Expansionism in the context of "Lebensraum"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Expansionism in the context of "Lebensraum"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Expansionism

Expansionism refers to states obtaining greater territory through military empire-building or colonialism.

In the classical age of conquest moral justification for territorial expansion at the direct expense of another established polity (who often faced displacement, subjugation, slavery, rape and execution) was often as unapologetic as "because we can" treading on the philosophical grounds of might makes right.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
In this Dossier

Expansionism in the context of Creation of Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia was a state concept among the South Slavic intelligentsia and later popular masses from the 19th to early 20th centuries that culminated in its realization after the 1918 collapse of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I and the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. However, from as early as 1922 onward, the kingdom was better known colloquially as Yugoslavia (or similar variants); in 1929 the name was made official when the country was formally renamed the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia".

The creation of Yugoslavia has been described as expansionist and irredentist in its approach to foreign policy, and federalist in its approach to politics, with power centralised in the Serb-dominated government. Despite the idea of Yugoslavism having promoted equality among the South Slavic ethnic groups, the new Yugoslav state was ruled by the Serbian Karađorđević dynasty that sought to implement pro-Serb policies throughout the country, leaving minority groups like Croatians and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) not feeling represented in the new government. This led to the formation of opposition parties that became identified with particular ethnic groups within the country. Similarly, the concept of Yugoslavism became associated with the idea of a South Slavic nation dominated by Serbs; and in some instances, forced cultural assimilation policies introduced by the Serb-led Yugoslav government. However, the creation of Yugoslavia remained popular even among non-Serbs, as it was seen as a means of unification for South Slavs to protect themselves against non-Slavic powers such as Fascist Italy.

↑ Return to Menu

Expansionism in the context of Historiography of World War II

The historiography of World War II is the study of how historians portray the causes, conduct, and outcomes of World War II.

There are different perspectives on the causes of the war; the three most prominent are the Orthodox from the 1950s, Revisionist from the 1970s, and Post-Revisionism which offers the most contemporary perspective. The orthodox perspective arose during the aftermath of the war. The main historian noted for this perspective is Hugh Trevor-Roper. Orthodox historians argue that Hitler was a master planner who intentionally started World War II due to his strong beliefs on fascism, expansionism, and the supremacy of the German state. Revisionist historians argue that it was an ordinary war by world standards and that Hitler was an opportunist of the sort who commonly appears in world history; he merely took advantage of the opportunities given to him. This viewpoint became popular in the 1970s, especially in the revisionism of A. J. P. Taylor. Orthodox historians argue that, throughout the course of the war, the Axis powers were an evil consuming the world with their powerful message and malignant ideology, while the Allied powers were trying to protect democracy and freedom. Post-revisionist historians of the causes, such as Alan Bullock, argue that the cause of the war was a matter of both the evil and the banal. Essentially Hitler was a strategist with clear aims and objectives, that would not have been achievable without taking advantage of the opportunities given to him. Each perspective of World War II offers a different analysis and provides different perspectives on the blame, conduct and causes of the war.

↑ Return to Menu

Expansionism in the context of Colonies in antiquity

Colonies in antiquity were post-Iron Age city-states founded from a mother-city or metropolis rather than from a territory-at-large. Bonds between a colony and its metropolis often remained close, and took specific forms during the period of classical antiquity.Generally, colonies founded by the ancient Phoenicians, Carthage, Rome, Alexander the Great and his successors remained tied to their metropolis, though Greek colonies of the Archaic and Classical eras were sovereign and self-governing from their inception. While earlier Greek colonies were often founded to solve social unrest in the mother-city by expelling a part of the population, Hellenistic, Roman, Carthaginian, and Han Chinese colonies served as centres for trade (entrepôts), expansion and empire-building.

↑ Return to Menu

Expansionism in the context of European colonies

The phenomenon of colonization is one that has occurred around the globe and across time. Various ancient and medieval polities established colonies – such as the Phoenicians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Han Chinese, and Arabs. The High Middle Ages saw colonising Europeans moving west, north, east and south. The medieval Crusader states in the Levant exemplify some colonial features similar to those of colonies in the ancient world.

A new phase of European colonialism began with the "Age of Discovery", led by the Portuguese, who became increasingly expansionist following the conquest of Ceuta in 1415. Portugal aimed to control navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar, to spread Christianity, to amass wealth and plunder, and to suppress predation on Portuguese populations by Barbary pirates (who operated as part of a longstanding African slave tradeat that point a minor trade, one the Portuguese would soon reverse and surpass). Around 1450 the Portuguese developed a lighter ship, the caravel based on North African fishing boats. Caravels could sail further and faster than previous vessels, were highly maneuverable, and could sail into the wind.

↑ Return to Menu

Expansionism in the context of Imperialism

Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more formal empire.

While related to the concept of colonialism, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.

↑ Return to Menu

Expansionism in the context of Isolationism

Isolationism is a term used to refer to a political philosophy advocating a foreign policy that opposes involvement in the political affairs, and especially the wars, of other countries. Thus, isolationism fundamentally advocates neutrality and opposes entanglement in military alliances and mutual defense pacts. In its purest form, isolationism opposes all commitments to foreign countries, including treaties and trade agreements. In the political science lexicon, there is also the term of "non-interventionism", which is sometimes improperly used to replace the concept of "isolationism". "Non-interventionism" is commonly understood as "a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries' internal affairs". "Isolationism" should be interpreted more broadly as "a foreign policy grand strategy of military and political non-interference in international affairs and in the internal affairs of sovereign states, associated with trade and economic protectionism and cultural and religious isolation, as well as with the inability to be in permanent military alliances, with the preservation, however, some opportunities to participate in temporary military alliances that meet the current interests of the state and in permanent international organizations of a non-military nature."

This contrasts with philosophies such as colonialism, expansionism, and liberal internationalism.

↑ Return to Menu

Expansionism in the context of Spanish–American War

The Spanish–American War (April 21 – August 13, 1898) was fought between Spain and the United States in 1898. It began with the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor in Cuba, and resulted in the U.S. acquiring sovereignty over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, and establishing a protectorate over Cuba. It represented U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and Philippine Revolution, with the latter later leading to the Philippine–American War. The Spanish–American War brought an end to almost four centuries of Spanish presence in the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific; the United States meanwhile not only became a major world power, but also gained several island possessions spanning the globe, which provoked rancorous debate over the wisdom of expansionism.

The 19th century represented a clear decline for the Spanish Empire, while the United States went from a newly founded country to a rising power. In 1895, Cuban nationalists began a revolt against Spanish rule, which was brutally suppressed by the colonial authorities. W. Joseph Campbell argues that yellow journalism in the U.S. exaggerated the atrocities in Cuba to sell more newspapers and magazines, which swayed American public opinion in support of the rebels. But historian Andrea Pitzer also points to the actual shift toward savagery of the Spanish military leadership, who adopted the brutal reconcentration policy after replacing the relatively conservative Governor-General of Cuba Arsenio Martínez Campos with the more unscrupulous and aggressive Valeriano Weyler, nicknamed "The Butcher." President Grover Cleveland resisted mounting demands for U.S. intervention, as did his successor William McKinley. Though not seeking a war, McKinley made preparations in readiness for one.

↑ Return to Menu