Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Herfried Münkler -> Empires (A defeat of empires by the power of the…

- - - - imperial boundaries do not divide political units possessing equal rights, instead they involve gradations of power and influence. Furthermore, in terms of immigration more want to enter than to leave.
      - as symmetry of intervention. This follows from the unequal permeability o imperial boundaries
      - whoever thinks of impartiality as an alternative of statehood will come to the conclusion that no empires exist today.
      - state borders often represent overlapping political and economic, linguistic and cultural borders. This gives them their strength and makes them both hard and inflexible. Imperial borders have been described as a tangled web in which political and economic boundaries are separate, cultural differences
    - - Hegemony is supremacy within a group of formally equal political players. Imperiality dissolves this at least formal equality. and reduces the subordinates to the status of client states or satellites.
      - distinction during the cold war: the position of the Soviet union in the Warsaw pact and that of the United States in NATO were described in terms of contrast between hegemony and empire.. The Soviet union was supposed to be surrounded by satellite states whose movements were determined from the centre.
      - another example would be the transformation of the Delian League into the Athenian thalassocracy. The original delian league was an alliance against persian dominance on the West coast of Asia Minor. in which all partners had the same rights. The League changed from a hegemony into an arch: supremacy turned into domination: Athens dominated pretty much everything.
    - - empire can be delineated in contrast to what since the 19th century has been known as imperialism. A distinction between the theories of imperialism makes it possible to disregard the normative perspective of nearly all theories of imperialism
      - imperialism means that there is a will to empire.
    - - Americas denial
        
        Speaking in 1999, Sandy Berger, President Clintons national security advisor, declared that the United States is the first global power in history that is not an imperial power. A year later Geoge W. Bush echoed these words. "the Americans following a battle want nothing more than to return home." Donald Rumsfeld> We are not immperialistic. We never have been."
  - - - time
        
        harder to decide int he case of the Wilhelmine empire -> even if we place it not at its founding in 1871 in the hall mirrors of Versaileles but only at the dismissal of Bismarck by Wilhelm. The project lasted somewhat longer than those of Hitler and Mussolini.If ou take nazi and wilhelmina politics together as two successive cycles, there is sth to be said about the inclusion of Germany in the list. They will be treated as examples of failed empires.
        
        temporal duration of an empire: must be independent on the charismatic qualities of its founder. We should therefore pay only little attention to Napoleons empire building or german National Socialism.
      - reach
        
        a power that does not dominate a significant area can hardly be called an empire.The Habsburg monarchy my be unquestionable be called an empire on imperial grounds but did not even control europe as a region.an exception might be the reign of Charles V who was both king of Spain and ruler of the netherlands. With the separation of the spanish and the german lines of the Habsburgs in 1556, the marks of empire were transferred to Madrid.
        
        the spatial criterion is much easier to apply to continental empires as opposed to maritime empires.
        
        some empires can coexist and other can't. the British nd the russian empires could coexist until the beginning ofthe 20th century. However, the russian and the american empire cannot coexist. However, the both did not accept the rise of a third power, no matter with which power this came into conflict (such as Hitler or Napoleon)
- - - - small imperial wars on the periphery of empires always carried the risk of escalating into a full-scale hegemonic wars. This may be seen how the European powers stumbled into the first world war. for the chief of the austrian general staff, Conrad von Hötzendorf, the ear against serbia was a small imperial war. However, Russia saw itself as protector of the slaves.
      - The German Reich knew that its participation would escalate the confliuct. It was felt that the only way the war could be won was to expand spatially quickly. Cout Alfred von Schlieffen planned to have a quick win over France andf then concentrate on Russia. The United Staes on the oither hand could pursue the small imperial wars in Latin American and the Pacific ocean without encountering another great power. At most it had to deal with one other power in the Spanish American war of 1898
      - Britain could also pursue its inmperial ambitions without being disturbed, certainly in Egypt and conequently in the subsequent Sudenese war against the Mahdi of Khartoum. The greatest danger for nthe British came in 1898 when Lorsd Kitcheners expedition to Fashdo in southern Sudan encountered a small French force under captain Marchand. Yet in Africa, compromises and defeats were possible that no one dared to to contemplate in Europe.,
  - - - Clausewitz: the further you invade the enemies territory, the more your strength declines absolutely. If as a result of that the enemies strentgh declines as well it makes sense if the relative deline is bigger than the absolute one.
      - as Clausewitz points out it is not always a bad investment but the attacker must opay upfronty.
      - Henry Kissnger
        
