The Great Game - Part II

PART 2 The Great Game - Part II EXTRACTS | SUMMARY SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Lord Curzon Viceroy of India show of strength =  naval tour of the Persian Gulf coast 1903 Lord Lansdowne, then Foreign Secretary warned off Britain's adversaries: "... we should regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified post on the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to our interests and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal." President Jimmy Carter recently (1980)  made a remarkably similar pronouncement about the Persian Gulf Britain naval power base far from Asia where & how could bring strength to bear upon adversary that is moving from interior of the great Eurasian land mass (ie Russia) Need to bring political objectives in line with RESOURCES + STRATEGIES Post Napoleonic Wars = beginning of British & Russian rivalry = Britain & Russia - two remaining Great Powers in world, it appeared = different kinds of power = Britain: new kid on the block: greatest maritime & commercial power world has ever seen = Russia: giant empire of TRADITIONAL type - LAND ARMY overshadowed all other land armies in world Not clear how they could go to war Scale of strategic objectives of Britain did not match its power Had Russia been as militarily as effective as thought, no way for wealth + fleet to have stopped Russia in interior Eurasia BRITISH WEALTH - SUBSIDISES CONTINENTAL ALLIES Wealthy British subsidise continental allies to do much of their land fighting for them in the Napoleonic & other European wars but could not apply same slippery strategy in Asia: "rotting Islamic empires that were their allies in Asia lacked the fighting power to do the job" BRITISH UPSETTING ALLIES: "London to incite them into fighting losing campaigns from which Britain had no ground forces to extricate them would weaken rather than strengthen the British cause" [ Depends on how you look at it?  If your allies are battered fighting lost cause you have set them up to fight (while you remain unscathed on the sidelines), the allies might be upset ... but they're also surely weakened while you are strengthened?  ] Russo-Persian War of 1826-28 Britain failed to defend Persia PERSIA - BRITAIN DOES NOT DEFEND UNRELIABLE ALLY British inaction reportedly fully justified' = Persia had started war = 1814 mutual defence agreement obligated Britain to defend Persia ONLY against aggression Shah concluded that Britain was an unreliable ally = in effect Persia went over to the Russian side BRITISH ECONOMIC STRENGTH - COMPETITORS Britain's economic strength was great *but competitors existed by second half 1800s France Italy Germany able in large part to supplant Britain in the financial & commercial life of Islamic world BRITISH STRENGTH WAS NETWORK OF SPIES ALL ACROSS ASIA Britain maintained a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia reportedly: "network was able to play a role in helping to deter or stop the Russian advance" CONSTANTINOPLE - MAX. PRESSURE POINT Constantinople was Britain’s strong point From Constantinople British warships could enter the Black Sea & with impunity bombard coast of the Crimea, as was done in Crimean War BUT: if the Russian forces then withdrew from the coast into the interior, there was little that Britain could do Britain: could land troops on shore as an invasion force = but small expeditionary force of this sort could not conquer vast land mass of Russia (Napoleon & his forces failed) CRIMEAN WAR - RUSSIAN STRATEGIC BLUNDER BRITISH & FRENCH ALLIED Russians failed to retreat when the Crimean War invasion took place. Bad move. allowed the allied powers, despite their own abysmal military performance, to inflict a shattering defeat on Russian Army Russia's strategic blundering that had made victory in the Crimean War possible Back to Asia: "unless against all odds such blunders were repeated, it would be difficult if not impossible to project Britain's power into the areas where Britain proposed to contain Russian expansionism" Salisbury = brilliant diplomacy success = averted Britsh (navy power) taking on Russia (land powewer) in Asia 1878 War fever Britons whipped up martial enthusiasm with Jingo song in their music halls Salisbury = won Britain's greatest victory at the Congress of Berlin by sheer force of intellect "Great Britain won a bloodless victory with a music-hall song, a navy of museum pieces, and no land forces at all ... without a reliable continental ally" BRITISH OVER-CONFIDENCE 1878 victory weakened the effectiveness of British policy in the long run. Led British public to believe that they could play a great role without: expense or exertion reform of navy creating an army finding an ally Early 1900s showed Britain, not possible to run sucessful foreign policy (ie agressive foreign policy?) on the cheap BOER WAR = exposed the weakness of Britain's military resources + lack of preparedness RUSSIA - RAILWAY NEARS INDIA Russian railroad construction in Asia = close enough to India so that threat of invasion finally plausible Sir Halford Mackinder = the prophet of geopolitics outlined implications of some of the changes that had occurred in the world 1. development of the railroad / other means of rapid land transportation = transformed the relationship between sea power and land power = formerly navy made a country's armed forces mobile = speed of