I hope you enjoy this short video focusing on Lord Salisbury's diplomacy surrounding the Scramble for Africa. I am so sorry about how long this video took. The reason for the long delay was that I've decided to change my style somewhat, and move away from such a heavy emphasis on photo's etc. Mainly because I dislike having to rely on Wiki Commons so completely for copyright free images. This then naturally means drawing them instead when needed (I can hear groans already. I know, if there is one thing YT doesn't need it's more badly drawn history videos). As you will be able to tell I am anything but an artist, so am still very much in the experimental stage of finding a style that could suit the channel when images are needed. If you decide to stick around you have my apologies for some of the nightmare inducing 'art' (a term I use very loosely) that will be produced over the next few months. As for the video, this is also something of an experiment. Diplomatic history is my main interest, and this is what I'd class as the first real video on the topic I've made. It's also quite a complex period of diplomacy. I have tried to simplify it as much as I can without losing any of the subject's intricacy. I'm not sure if I've necessarily achieved it however. I've studied this for a few years now so cant really look at it with a fresh pair of eyes. I'd appreciate any of you that do not know so much about this era telling me whether you found it easy to follow, or if I moved too quickly etc. TL;DR Sorry about the wait and some of the drawings. Feedback on whether I explained this fairly complex period of diplomatic history well would be appreciated.
The drawings are ok (especially the maps are really useful for these types of videos) but having historical photographs is also good and helps transmit the spirit of the age. A balance between the two would be ideal
@@sergeant_chris6209 Oh I completely agree, and I wouldn't have changed if I didn't think it necessary. The problem is whether certain images are in the public domain is quite a blurred line (some museums claim copyright for digitising them etc). Thus, where there is ambiguity I have decided to err on the side of caution.
Don't be worried out the artwork and pictures too much Old Britannia! The content, commentary and history you churn out more than makes up for it. On a side note, Consul-General Baring is usually depicted in a somewhat negative fashion, it's nice to hear a more balanced view of him and not just slurs! (I think of Paxman's TV series "EMPIRE" where he referenced Baring as "Over-baring" and the main lesson garnered for the viewer was that Egyptians still to this day make a trip to the South of England to "water his grave")!
Correct, while this is story is told as a viewpoint from Britain, some of the credit for Salisbury's success should go to the French foreign minister Théophile Delcassé. He clearly understood that Germany was France's greatest danger and with that in mind he worked tirelessly to bring Britain into any form of military pact he could get them to agree with. He swallowed the bitter pill of Fashoda, suffered the anger of the French people but when the inevitable conflict with Germany came he had Britain fighting alongside his people. Bien fait!
@@carthagecentral3893 and that changed history. Imagine if tirpitz hadn't taken office, or Wilhelm hadn't dismissed Bismarck. Pax Europa would have lasted for at least a century more
@@FlaviusConstantinus306 Once Germany had formed, it was a continental power in every single metric. Their population of over 40 million surpassed the continental populations of all but one nation; Russia. Russia was already a backwards state though. Adding onto this, Germany had huge reserves of coal and iron, most on the continent. So it was a matter of time before they would become THE industrial hegemon, and they did in about two decades or so. They carried with them a very conservative and militarist tradition, so they arguably had the strongest military on the continent, and a rapidly growing navy. They were just better in everything.
I've been an admirer of Lord Salisbury for over thirty years, ever since reading Barbara Tuchman's brilliant book, "The Proud Tower: The World before the War, 1890-1914," the precursor to "The Guns of August." More recently, I read Andrew Roberts' exhaustive biography of Salisbury, a fine work. "Proud Tower" opens with Salisbury's assumption of power in 1895: "The last government in the Western world to possess all the trappings of aristocracy in working condition took office in Great Britain in the spring of 1895." The chapter is headed "The Aristocrats," and it's well-named. A brilliant man, fluent speaker of French, vacationer in France, and adept at getting along with the French - Salisbury paved the way for the later rapprochement with France. Many thanks for the video; it does you credit.
Do you consider that through admiring him you also admire massacres, genocide, concentration camps and the establishment of institutions that would doom several countries in Africa for centuries?
Love the video! I never knew that the Scramble for Africa started out in the way it did. One comment I did have is that I felt that the music was a tad too loud compared to the commentary, but that is just nitpicking and the video was amazing!
