Which African countries had most potential for more white settlement?

[Socrates]

In ATLs, which parts of Africa were suitable for white settlement but didn't get that much in OTL? People cite malaria as a reason for low settlement in, say, Malawi, but Angola and Mozambique can't be much better and had huge numbers. The climate of places like Eritrea doesn't seem particularly special, yet it managed more white settlement than othe rplaces.

So your challenge is to find countries that could have plausibly had lots more white settlement if the politics had been different. I'm thinking Tanzania is a prime option.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Kenya and Namibia are two African countries that could had seen a lot more of a lucrative location for European settlers.

[Æsir]

In ATLs, which parts of Africa were suitable for white settlement but didn't get that much in OTL? People cite malaria as a reason for low settlement in, say, Malawi, but Angola and Mozambique can't be much better and had huge numbers. The climate of places like Eritrea doesn't seem particularly special, yet it managed more white settlement than othe rplaces.

So your challenge is to find countries that could have plausibly had lots more white settlement if the politics had been different. I'm thinking Tanzania is a prime option.

Much of Angola and the Horn of Africa are outside the range of the Tsetse fly, which is a major disease carrier, which is one reason.

As Cuāuhtemōc said, Namibia (Which is especially interesting to me as with no World War I, it could end up a German settler colony) and the highlands of East Africa had some white settlement IOTL, and if for whatever reason more Europeans moved to Africa, would likely attract a good share of the settlers.

[BlondieBC]

As Cuāuhtemōc said, Namibia (Which is especially interesting to me as with no World War I, it could end up a German settler colony) and the highlands of East Africa had some white settlement IOTL, and if for whatever reason more Europeans moved to Africa, would likely attract a good share of the settlers.

The death toll of WW1 ended the population export of Europe. Remove the war, and there are additional whitish areas in Africa similar to South Africa. We are talking 200-300 million more people of European descent outside of Europe today. Many would be in the Western Hemisphere, but 10 of million would be in Africa. And if the settlers were willing to take a more limited area, such as just the highlands of Kenya as a country, these areas could be white majority.

In ATLs, which parts of Africa were suitable for white settlement but didn't get that much in OTL? People cite malaria as a reason for low settlement in, say, Malawi, but Angola and Mozambique can't be much better and had huge numbers. The climate of places like Eritrea doesn't seem particularly special, yet it managed more white settlement than othe rplaces.

So your challenge is to find countries that could have plausibly had lots more white settlement if the politics had been different. I'm thinking Tanzania is a prime option.

The key is elevation. High elevation makes it easier to drain swamps and makes the temperature more Europe like. South Africa is obviously the best area, but other area are as follows, especially if you can accept smaller settler colonies. For example, something the size of Belgium instead of the size of Germany.

1) Angola Highlands. Good rainfall, good soil, good sites for hydro dams. Down side is lack of coal, but SA is not too far away.

2) Parts of Kamerun are good locations. Same as Angola.

3) Little bit of NE Nigeria, and some coal nearby.

4) Around Kilamanjaro, German East Africa.

5) Rwanda and Burundi.

6) Highlands of Kenya.

8) Uplands of Uganda.

Edit: You can look at my TL for a little background, but it is real spread around. Most of these places also need at least 100 million marks of infrastructure for dams, railroads, and ports. This is either a huge amount (compared to a 10 million mark budget for SWA at its peak) or a trivial amount (600 million marks spent on rebellion in SWA).

[wolf_brother]

Much of Angola and the Horn of Africa are outside the range of the Tsetse fly, which is a major disease carrier, which is one reason.

Angola and Somalia aren't exactly well situated to Western European-style settlement, tsetse fly aside.

Ethiopia, especially the lowlands, Nubia would have been a very viable target for European settlement if the Ethiopians hadn't been able to keep it together (and keep the whites out, for the most part).

[BlondieBC]

Angola and Somalia aren't exactly well situated to Western European-style settlement, tsetse fly aside.