railroads gave the advantage to land powers operating on interior lines, for they were able to concentrate their forces by sending them rapidly along the straight line which constitutes the shortest distance between two points = seagoing adversary must sail all around the circumference and arrive at the field of combat too late Mackinder noted: = Russia occupied pivot area controlling the Eurasian continent ("where most of mankind lives") = this pivot area was INACCESSIBLE to Britain's kind of power = Mackinder message: Britain had placed her bet on yesterday while Russia had placed hers on tomorrow. RUSSIAN-BRITISH BIPOLAR ORDER - CHALLENGED BY RISE JAPAN, GERMANY + UNITED STATES switch of direction from 1800s objectives for Britain: = Rise Japan, Germany & USA, transformed structure of world politics, making what had been a bipolar world into a multipolar one In this new world, Britain weakness exposed in: Boer War Russia Russo-Japanese War 1905 Revolution fear of Russia was an idea that belonged to "the pre-Germanic age. [ Walter Bagehot ] 1907 Britain & Russia TREATY = composed their differences in Asia = Tibet was neutralized = Afghanistan - Russia not interested (left control of its external policy to Britain) = Persia was divided into three zones Russia taking over the substance of Persia Britain taking over Persia sea-coast Historians mostly say, effect = "Game was over" [ So the key is: Iran / Afghanistan? ] 'Game over' not entirely true, according to David Fromkin / article: Brits claim: Russians went beyond what was allowed under the Persian terms of the treaty not reporting all violations, b/c fear of affect re Anglo-Russian alliance against Germany RUSSIAN WITHDRAWAL Following Russian Revolution, Russia disappeared from the areas in contention for about 4 decades [ ... so we're talking until late 1950s ] Russia willingness to abide by 1907 agreement, therefore not put to the test By time Soviets arrived on scene, Brits leaving = again, not put to the test USA has taken over British position re INFLUENCE + INTEREST in Middle East & South Asia Russian intentions unresolved HISTORIANS on Russia latter half of 1900s: = Russian policy in Asia essentially defensive = Russia put pressure on Britain re Afghanistan, the Pamirs and Tibet was to keep British from attacking the Russians once again in the Black Sea ***** BLACK SEA WAS (IS?) KEY ***** Asia - diversion strategy, also (according to Curzon - and agreed on by historians): keep Britain quiet in Europe = by keeping her employed in Asia British fear of Russia invasion of India was baseless >> occasional Russia distraction in region to prevent British attack on them in Europe Furthermore, Russia of the time, lacked tools for successful India invasion, ie: financial resources transportation facilities capabilities to develop supply routes maps (re hitherto uncharted sections of Central Asia) Even after Russians developed capabilites, India invasion by Russia rationale = unclear, except as "counterbalance a British move against Russia in some other part of the world British fears = irrational [Or just the usual propaganda and no fear, really?] Historian's take: "... lasting hostility between Britain and Russia was based on a quite unreal fear in each of the other's supposed aggressive intentions" USEFUL REMINDER ** how often Russian strength has been exaggerated and Russian intentions misunderstood ** how much of the time Russia acts out of mistaken fear of our intentions rather than out of aggressive intentions Russia may not have intended to engage in expansionism as against British interest but, author argues: " ... czarist empire engaged in expansionism as against the Islamic Asian regimes on the Russian frontier, and intended to do so" "By definition this is expansionism." " ... in the context of nineteenth century opinion this was not a policy for which the Russians necessarily had to apologize." BRITISH EXPANSIONISM "New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States were frequently cited as examples of successful expansionism that served the cause of civilization." [Served the cause of civilisation? Try: imperialist expansion. lol] Expansionist mindset  - Theodore Roosevelt "The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drove the savage from the land has all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori-in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people. . . . it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races." [Theodore Roosevelt |  The Winning of the West (1889–1896), Roosevelt's frontier thesis ] "For the United States to conquer or occupy everything in its way, until it had filled out a continent and created a commonwealth that stretched from one ocean to the other, was a national destiny that seemed manifest. There was no reason for the Russians to think that their destiny was any less clear." RUSSIA Russian Imperial Chancellor, Prince Gorchakov, 1864 " ... need for secure frontiers obliged the Russians to go on devouring the rotting regimes to their south. He pointed out that "the United States in America, France in Algiers, Holland in her colonies-all have been drawn into a course where ambition plays a smaller role than imperious necessity, and the greatest difficulty is knowing where to stop." [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Still enjoying the article. Almost finished. Must break. Kitchen calls. lol ꕤ