Thank you very much. And yes I completely agree on the music. Audio is the aspect of video making I'm still fiddling with to try and strike the right balance. Thank you very much of the feedback, very glad you enjoyed the video.
Interestingly enough after France's humiliation over Fashoda, Théophile Delcassé, the French foreign minister, lobbied Russia to build an extension of the Orenburg Tashkent railway to Termez in exchange for a loan of 200 million francs, so in the event of another colonial showdown Russia could threaten Afghanistan on France's behalf. (Source: D.N Collins, "The Franco-Russian Alliance and Russian Railways, 1891-1914") This really does show how isolated Britain was at the time. France could rely on its Russian ally, Germany was tightening its grip over Austria Hungary while Britain was challenged in every corner of the globe by rivals with no allies to call upon. Proof of that desperation is evident in the Anglo-Japanese alliance to take some of the pressure off it in Asia, especially considering it could only be invoked if one of the signatories was attacked by two powers. Britain's only available dance partner was what was then seen as a second rate Asiatic power.
Have you considered making a video on enoch powell? He was such an interesting and fascinating man, yet all he is remembered for today is his "rivers of blood" speech. Though to be honest, that might be the wrong move if you were planning to vastly increase you viewer base. If I may ask, have read the biography simon heffer wrote on him?
Is Heffer’s biography any good? The only book of his I’ve read is ‘Age of Decadence’. But I couldn’t even make it a quarter of the way through it was so crammed with trivial analysis and obvious platitudes. I’ll give it a go at some point if you recommend.
@@OldBritannia I was kind of hoping you would be the one to tell if it's any good.. I have looked for biographies on enoch and as far as I can tell his is the only one, so I don't really have a choice. I've ordered it about a month ago but it hasn't arrived, when it does and I read it I'll make shore to come to you with my opinion.
In the end they got "scrambled" themselves... "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... *“We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1).* The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. *At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally."* (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war... *Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.* Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
I dont think most people realise just how much outside influence modern African nations have had to endure. And indeed how much of their current political and cultural climate is a result of it.
Interesting discussion on a man with many layers, most being less than admirable but still connected to the wider geopolitical situation that still lingers as a horrid revenant to this day. Even tho he was a gentry politician which means I already despise him, a good detailed video still keeps me listening
it strikes me how history hasn't changed much, regarding the invasion of egypt, the only thing that's different is that it's the US that's doing these things now.
For the British Empire, the roughly quarter of a century following around the late-19th century, and all of such "chest thumping victories" as presented in docs like these, were in reality nails in the coffin of the British Empire. *The Lordships were blind with regards to the big picture unfolding.* The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed. Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time. It will be proposed that such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system. The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling. Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events. Unlike human beings, *events* don't lie, steal, or kill. *Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...*
The British only fought with bows and currently only fight on sea because they shit themselves at the prospect of having to fight anyone directly (like men); no wonder the modern-day British default war strategy consists of hiding their island, keeping a strong navy to prevent anyone from landing there so as to avoid having to fight anyone directly and, the most important part, BEG the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend), to please come save them. That's why they've made so much of the battle of Trafalgar when, in real-life, it had a little practical immediate effect and Napoleon barely sighed when receiving the news. But the British keep celebrating that victory because fighting on sea is all they can do, whenever they fight at land they get their sorry asses kicked even against "inferior" enemies such as Elphinstone's army in Afghanistan, Isandlwana, the American revolutionary war, Dunkirk, the Jews at Palestine, the Dutch at Medway (after which the British lost their fleet which meant their island was open to invasion after which they panicked and surrendered ending the war rather than fighting like men), Buenos Aires (twice) and Singapore, among many many others; and the only victories they've had have been by surprise attacks (such as the batte of the River Plate), ambushes (just like they did at the battle of Jutland or Cape Matapan) or by using overwhelming numbers (like they did with the Bismark: in the first encounter two German ships, including the Bismarck, fought against three British ships which included the most powerful British ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, known as "the pride of the Royal