Empires after 1919

Old, new, transformed

Jane Burbank, Frederick Cooper

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    1919 was not the death knell of empires: it opened new imperial possibilities. The empires of the losers were destroyed; victors added new territories and a new element - the mandate - to their repertoires; Japan was recognized as a major imperial actor; the Soviet Union constituted a new form of empire; Germany, chafing at its exclusion from the world of empires, created the Third Reich; the US, after promoting a new international order, developed its own way of exercising power at a distance. This article describes the varied trajectories of empires in the decades after the First World War. It notes changes in discourse and international institutions after 1919, but argues against fitting 1919 into a linear narrative of 'empire to nation-state'. Self-determination proved a problematic concept both where it was implemented and where it was not. The forced breakup of the Ottoman Empire led to conflicts that have yet to be resolved. Anti-colonial movements fought oppression, but often sought alternatives to both old-style empires and the territorial state. Colonial empires were able to contain challenges, refine their methods of rule and claim international legitimacy. It took another catastrophe for colonial empires to be fundamentally threatened - by a war that was more the result of the reconfiguration of empires after 1919 than of their decline. The Japanese takeover of southeast Asia began the unraveling of European empires after 1945. Even then, political possibilities that reach well beyond the national continued to shape our world.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)81-100
    Number of pages20
    JournalInternational Affairs
    Volume95
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

    Fingerprint

    Third Reich
    Ottoman Empire
    Western world
    self-determination
    oppression
    Southeast Asia
    nation state
    USSR
    legitimacy
    exclusion
    Japan
    death
    narrative
    discourse

    Keywords

    • International history

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science
    • Political Science and International Relations

    Cite this

    Empires after 1919 : Old, new, transformed. / Burbank, Jane; Cooper, Frederick.

    In: International Affairs, Vol. 95, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 81-100.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Burbank, Jane ; Cooper, Frederick. / Empires after 1919 : Old, new, transformed. In: International Affairs. 2019 ; Vol. 95, No. 1. pp. 81-100.
    @article{e30a8e8f33b64aa5a39c7c8713de3db8,
    title = "Empires after 1919: Old, new, transformed",
    abstract = "1919 was not the death knell of empires: it opened new imperial possibilities. The empires of the losers were destroyed; victors added new territories and a new element - the mandate - to their repertoires; Japan was recognized as a major imperial actor; the Soviet Union constituted a new form of empire; Germany, chafing at its exclusion from the world of empires, created the Third Reich; the US, after promoting a new international order, developed its own way of exercising power at a distance. This article describes the varied trajectories of empires in the decades after the First World War. It notes changes in discourse and international institutions after 1919, but argues against fitting 1919 into a linear narrative of 'empire to nation-state'. Self-determination proved a problematic concept both where it was implemented and where it was not. The forced breakup of the Ottoman Empire led to conflicts that have yet to be resolved. Anti-colonial movements fought oppression, but often sought alternatives to both old-style empires and the territorial state. Colonial empires were able to contain challenges, refine their methods of rule and claim international legitimacy. It took another catastrophe for colonial empires to be fundamentally threatened - by a war that was more the result of the reconfiguration of empires after 1919 than of their decline. The Japanese takeover of southeast Asia began the unraveling of European empires after 1945. Even then, political possibilities that reach well beyond the national continued to shape our world.",
    keywords = "International history",
    author = "Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper",
    year = "2019",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1093/ia/iiy243",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "95",
    pages = "81--100",
    journal = "International Affairs",
    issn = "0020-5850",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Empires after 1919

    T2 - Old, new, transformed

    AU - Burbank, Jane

    AU - Cooper, Frederick

    PY - 2019/1/1

    Y1 - 2019/1/1

    N2 - 1919 was not the death knell of empires: it opened new imperial possibilities. The empires of the losers were destroyed; victors added new territories and a new element - the mandate - to their repertoires; Japan was recognized as a major imperial actor; the Soviet Union constituted a new form of empire; Germany, chafing at its exclusion from the world of empires, created the Third Reich; the US, after promoting a new international order, developed its own way of exercising power at a distance. This article describes the varied trajectories of empires in the decades after the First World War. It notes changes in discourse and international institutions after 1919, but argues against fitting 1919 into a linear narrative of 'empire to nation-state'. Self-determination proved a problematic concept both where it was implemented and where it was not. The forced breakup of the Ottoman Empire led to conflicts that have yet to be resolved. Anti-colonial movements fought oppression, but often sought alternatives to both old-style empires and the territorial state. Colonial empires were able to contain challenges, refine their methods of rule and claim international legitimacy. It took another catastrophe for colonial empires to be fundamentally threatened - by a war that was more the result of the reconfiguration of empires after 1919 than of their decline. The Japanese takeover of southeast Asia began the unraveling of European empires after 1945. Even then, political possibilities that reach well beyond the national continued to shape our world.

    AB - 1919 was not the death knell of empires: it opened new imperial possibilities. The empires of the losers were destroyed; victors added new territories and a new element - the mandate - to their repertoires; Japan was recognized as a major imperial actor; the Soviet Union constituted a new form of empire; Germany, chafing at its exclusion from the world of empires, created the Third Reich; the US, after promoting a new international order, developed its own way of exercising power at a distance. This article describes the varied trajectories of empires in the decades after the First World War. It notes changes in discourse and international institutions after 1919, but argues against fitting 1919 into a linear narrative of 'empire to nation-state'. Self-determination proved a problematic concept both where it was implemented and where it was not. The forced breakup of the Ottoman Empire led to conflicts that have yet to be resolved. Anti-colonial movements fought oppression, but often sought alternatives to both old-style empires and the territorial state. Colonial empires were able to contain challenges, refine their methods of rule and claim international legitimacy. It took another catastrophe for colonial empires to be fundamentally threatened - by a war that was more the result of the reconfiguration of empires after 1919 than of their decline. The Japanese takeover of southeast Asia began the unraveling of European empires after 1945. Even then, political possibilities that reach well beyond the national continued to shape our world.

    KW - International history

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062174223&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062174223&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1093/ia/iiy243

    DO - 10.1093/ia/iiy243

    M3 - Article

    VL - 95

    SP - 81

    EP - 100

    JO - International Affairs

    JF - International Affairs

    SN - 0020-5850

    IS - 1

    ER -