Fight for the pacific

Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

Fight for the Pacific


2.The US financial oligarchy is England's creditor

But all this was nothing more than a means of putting pressure on the powers of the Entente in order to make them more accommodating to US harassment. In fact, the interests of American monopoly capital by that time were already closely connected with the interests of the Entente. From the beginning of the war, the United States became their military arsenal, and then became their main source of funding.

In 1914, American exports to the main allied countries - England, France, Russia, Italy - amounted to 825 million dollars. In 1916, it exceeded 3,200 million dollars, that is, it increased almost 4 times. Exports to Germany and Austria-Hungary during the same time fell as a result of the blockade from 170 million dollars to an insignificant figure - 1.2 million dollars, before April 1917, they exceeded the amount of 2,300 million dollars.

The Morgan banking house played the largest role in the process of turning the United States into an ally of England. Morgan's firm, which even before the war had major ties with the British financial oligarchy, became an agent of British imperialism in the United States with the outbreak of the war, making huge profits on this.

During the first three years of the war, the Morgan monopoly provided only England and France with loans of more than 1.5 billion ammo. dollars. In January 1915, the London government appointed Morgan as its commercial representative in the United States. Already in the first years of the war, Morgan's firm placed military orders in the United States for Britain and its allies worth several billion dollars. It is not surprising that "in the office of Pierpont Morgan and Co. from August 1, 1914, everyone was soul and heart on the side of the Allies" (1) , as Thomas Lamont, a member of the Morgan financial group, later admitted.

By conducting extensive propaganda in exchange for subscribing to loans to the allies, the big bankers involved wide circles of the American bourgeoisie and even part of the petty bourgeoisie in their financial operations. According to Thomas Lamont, about half a million Americans owned US-issued bonds for allies.

The US financial oligarchy most closely linked its calculations for the highest military profits and high profits with the anti-German coalition of the imperialists and was interested in its victory.

This explains the fact that when Wilson submitted to Congress a proposal to break off diplomatic relations with Germany, it met with the support of an overwhelming majority of the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The reason for the President's speech was the announcement by Germany on January 31, 1917 of unlimited submarine warfare.

Three weeks later, President Wilson demanded that Congress give him the right to arm American merchant ships. The United States did not actually enter the war until April 6, a few weeks after the Russian revolution began. In view of the unwillingness of the Russian workers and peasants to shed their blood in the interests of the Anglo-French capitalists and their Russian henchmen, the Entente found itself in a difficult position. The English and French bourgeoisie did not hope to cope with Germany on their own. The American monopolies craved the highest military profits, which they expected to increase as a result of the entry of the United States into the war. They sought to expand the sphere of their dominance, and also feared that Germany would be strengthened too much in the event of the defeat of the Allies and were afraid that that then the loans granted to them will be lost. They believed that the time had come to expand American imperialist expansion by force of arms.

In connection with the newly created situation, the bourgeois propagandists of the United States and Britain for the first time began to widely preach a "community of Anglo-American interests." Historians in both countries have been busy revising history textbooks. Many American textbooks, dominated by anti-English content and anti-English tone, were radically rewritten in a short time.

The outbreak of Anglo-American "friendship", however, quickly faded. The Versailles Peace Conference was the beginning of a new and very important stage in the history of the Anglo-American contradictions that developed in the context of the general crisis of capitalism.

(1) T. Lamont, Henry Davison, New York 1933, p. 7.

3. The USA and England are accomplices of Japanese aggression in China

In the Pacific, British and American diplomats during the First World War had to defend themselves mainly against the expansion of the Japanese "ally". In China, England tried to maintain its position, but American capital became increasingly active, especially towards the end of the war. In Latin America and Canada, American imperialism waged a very successful offensive against the interests of the City. American capital first began to penetrate into Australia. The products of American industry, as well as Japanese goods, everywhere supplanted English industrial products.

The British Foreign Office at the very beginning of the war tried to prevent Japan from entering the war. It was feared in London that Japan, acting as a belligerent ally, would make claims that would significantly harm British interests in the Far East. Therefore, Edward Gray tried to convince the Japanese government that England had no right to accept her armed assistance, since England herself did not enter the war against Russia in 1904 either. against Japan; Britain and Japan jointly carried out imperialist aggression against Soviet Russia. Japanese aggression in China, which threatened the interests of British capital,

Japanese Foreign Minister Kato, for his part, frankly warned Gray that Japan intended to use the war to strengthen its positions in Manchuria and China (1) .

However, behind the diplomatic scenes towards the end of the war there was a significant aggravation of Anglo-Japanese relations, which did not remain a secret for Washington and contributed to the temporary rapprochement between England and the United States.

In trying to prevent or delay Japan's entry into the war, the British government took into account the consequences of such a step from the point of view of its relations with the United States. Just at that time, American Secretary of State Brian turned to the powers with a proposal to neutralize the Pacific Ocean during the war and observe the status quo in the Far East.

The American government's proposal followed China's appeal on August 3, 1914 to the United States with a request "to try to obtain consent from the belligerent European states not to open hostilities on Chinese territory, in the seas surrounding it and on adjacent foreign leaseholds" (2) .

