The "American Threat" That Shaped Europe

In the late 19th century, a rising United States across the Atlantic produced a rare consensus among European industrialists, politicians and economists: an “American threat” was taking shape. The French economist Louis Bosc warned that the US was about to dominate “the entire world.” Germany’s Alldeutsche Blätter lamented that the US possessed a contiguous economic territory and abundant resources. Italy’s La Riforma Sociale called American economic power “the greatest threat.” The debate began in the 1870s, peaked after the Spanish-American War of 1898, revived in the late 1920s and continued into the 1950s.

Why it matters: the argument over the “American threat” was more than an outpouring of anxiety. It forced European elites to rethink a fundamental question — what territory actually meant in a new stage of industrial capitalism. The Harvard historian Sven Beckert takes up that question in “American Danger: United States Empire, Eurafrica, and the Territorialization of Industrial Capitalism, 1870–1950,” published in the American Historical Review in October 2017. Beckert traces the debate and shows how territory came to be seen as a key component of future economic growth and prosperity.

The roots of fear: a non-colonial empire

European anxiety was not unfounded. The US was the first society to rise to power after throwing off colonial rule, and its economic growth made the old continent look sluggish by comparison. The Federation of German Industries even argued that Germans should “arm themselves against America.” Economic and political elites in France, Germany, Belgium and Italy debated with growing urgency how to respond to the “American tide.” At the core of the fear was this: the US had a vast, contiguous economic territory, extremely fertile land and abundant raw materials — advantages sufficient to erode Europe’s competitiveness.

The logic of territorialization: controlling materials, markets and labor

Beckert argues that the debate over the “American threat” revealed a fundamentally new phenomenon in capitalist development after 1870: territory was now seen as the key to economic growth and prosperity. Until the second half of the 20th century, many European entrepreneurs and politicians still held that territorial control over raw materials, markets and labor was an indispensable condition for economic development and political power. That conviction drove the “territorialization” of industrial capitalism — states and capital working together to treat territorial expansion as a means of economic competition.

Eurafrica: Europe’s territorial answer

Facing American pressure, European elites proposed a response with far-reaching consequences: redrawing the territorial layout of the European economy. One plan was to push for integration between Europe and Africa (Eurafrica) — strengthening Europe’s competitiveness by controlling African raw materials and markets. The idea later left its mark on colonial policy and on the process of European integration. Beckert’s analysis suggests that European integration was not simply a peaceful project of European construction; from the start it was tightly interwoven with control over colonial territory.

Impact and dissenting views

The research has prompted discussion about the nature of American empire and about the relationship between European colonialism and integration. Some scholars argue that directly linking European integration to colonial plans may oversimplify the complexity of postwar European cooperation. Others hold that Beckert reveals how the US, as a new kind of empire — a non-colonial one — disrupted Europe’s old colonial order and pushed Europe to reorganize territory through regional integration. Either way, the history is a reminder that today’s debates over trade, resources and geoeconomics trace back to the “American threat” discourse of the late 19th century.

From 1870 to 1950, Europe’s fear of the US not only shaped transatlantic relations but also deeply influenced Europe’s own territorial imagination. When we discuss supply chain security, critical minerals and industrial policy today, the entanglement of territory and economy persists. It may be worth asking: in the age of globalization, is territorial control still a necessary condition for economic prosperity?

Source: Zhihu https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2094709266426880439?utm_medium=openapi_platform&utm_source=b38f6831b176