        the guerrila wins if he does not looses. The conevtional army l;ooses if it does not win
      - already had some application by Chalmers Johnson for instance -> idea is that the United States having passed its climax of expansion is threatened with what he calls blowback.
      - Imperial overstretch is a danger mainly when the resources of an empire begin to run short and the danger is greater when the anti imperial forces of know which resources are limited. Even more probable is however, that the population will become exhausted before material resources begin to run out. Its morale therefore become the main target for anti-imperialist players.
    - - the decline was economic - a gradual process that unfolded between 1914 and 1956. The two world wars and war with Japan over its East Asian possessions weakened Britain so much that it could no longer steel itself for an energetic long-term defence of its colonies against various independence movements. It therefore mostly took the decision to withdraw without a struggle. (Ferguson, empire). This demonstrated the far-sightedness of the British empire which saw that its borders were overstretched and that it had to roll back.
      - Except in a few cases such as Kenya and Burma, the British Empire refrained from preserving their rule by military means. The French who tried to do that were defeated militarily in Indochina and economically in North Africa.
      - the French
        
        When the French surrendered their fortress at Dien bien Phd in 1954, they lost the Indochinese war on the battlefield, also because the United States had refused to gove logistical support.
        
        Algeria
        
        the French had more than 1 million settlers int he country and Paris could rely on sizeable report from local military units. and th French had considerable backing from local military units. By 1962, following 8 years of war that had let to a deep split within the French society, France was in such a bad shape that it agreed to Algerian independence.The Algerian War, which the French had fought with political resolution and military competence showed that colonial powers could be defeated politically even if they could not be overcome militarily. The methods of guerrilla warfare had succeeded in wearing France down both economically and psychologically. (Aron, clausetiwtz)
        
        the algerian war became a model for all anti-imperial and anti-colonial wars. from the 1960s to the 1980s. Force became increasingly used to weaken the enemy economically and and to destroy his political will. After some time the imperial centre wold realize that it was much more costly to than it brought in and this would strengthen political forces who were no longer willing to bear the cost. This is also what happened in Vietnam where the middle class increasingly turned against the war. The in Portugal were a couple of senior officers pitched and brought the empire to an end. and finally the soviet union where reformers around Gorbachov pushed for a rapid end in Afghanistan on the grounds that it was impeding the capacity for reform inside the country.
      - decolonialization
        
        noticeable weakening at the centre but no strengthening at the peripheral. the beginning of decolonialization was not preceded by an economic takeoff of the colonies.
        
        the independence struggle dramatically increased the costs for imperial rule and shifted the lines of imperial overstretch.
        
        in the case of the US -> it shifted from the control of territory to the control of flows. because it can operate that way much more effectively out of air or space. Guerrillas cannot attack stealth bombers or cruise missile.
  - - - the more empires depend on technology the more they make sure that their enemies and anti-imperial players do not have access to that technology.
      - this never worked in Europe
      - en empire offers protection and that way makes sure that other countries etc do not catch up -> one example would be the nuclear umbrella of the United States over Western Europe and Japan during the Cold War. This has been called an "empire by invitation"
      - much more difficult of smaller rivals or even anti-imperial players seek to end military asymmetry by acquiring weapons, especially nuclear missiles that allow them to confront the empire
      - for their to be global symmetry countries need to go nuclear - hardly an attractive option
    - - both avoid direct contact with the professional armed forces. Both seek to demonstrate that the empires promise of peace is an illusion. The imperial order has to be stripped of its attractiveness.
      - in the eyes of anti-imperial players empires are methods of repression
      - both target resources that are available only in limited quantity.
      - vietnam
        
        Kennedy administration stumbled into the vietnam war without knowing what it was doing
        
        for Robetr McNamara it was important to uphold the status quo. The vietnamese however, wanted feared aobut their national survival
        
        vietname was a severe setback for the americans, Afghanistan was the beginning of the end of the soviet union.
      - the boer war
        
        wikipedia
        
        The Second Boer War (11 October 1899 – 31 May 1902) was fought between the British Empire and two Boer states, the South African Republic (Republic of Transvaal) and the Orange Free State, over the Empire's influence in South Africa. It is also known variously as the Boer War, Anglo-Boer War, South African War or Anglo-Boer South African War. Initial Boer attacks were successful, and though British reinforcements later reversed these, the war continued for years with Boer guerrilla warfare, until harsh British counter-measures brought them to terms.
        