Ethiopia, especially the lowlands, Nubia would have been a very viable target for European settlement if the Ethiopians hadn't been able to keep it together (and keep the whites out, for the most part).

Can you be more specific.

Angola was consider well suited then and was well suited in fact.

[Clandango]

Depends on how white you would want the area to be. Is a mixed race majority allowed for this?

[King of Rome]

White as in European? ... Or American Caucasian... or Australians... or just all Caucasians in general?

[Clandango]

White as in European? ... Or American Caucasian... or Australians... or just all Caucasians in general?

Anyone north of the Sahara and west of the Indus should do it.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

White as in European? ... Or American Caucasian... or Australians... or just all Caucasians in general?

Europeans.

How about Zambia?

[Arachnid]

Outside South Africa and Rhodesia I think the next best bet is Tanzania for white settlement.

[King of Rome]

I suppose this is a long shot, but the Jewish Homeland could have been designated somewhere in Africa. I know that's ASB, but you never know.

[BlondieBC]

I suppose this is a long shot, but the Jewish Homeland could have been designated somewhere in Africa. I know that's ASB, but you never know.

It not ASB, it was consider initially.

And if the Ottomans remain strong, there never will be a majority Jewish nation near the Jordan River. So, it is either Africa or Belarus.

[IndefatigableRN]

The death toll of WW1 ended the population export of Europe. Remove the war, and there are additional whitish areas in Africa similar to South Africa.

Not really. Millions left Britain after the First World War to go to the Dominions. In fact, the war often made it more likely to emigrate from Europe. In Africa, Southern Rhodesia and South Africa were the two main destinations, especially after the Second World War.

The thing is, why would you go to Africa when you can go to Canada, Australia, New Zealand or America where society is pretty much set up for you.

South Africa could have had more immigrants after the Second World War, but the Nationalists made it more difficult, fearing immigrants would vote for the United Party.

[King of Rome]

It not ASB, it was consider initially.

And if the Ottomans remain strong, there never will be a majority Jewish nation near the Jordan River. So, it is either Africa or Belarus.

So where were they thinking of carving land out for the Jews in Africa?

[Michael Wittmann]

Gambia? Mauritius? Comoros? Seychelles? they're small countries BTW.

[Socrates]

Depends on how white you would want the area to be. Is a mixed race majority allowed for this?

It doesn't have to be majority. Just more whites.

I've very intrigued in what made an area good for white settlement. Mozambique got huge numbers despite it having both malaria and the tsetse fly.

[BlondieBC]

Not really. Millions left Britain after the First World War to go to the Dominions. In fact, the war often made it more likely to emigrate from Europe. In Africa, Southern Rhodesia and South Africa were the two main destinations, especially after the Second World War.

The thing is, why would you go to Africa when you can go to Canada, Australia, New Zealand or America where society is pretty much set up for you.

South Africa could have had more immigrants after the Second World War, but the Nationalists made it more difficult, fearing immigrants would vote for the United Party.

Yes, WW1 did help reduce/end white migration out of Europe. The UK is only a very small part of the total European population. The thread asks for White, not English. And with England which suffered a lot less than other countries, it has a noticeable effect.

And the infrastructure is a large reason the "settler" colonies of Africa failed. For example, Germany wanted whites to move to Africa not the USA/South America, but it was unwilling to pony up the 100 million to 500 million need per colony for basic infrastructure - roads, dams, medicine programs, colleges, etc.

And that being said, even with OTL investment, a noticeable percentage of the 300+ million extra whites in the world would be in Africa. If only 10%, then we are looking at 30 million whites or more likely with intermarriage 60+ million people of partial European descent. I can't tell you which countries, but I am sure without WW2, we have at least one more South Africa (15% white) and we have potential for a white majority area if the country is the size of Lesotho. And Africa would be a lot more culturally European, and many areas would speak European languages.

As to your WW2 comment, without WW1, South Africa will not have the same policies.

[BlondieBC]

So where were they thinking of carving land out for the Jews in Africa?