But when Japan, contrary to these diplomatic maneuvers, sent an ultimatum to Germany and then attacked Shandong, the American government remained a passive observer of events, avoiding even diplomatic actions in favor of China. The Chinese government appealed in vain to the United States once again before Japan began hostilities on Chinese soil. When, after the capture of Qingdao, the Japanese threat to China intensified and the Beijing government, through the American ambassador, again tried to find support from the United States, the new Secretary of State Lansing wrote to the American ambassador in Beijing: The United States in International Difficulties".

In connection with 21 demands presented by Japan to China (January 18, 1915), the United States nevertheless came out in defense of its imperialist interests. The American government did not even think of defending the interests of China in any way, making diplomatic demarches in connection with 21 demands and starting negotiations with Japan, which led to the Lansing-Ishii agreement, directed both against China and against Soviet Russia.

Bryan, in a note to the Japanese ambassador (March 13, 1915) regarding Shandong, South Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, stated: "The United States openly admits that territorial proximity creates a special relationship between Japan and these areas." A similar policy of aiding Japanese aggression was pursued by the British government.

Taking advantage of the difficulties of England and other European countries, the USA strengthened its positions in Chinese foreign trade during the war; the share of England (with colonies) in Chinese trade fell from 25.2% in 1913 to 17.1% in 1918.

(1) Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire, New York 1935, p. 184.

(2) W. Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of the US, New York 1938, p. 178.

(3) Griswold, op. cit, p. 184;

4. Aggression of US imperialism in Central America

Pursuing a policy of expansion and complicity in Japanese aggression in the Far East, during the First World War American imperialism went over to an all-out offensive in Central and Caribbean America. Taking advantage of the fact that the European imperialist powers, and above all England, which was especially interested in this region, were engaged in a war, the Wilson government openly carried out armed imperialist aggression there.

In 1915 the USA occupied the Republic of Haiti; while American troops killed more than 2 thousand Haitians. American Admiral Caperton created a puppet government in Haiti, which signed a treaty transferring the republic under US protectorate.

In 1916, the American government sent troops to the Dominican Republic. The Americans have created a puppet government with dictatorial rights here too.

No less rude and open than in Haiti and the Dominican Republic was American aggression in Mexico, the largest Central American republic. Having obtained from London the refusal to support the pro-British government of Huerta, Wilson already in April 1914 received from Congress consent to an armed intervention in Mexico. But even before the decision to intervene was made in the Senate, Wilson gave the order to start hostilities. On April 21, 1914, American troops occupied the city of Vera Cruz with a fight. Huerta resigned a few months later. This did little to help American imperialism. Due to the stubbornness of the Mexican people, the war threatened to drag on. In addition, Argentina, Brazil and Chile openly expressed sympathy for Mexico, offering their mediation. The Washington government was forced to retreat temporarily. But the American oil trusts, with the support of the senators they had bought, continued to demand reprisals against the Mexican national movement. In 1916, the American government, taking advantage of a border incident, ordered General Pershing's cavalry group to invade Mexico. The American troops again met stubborn resistance from the Mexican population, although the Carranza government was not formally involved in this.

Faced with a rebuff, the United States, preparing to enter the world war, considered it best to withdraw its troops from Mexico. American monopoly capital in Mexico during this period was unable to achieve its goals, and with its brazen armed aggression only revived the hatred of the Mexican people for the American rapists with renewed vigor.

In 1916, the United States, strengthening its strategic position in the Panama Canal area, bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark.

* * *

The American and Japanese imperialists became very rich as a result of the First World War. The largest American monopolies have especially profited. However, the First World War, in its entire course and its consequences, was a factor that seriously undermined the world capitalist system and weakened it. The new factors, which marked the advent and development of the era of the general crisis of capitalism, exerted a manifold influence on the policy of monopoly capital and on relations between the imperialist countries, in particular, on Anglo-American relations.

The balance of power between British and American imperialism has changed dramatically. The naval hegemony of England was hopelessly undermined. The US Navy, including the ships under construction, caught up with the British after the war.

Describing the situation that had arisen, Lenin ruthlessly exposed the magnates of the American monopolies.

“The American billionaires,” Lenin pointed out, “were almost the richest of all and were in the safest geographical position. They profited the most. They made everything, even the richest countries, their tributaries. They have plundered hundreds of billions of dollars... Each dollar is a clod of dirt from "profitable" military supplies that enriched the rich in every country and ruined the poor. There are traces of blood on every dollar - from that sea of ​​blood that was shed by 10 million killed and 20 million maimed ... " (1) .

England also became a debtor to the American financial oligarchy. The scarcity of raw materials and food resources in the metropolis itself, the obsolescence of industrial equipment, the weakening of the financial base, the intensification of the class and national liberation struggle throughout the British Empire - all this created gloomy prospects for the British bourgeoisie after the end of the world war. But the appearance in the world of the socialist system, whose very existence was shaking the foundations of capitalism, was of absolutely exceptional significance. The victory of the socialist revolution in Russia and the creation of a new social system there, opposed to imperialism, had a special impact on the countries included in the system of British imperialism. A characteristic feature of British monopoly capital was colonial imperialism,

The British imperialists, taking into account the post-war situation, were preparing for the most extensive maneuvering. They did not even think about retreating from the course of world domination or about the concession of part of their positions. The continuation of such a course was in keeping with their imperialist nature, their traditions and their relative weight among the imperialist powers. In the course of time they hoped to compensate for the weakening of their power in comparison with American imperialism.

(1) V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 28, p. 46.