        The war started with the British overconfident and under-prepared in the beginning but then brought in a lot of troops and fought back
        
        they were unable to make use of the well-known mechanisms of political escalation- the mechanism which, as the anti-guerilla campaign developed makes the imperial power appear increasingly regressive.
      - once you try to combat the guerrilla it does seems if you have installed a repressive regime
  - - - are always greater than its benefits and it usually takes years for a society to recover
      - mostly th climate of war and violence fostered the development not of free, self-confident people who had overcome the humiliation of colonial oppression but rather of traumatised characters who hindered the building of a new society. It is/was not often easy to convince them that the real work lies ahead of them. they also usually expect to be better off than the rest of the population.
      - retrospectively this is always easy to say. People at the time could not have known this that it would be so had to rebuild an economy.
      - Seleucid empire - Maccabees revolt
        
        Maccabees revolt agains the Seleucid empire as a good example in the second century BC. A group oriented to the morals and believes of their ancestors saw the gradual spread of Hellenisti culture as a thread to their cultural identity. The Seleucid king antiochus IV tightened the repression in response which caused to a gradual spread the rebellion
        
        wikipedia
        
        Seleucid empire
        
        The Seleucid Empire was a major center of Hellenistic culture that maintained the preeminence of Greek customs where a Greek political elite dominated, mostly in the urban areas.[10][11][12][13] The Greek population of the cities who formed the dominant elite were reinforced by immigration from Greece.[10][11] Seleucid expansion into Anatolia and Greece was abruptly halted after decisive defeats at the hands of the Roman army. Their attempts to defeat their old enemy Ptolemaic Egypt were frustrated by Roman demands. Having come into conflict with Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire, after several defeats, Seleucus entered into an agreement with Maurya where he ceded vast territory west of the Indus, including the Hindu Kush, modern day Afghanistan, and the Balochistan province of Pakistan and offered his daughter for marriage to the Emperor to formalize the alliance.
        
        was a Hellenistic state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty, which existed from 312 BC to 63 BC; it was founded by Seleucus I Nicator following the division of the Macedonian empire vastly expanded by Alexander the Great.[7][8][9][10] Seleucus received Babylonia and, from there, expanded his dominions to include much of Alexander's near eastern territories. At the height of its power, it included central Anatolia, Persia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and what is now Kuwait, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan and Turkmenistan.
        
        The Maccabees, also spelled Machabees (Hebrew: מכבים‬ or מקבים‬, Maqabim; Latin: Machabaei or Maccabaei; Greek: Μακκαβαῖοι, Makkabaioi), were a group of Jewish rebel warriors that took control of Judea, which at the time had been a part of the Seleucid Empire.[1][2] They founded the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled from 167 BCE to 37 BCE, being a fully independent kingdom from about 110 to 63 BCE. They reasserted the Jewish religion, partly by forced conversion, expanded the boundaries of Judea by conquest and reduced the influence of Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism.
        
        there were two different groups within the revolt. The moderates and the radicals.Thestruggle began as a defence or tradition, soon became more radical, and finally assumed the dimensions of a fundamentalist movement.
        
        Along with wars over economic resources, uprisings to defend religious-cultural identities have repeatedly caused empires to intervene militarily in their periphery.
        
        the Maccabees revolt allows us to see how hard and soft power work together in the Seleucid empire. The military power of the Seleucid empire, wchih underpinned their occupation of Jerusalem was certainly a reason for the uprising, but the attractiveness of Hellenistic culture was even more decisive. This soft power threatened the religious identity of the Jewish community of Palestine.
    - - terrorism geared towards physical damage and guerrilla towards and the latter towards psychological consequences but also that guerrillas are in their innermost defensive.Furthermore, guerrillas rely on support of the local community.
      - objective of terorism
        
        originally when it arouse in Russia towards the end of the 19th century it was directed against leading figures of the tsarist regime and to win over the people.
        
        terrorists want to create a state of terror and hysteria.
- - - - the first opium war
        
        The First Opium War, during 1839–1842, was concluded by the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. The treaty ceded the Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, and it established five treaty ports at Shanghai, Canton, Ningpo, Fuchow, and Amoy. Another treaty the next year gave most favored nation status to the United Kingdom and added provisions for British extraterritoriality. Then France secured concessions on the same terms as the British, in treaties of 1843 and 1844.
      - the second opium war
        
        The Second Opium War, the Second Anglo-Chinese War, the Second China War, the Arrow War, or the Anglo-French expedition to China,[4] was a war pitting the British Empire and the French Empire against the Qing dynasty of China, lasting from 1856 to 1860.