Highland of British East Africa. They also consider moving huge numbers of Indians to the location.

In 1900, Africa population was a lot near to 30 million than the 600 million today. In areas that were fertile and used herding, there was a tendency to see European density farming areas. Since farming can support up to 100 times the population of hunter gathering and probably 10 times the population of herding, they would have simply overwhelmed the local population.

This is from memory. Angola where I looked at for my TL had under 3 million people and is twice the size of Texas. What would happen in an ATL where it would be made New Zion, is the black population would be largely moved out of a large area, maybe the size of East Texas, and then the Jews would be allowed to move in. It is not pretty by our standards, but it is what they consider.

In many Europeans minds, a horse was more valuable than a black man. I can easily find stats of the horse lost in Africa in various wars, but it was not worth the ink to record the number of black deaths. In reality, most settler colonies are basically ethnic cleansing over a generation or two combined with blacks being reduced to more than slaves but far less than freemen.

[oshron]

So where were they thinking of carving land out for the Jews in Africa?
i'd heard uganda; iirc, there are actually some jewish descendants somewhere in east africa who, in the present day, most closely resemble black africans but still carry on old hebrew customs. supposedly, their ancestors brought the ark of the covenant into africa when they emigrated there

[BlondieBC]

Gambia? Mauritius? Comoros? Seychelles? they're small countries BTW.

For Kamerun, the area that is most likely would be the West Province, since it had the most "European" climate. It is now heavily populated, but in 1900 it was lightly populated. South, Centre, East, and Littorial are malaria swamps. A German white country would try to keep Douala. Northwest and Southwest are not that great either. Adamawa is herding and disease free, so the natives might be displaced.

Now without WW1 and eventual decolonization a few generations later and enough support from the German government, you can get two scenarios. A smaller German Kamerun of just the West Provence that is majority white. Or you can get more of a South Africa racial breakout.

Kamerun had 5 million people in 1960, so the black population was around 2-3 in the early 1900's. We only need 250,000 immigrants between 1920-1950 to get a South African type demographic. IT sounds like a lot, but it is just 8000 people or so per year, and with the world wars, German has 10-30 million more Germans by 1960.

If you take a POD of 1885, the number goes down a lot more to just a couple thousand immigrants per year need to be diverted to Kamerun.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Provinces_of_Cameroon_EN.svg

[BlondieBC]

Angola had 4.5 million in 1960, so again the 2-3 million of population. But it is a huge country, and if you look at the map below, the good land is roughly the red box. you will notice the 3 main rail lines from the coast, so it easily divides into 3 parts, each with under a million people. As low as 100,000 whites will give you a south African look. And with 500,000 whites and decent bit of ethnic cleansing, you have an easy white majority area. At this time around WW1, there are easily 3 million plus Jews in Europe, so there is plenty to make it a Jewish state. Or to look at it another way, if the immigration to Israel post 1919 went to 1/3 of Angola instead, it would be a Jewish majority state by a wide margin. And without the two World Wars, there are a lot more Jews in the world.

[pearsonwright]

I'd say Spanish Sahara, German South-West Africa, and Italian Libya all have potential as they have large coastlines and (relatively) low native populations.

More Committed settlement by these Colonial powers, more ethnic cleansing (or a combination of both) could have led these area's to have more white Settlement.

Spanish Sahara seems to have the most potential, due to its really low population (even today, Western Sahara has a population of half a million or less). Another possible (if unlikely) Scenario could be the United State taking it in the Spanish American War, and It becoming a destination for very poor immigrants who can't afford a transatlantic voyage, or perhaps it becomes a Military staging ground.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/WesternSahara1909.png

Italian Libya could be majority white had Italy remained Neutral in WWII. There was also speculation as Libya as a site for a Jewish State (it had a 4% Jewish Population at one point)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/1940italianlibia.jpg