Navy", the Bismarck alone defeated the three British ships and easily destroyed the HMS Prince of Wales, after which the British fled and only came back in overwhelming numbers, sending 12 ships against the Bismarck). That's why in Corunna they used their favorite tactic: be defeated and escape by sea (the same one used in Dunkirk). Also, they have no problem whatsoever betraying their allies if it furthers its interests such as when they bombarded Copenhagen even though Denmark was not at war with Britain (they did this to destroy the Danish fleet so Napoleon couldn't use it just in case Napoleon conquered Denmark, or when the French surrendered in World War II and the British demanded the French hand over all of their ships to them (they were terrifyied that that Hitler could use them to invade Britain) and when the French refused the British immediatly forgot about their ertswhile "allies" and attacked the French fleet by surprise at Mers-el Kebir or when they betrayed the Portuguese (their oldest allies with whom they'd maintained an alliance treaty since 1386) by sending them an ultimatum in 1890 demanding them to evacuate some of their African colonies and once they did they quickly moved to occupy those areas just so the Britsh could have a continuous land connection between South Africa and Egypt or during the Seven Years War: the British always seek a powerful ally with a powerful land army (as the British are too cowardly to fight like men) to protect them and fight for them and the United States didn't exist yet so they tricked Prussia into joining them and paid the Prussians to fight on the continent in their place but as soon as the British attained their goals in the other theaters of the war they immediatly forgot about their Prussian "allies" and suddenly stopped the cash flow to Prussia and abandoned them just at the height of the war, leaving the Prussians to their own devices to fight alone against France, Austria and Russia, almost resulting in the destruction of Prussia, something every country in Europe took note of. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British were at their worst, paying others to fight for them, causing the Emperor of Austria to say "The English are flesh traffickers, they fight others to fight in their place", while Napoleon said the British were "a people of cowardly marine merchants". Here's a tiny selection of the countless British defeats: Afghans 6-13 January 1842 - retreat from Kabul - entire British army captured or killed (17,000 KIA) 3 September 1879 - Kabul ...again 27 July 1880 - Maiwand - 900-1,000 British/Indian troops killed By Mahdist March 13, 1884 - January 26, 1885 Siege of Khartoum - 7,000 force lost to Mahdis February 4, 1884 First Battle of El Teb Chinese 4 September 1839 Battle of Kowloon - defensive victory June 24-26, 1859 Second Battle of Taku Forts Russians Petropavlovsk - British landing repelled Battle of the Great Redan - British failure while the French do succeed in taking the Malakoff Balaclava - British lancers and hussars of the light brigade annihilated. Taganrog - failure of the Anglo-French contingent to take Taganrog Siege of Kars - Anglo Turkish force fails to take Kars Zulus Isandlwanna - an entire column wiped out. 1,400 killed Intombe - supply convoy wiped out. 104 dead Hlobane - No. 4 column wiped out. 225 killed Bulgarians Battle of Kosturino 1915 Battle of Doiran 1916 Battle of Doiran 1917 Battle of Doiran 1918 Argentinians 2 April 1982 - Invasion of the Falklands - 100+ Marines and sailors captured 3 April 1982 - Argentinians seize Leith Harbor. 22 Royal Marine POWs 10 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Sheffield 22 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Ardent 23 May 1982 - Battle of Seal Cove 24 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Antelope 25 May 1982 - SS Atlantic Conveyor sunk by Argentinians 25 May 1982 - HMS Coventry is sunk by Arg. aircraft. 29 May 1982 - Mount Kent Battle - 5 SAS dead in friendly fire incident. 6-7 June 1982 - British paratroops vacate position under pressure, leaving radio codes 8 June 1982 - Bluff Cove Air Attacks 10 June 1982 - Skirmish at Many Branch Point - capture of the SAS contingent. Ghurka victories January 1814 - Battle of Makwanpur Gadhi - British army kept at bay January 1814 - Battle of Jitgadh - British attack repulsed with 300 KIA Spring 1814 - Battle of Hariharpur Gadhi - British Indian army stymied. November 1814 - Battle of Nalapani - British force decimated with 700+ casualties December, 1814 - Battle of Jaithak - 53rd Div. defeated and repelled. Dutch 16 August 1652 - Battle of Plymouth - De Ruyter's triumph 30 November 1652 - Battle of Dungeness - Dutch gain control of the English Channel 4 March 1653 - Battle of Leghorn - 5 ships captured or sunk 2 August 1665 - Battle of Vågen 1-4 June 1666 - Four Days' Battle - 10 ships lost with upwards of 4,500 killed and wounded 2-5 September 1666 - Burning of London 9-14 June 1667 - Raid on Medway - Dutch raid, ends with loss of 13 English ships 28 May 1672 - Battle of Solebay 7 -14 June 1673 - Battle of Schooneveld August 21, 1673 - Battle of Texel Others - by the Albanians (the 78th Regiment of Foot at Rosetta), - by the Americans (at Cowpens, in 1813 at Thames, and in 1815 at New Orleans), - by the Poles (in 1810 at Fuengirola), - by the native Indians (at Monongahela), - by the Egyptians (1807 at El-Hamad or Hamaad) - by Native Americans at the first Roanoake Island Colony where they defeated the English colonists who had then had to be rescued by Francis Drake, fleeing by sea (the usual British tactic of fleeing by sea) Among many, many, others.
