – with the Tsar considering
to flee Russia. After the disastrous
outcome of the Russo-Japanese War, there were concerns in Russia about the
effect on the population if further wars were pursued – a revolution,
perhaps. Then, as now, the threats posed
by Russia may have been exaggerated in order to secure other agendas.
Nevertheless, if Russia was to develop its “distant and
inhospitable frontier territory,” and connect it via rail to trading locations
east, west, and south, this would be a damaging blow to Britain.
Britain’s position in the east was
limited and dangerously exposed. What
was needed was the reorientation of Russia’s focus away from this region
altogether.
And with this, perhaps, one will find the root cause for the
Great War in Europe – a root cause just waiting for an exploitable event. Onto the stage steps the soon-to-be appointed
Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray:
In a bold statement given to The Times just a month before his
appointment at the end of 1905, he made it clear that there would be much to
gain if an understanding could be reached about “our Asiatic possessions.” No British government, he said, would “make
it its business to thwart or obstruct Russia’s policy in Europe.” It was “urgently desirable,” therefore, “that
Russia’s position and influence” should be expanded in Europe – and diverted,
in other words, from Asia.
Britain desired alliance with Russia in order to get Russia
focused in Europe, which meant, ultimately, a war in Europe that would consume
Russia. When looked through this lens,
many subsequent events make sense.
A specific understanding of dates and events is in order: France and Russia had good relations as far
back as the 1870s, both with a common enemy: Germany. As late as the Russo-Japanese War, Britain
opposed Russia in support of Japan. On 8
April 1904 a series of agreements was signed between Britain and France, known
as the Entente Cordiale. Also in 1904,
the Franco-Russian Alliance was consummated.
Edward Gray took
office as Foreign Secretary on 10 December 1905; therefore, his aforementioned
statement was made around the beginning of November. On 31 January 1906, secret
military talks began between the British and the French, binding the
British Expeditionary Force to the French Army.
France was growing increasingly concerned about the growth
of Germany – and remained angered about the defeat in war just three decades
before; Britain did not want to see a continental power grow to be its
rival. This concern certainly extended
to Germany; apparently, it also extended to Russia. Meanwhile, France saw Russia as an ally in
its designs regarding Germany.
In the meantime, in August of 1907, Britain and Russia
concluded a treaty regarding the division of Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet into
“spheres of influence,” ending a further threat to Britain’s sub-continent…just
as Edward Gray had desired.
As Sir Charles Hardinge, permanent
undersecretary at the Foreign Office in London, stressed in 1908, “it is far
more essential for us to have a good understanding with Russia in Asia and the
Near East, than for us to be on good terms with Germany.”
Russia was seen as a bigger threat to Empire than was
Germany. Good for empire, not so good
for the British people.
Britain would do all it could to develop and maintain good
relations with Russia; this included a favorable disposition toward the issue
of the Bosporus. Russia ran with this
idea, gaining Austrian support in September 1908 on the issue of the Bosporus
Straits in exchange for acquiescence for Russia’s support regarding Austria’s
annexation of Bosnia – an agreement that had disastrous consequences, seen by
Slavs both within and outside of Russia as a sell-out.
Even in 1910, Sir Edward Gray held firm: there could be no
agreement with Germany that might sacrifice good relations with France and
Russia. In the meantime, Germany saw the
necessity to break the alliance among Britain, France and Russia – to include a
meeting between the Kaiser and Tsar Nicolas in 1910. All efforts came to naught.
Meanwhile, British propaganda about the Hun stoked the
people to a fever pitch.
Conclusion
Why was there such a hatred of us,
wrote Robert Musil in Berlin in September 1914: where did the envy come from
that “was no fault of our own?”
Because Britain desired this war, a war designed to both
divert and consume Russia.
The Great War came not because of an assassin’s bullet, not
because of Germany’s entry into a naval race, not because of a blind bloodlust
from the Kaiser. For Britain, Russia was
seen as both an ally and a rival; for Britain, the war was an opportunity to
use turn that ally against itself, thus eliminating the threat to Britain’s control
of trade along the sea routes that had replaced the Silk Roads.