It's the mark of an ace historian to be able to pull the audience back in time and show events as they were understood by the principle actors of the day. It restores the sense of agency at work and gets away from more deterministic (and boring) ways of presenting history.
The history of the diplomacy is both fascinating and exciting, often on par with learning about the surrounding or even absent direct conflicts. I love learning more about it, great channel!
NICE! I'd love to see more videos on this, maybe showing the Scramble for Africa from the point of view of the other nations, perhaps? Also, super interesting how close Britain came, during this period, to almost facing a massive coalition of enemies. Diplomacy has been often overlooked in history, so it's great to see it start to come to life.
Salisbury one of Britains great Prime Ministers a remarkable man who kept the peace with England staying isolated from the rest of Europe. At that time when he was Prime Minister And Foreign Secretary in Office his Foreign Policy was Splendid Isolate from 1885 - 1902.
British Somaliland was a underated colony it wasn't resource rich but it was in the forefront of the busiest shipping lanes that connected the empire from East to West.
I always love watching your videos, with such incredible quality and information. How do you make your maps in each respective video? Do you use a dedicated mapping program, or Adobe Premier, or something in that vein? Thank you for making such great content!
Thank you very much. No I literally just use Photoshop to make the maps, then premier pro to edit. I learnt by using Dr Ludwig’s tutorial (available on YT). After that just trial and error and taking inspiration from other map styles until I found one I like.
@@OldBritannia Thank you for the insight, I've been thinking of starting a history channel to help people study the subject, so having that as a skill sure does help. Thank you for the reply, it really does means a lot :D. Keep up the good work!
Really great video mate. But soon as you mentioned the road to Cairo like that, I was instantly reminded of the song "Night boat to Cairo," so that' like +100 points on its own!
It's a little bit funny to think how many different aspects played into each other. For example the reason why Bismarck positioned germany for Britain, was because his foreign policy consistently was to try and isolate the french, while the demand of colonies in Africa and Asia, were something he consistently tried to fight against only to give into these demands, once he needed the political support in his own country. And funnily enough the ending of fashoda incident and the resulting convention gave rise to many woes in the German empire, which ultimately resulted in the first moroccan crisis that left the germans politically isolated.
Have you ever thought of doing a videos on the diplomacy of the Polish Partitions 1772-1795, the 1878 Congress of Berlin and the 1912-13 London Conference?
Hi, mate. Sorry, but can I ask what happened with the first Salisbury video? I can't find it anywhere and it was really good. I was going to watch it again but oh well. Anyway great work as always. Your channel is amazing, keep it up!
Apologies, didn’t know for certain if everything was in the Creative Commons etc. so decided I’d err on the side of caution now the channel’s monetised. Will redo it at some point.
I love these maps. Ironically, the one power that the French and Brittish feared the most to upset the balance of power in Africa, was also the one power that ultimately caused them to loose everything. Without the world wars, Africa would in all likelihood still be under colonial domination.
Lolo highly doubtful European grip on Africa was only due to local elites collaboration and the use of local troops to control the population. If it was no longer viable or politically useful those same elites and local troops would turn on the Europeans especially as they took more native land and further impoverished the masses. This whole affair was a mad man's idea.
@@franzjoseph1837 Colonialism in Africa was build on the myth of European invincibility. The World wars shattered that myth, and as a result, the natives in the colonies were more willing to rise up against their colonial masters. At the same time, the colonial masters were bankrupt, and no longer had any appetite for further war. Plus the new superpowers were anti colonialism.
@@Hannodb1961 indeed. WW1 was inevitable once the scramble for colonies began in the 15th century. A ambition to control the world between regional powers always ends in tears and the blood of the conquered and conquerors alike.
I think in order to fix Britain's erratic finances someone gonna occupy Isles and secure his position there, their homeland gonna be someone's interest