The end of the war came: Germany was forced to accept all
blame for the war. Meanwhile, Britain
achieved its objective: progress in Russia would grind to a halt, with the
revolutions of 1917 ensuring Russia would remain diverted for quite some time.
The cost? Ten million
dead from fighting, half-again from disease.
Two-hundred billion dollars spent; European economies shattered. Deficits piled high, empires that dominated
the globe destroyed.
Britain had won the battle, if one can refer to the Great
War as such within the context of containing Russia; it lost the war.
And it took European civilization down with it.
BM ty very much for this series on The Silk Road. You have made me want to read the book itself and I finally ordered a copy!
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you appreciate it. I also find the book very worthwhile.
DeleteEnjoying the deep history.
ReplyDeleteThis is off topic but wanted to leave it here in case you found it worth writing about.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/23/is-there-really-an-insidious-libertarian/amp
As dumb and annoying as Gillespie is, there is bit of truth to what he is saying. Might make for a fun article.
There is much truth in what he writes.
DeleteTo address his post is both very simple (because I agree with much of it) and very complex (because it draws out the reality that left-right is THE more important issue than is "nothing" (libertarianism as he defines it) vs. "something" (governance of some sort)).
It will be worth doing, but I have to dwell on it for a bit.
One of the most insidious things about the liberal imperium is you have an entire class of apparatchiks who claim to be against the empire while deriving their entire existence from it.
Deletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/450793/libertarians-sometimes-become-fascists-heres-why
DeleteThis one is even worse/better.
UC, I had already written the post before I saw your comment. In any case, I wanted to deal with Gillespie.
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/08/charlottesville.html
"Because Britain desired this war, a war designed to both divert and consume Russia."
ReplyDeleteDo you think Britain elites wanted war Europe more to destroy all sides then just Russia or Germany? I mean even France had been so damage from the war. Maybe the Elites were wanting the war to destroy Austria, Russia, Germany, France and Italy (instead to their surprise they get Turkey)? I am also guessing they also did not think the war would go to 1918 and turn the USA into both the financial world banker and superpower.
I believe Britain was always concerned about any one continental European power growing too strong, so I do agree with this. However, European interests were only one portion of Britain's concerns: there was the threat to the entire Empire, and in this it seems Russia was a key concern.
DeleteAs to the USA taking Britain's place, I believe there were those of the elite who intended this to occur; they knew that the US would have the economic might that Britain would never have. See Stead:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-americanization-of-world.html
Altogether, I have 3-4 posts covering a book written by him:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/search/label/stead
I can see your point about the some of the elites seeing the British empire being replace.
DeleteIf most of the elites in Britain saw out of the three powers rising and were set to replace them as the world power. Germany, Russia and the USA. If they had to choose which one to replace them of course they would rather the English speaking nation with a history of Western values. And I can say I am glad it was the USA and not Germany or Russia. Even with the trouble that the USA has cause on the world.
I think though the elites of any country want to be the ones in control and not others. It depends on the person in power whether they care about nationalism or not but they care about keeping their power and perhaps explaining it.
That is what I see the elites in most Europe at the time thinking. From the books I have read on the time most of the elites and Generals thought the war would be like that of the Napoleonic Wars and not the American Civil War which only a minority pointed to. A couple of battles that would decide the fate of the war and then a peace deal before Christmas, not the slow grinding of blood and treasure that resulted.
Has to be satanic revelation at some highest level?
ReplyDeleteOnly Satan could come up with a plan that would be so diabolical in its design, and have future consequences far out weighing
anything man alone could come up with.
Owyhee Cowboy
When it comes to international "diplomacy," it seems to me that Britain was far more creative, nuanced, and "masking" (meaning, to hide the true intent) than the United States has been.
DeleteRelatively speaking, the British played chess, the United States plays MMA.
Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? There is no fee; I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I enjoyed reading your work. I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. If “OK” please let me know via em5ail.
ReplyDeleteAutumn
AutumnCote@WriterBeat.com
This is OK with me.
DeleteYes, culture matter. In theory you can be a racist, a suprematist, a homophobic, a misoginist, and a kind of cultural fascist or nazist and respect the nap, and if you do so, you are all that things and a libertarian, and that is enough for me. But in reality things are different, those kind of intolerant angry culture pavé the way to violence, aggression, state, war, etc... those people doesn't want to live in peace with the others that are different from them, they are angry, furious, they see themselves as victims, they want to fight, they want power, they want vengance. So a realistic libertarian, while always respecting the nap, is wise that discriminates those kind of people. Culture matters and tolerance is a foundamental piece of culture that matters. It is required some degree of tolerance to non aggress others.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the left is exactly that. They are intolerant, they are aggressive, they use the state to oppress the other different people, they promote censorship, and discrimination by law, they judge people by the skin
's colour, they see people as members of group and not as individual, they want to shape society with politics, they are like talibans imposing their idea of virtue and repressing their idea of vice by force and violence.
But the progressive left of today is mimicking what was done in the past. And so we see, in this consequence, how bad was what was done in the past. Positive discrimination is the reflex of the laws against the black. The law against "homophobia" and for the "rights" of LGBT are the reflex of the laws against them. The laws to promote gender equality are the reflex of the legal and political discrimination of women. And so on. Once the laws were against them, now they are using the law against the others. Once the state forced upon society the kind of culture that the right like, against gay, women, libertinism, black, etc.. and in doing so statism grow, and also if the worldview that people agree upon are changed, the statism is not.
And historically is always so: the far-right and the far-left are linked. One lead to the other. Mussolini took power thanks to the fear of leftism. Hitler too. The Second World War helped the urss. And after the death of Mussolini, Italy was on the brink of a red revolution. And also now in USA, Trump took many votes from the traditional left kind of voters. And many that liked Sanders, voted Trump, over Hillary.
The alt right neofascist, racist, suprematist culture is no more good for libertarianism than the idiotic, racist, marxist culture of the progressives. They are enemies, but they are also the some kind of people for many aspects. They speak about liberty in a distorted way, and only while they are not in charge. But in reality they have a political, monstrous, agenda.
Anonproof
Anonproof, I think your comment belongs in another thread.
DeleteI think too many people look to the state for solutions, and an ever-growing state becomes more and more the only alternative.
Hence, decentralize - not just to smaller government units, but also to alternative governance units (church, family, social clubs, etc.). If we are to find a solution, it is only here.
As to comparatively weighting left vs. right, while neither are libertarian I think the left has a far more destructive historical track record - destructive in both body count and culture. And too many people dismiss the value of a common culture in limiting government.
What blows my mind about the smug leftist and their advanced thinking on the mixing of cultures through force, but at the same time adhering to the religion of between unique and different? The difference IMHO regarding the Left Libertarian vs the Left Socialist is the belief that their vessel market for one govt. intervention for the other can cure uncurable cultures who don't respect Western values...a Kum-by-ya get along feel good social justice. Now this is not perfect analysis of Leftist...but they seem to have a God Complex for changing the unchangeable.
DeleteCould their be a corollary to the vapid deterioration of pop culture and bland homogenization if you will that has been placed on us? Mainly in entertainment, but other avenues as well.
Unfortunately all the 20th century belief in central government as a leg up or societal tool has come back to bite the Europeans in the homeland and the US...destroying once vibrant cultures..though not perfect a big step in progression for mankind.
It is said that the Progressive agenda goes back a few hundred years....just curious if the Elite knew this was a better racket at keeping the masses enslaved than the Devine Right of Kings...
Britain already decided to make friendship with the USA in the 1890s. So by 1914 the USA was favorably disposed towards Britain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rapprochement
ReplyDeleteYes, I have covered this here:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-americanization-of-world.html