German South-West Africa is a bit harder, but if Germany won WWI (or there was no WWI), It theoretically could become majority white with an overall low population due to the genocides against the local population the Germans were committing.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PoMvUf6E8Ws/TzhCwkSPJFI/AAAAAAAACNM/IWHv23K-nik/s1600/1909_German_SW_Africa_.jpg

[pearsonwright]

Angola had 4.5 million in 1960, so again the 2-3 million of population. But it is a huge country, and if you look at the map below, the good land is roughly the red box. you will notice the 3 main rail lines from the coast, so it easily divides into 3 parts, each with under a million people. As low as 100,000 whites will give you a south African look. And with 500,000 whites and decent bit of ethnic cleansing, you have an easy white majority area. At this time around WW1, there are easily 3 million plus Jews in Europe, so there is plenty to make it a Jewish state. Or to look at it another way, if the immigration to Israel post 1919 went to 1/3 of Angola instead, it would be a Jewish majority state by a wide margin. And without the two World Wars, there are a lot more Jews in the world.

Perhaps Portuguese Angolans ( who numbered at least 350,000 at one point ) could have all fled to the Cabinda province of Angola, and quickly become a Majority as a Portuguese exclave, when Portugal is ready to give up most of Angola.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Angola_Provinces_Cabinda_250px.png

[Æsir]

Cabinda I would think would have the worst climate in Angola for white settlement; closer to the equator than the rest and given how small it is and being right on the coast, I'd assume none of it is very highly elevated. Most likely it falls into the belt that gave Africa the 19th century moniker of "The white man's grave".

[BlondieBC]

I'd say Spanish Sahara, German South-West Africa, and Italian Libya all have potential as they have large coastlines and (relatively) low native populations.

More Committed settlement by these Colonial powers, more ethnic cleansing (or a combination of both) could have led these area's to have more white Settlement.

Spanish Sahara seems to have the most potential, due to its really low population (even today, Western Sahara has a population of half a million or less). Another possible (if unlikely) Scenario could be the United State taking it in the Spanish American War, and It becoming a destination for very poor immigrants who can't afford a transatlantic voyage, or perhaps it becomes a Military staging ground.

Italian Libya could be majority white had Italy remained Neutral in WWII. There was also speculation as Libya as a site for a Jewish State (it had a 4% Jewish Population at one point)

German South-West Africa is a bit harder, but if Germany won WWI (or there was no WWI), It theoretically could become majority white with an overall low population due to the genocides against the local population the Germans were committing.



On Italy, just have it skip WW1 or enter late like the USA did. Either one gives it a lot more population, and Libya is likely a part of Italy.

If we are doing north of the Sahara, then Algeria is a prime candidate. It was reasonably close to being kept IOTL, so again, skipping either WW1 or WW2 is likely enough.

Agreed on SWA for Germany with the war, but I doubt it would be enough to hold the available Germans who might want to move to Africa, so I think there would be a second spillover settler colony. Again, no WW1.

The Spanish Sahara is also interesting. If Spain had a policy to promote, it could easily be white.


Perhaps Portuguese Angolans ( who numbered at least 350,000 at one point ) could have all fled to the Cabinda province of Angola, and quickly become a Majority as a Portuguese exclave, when Portugal is ready to give up most of Angola.



Not likely, they are not going to move into a swamp. And by then, 350K versus 12,000K blacks is too low a ratio. I have read some TL where it went differently, and Portugal encourage white immigration from the 1920's onward, but I don't remember the TL or even if it was on this board.

[pearsonwright]

On Italy, just have it skip WW1 or enter late like the USA did. Either one gives it a lot more population, and Libya is likely a part of Italy.

If we are doing north of the Sahara, then Algeria is a prime candidate. It was reasonably close to being kept IOTL, so again, skipping either WW1 or WW2 is likely enough.

Agreed on SWA for Germany with the war, but I doubt it would be enough to hold the available Germans who might want to move to Africa, so I think there would be a second spillover settler colony. Again, no WW1.

The Spanish Sahara is also interesting. If Spain had a policy to promote, it could easily be white.




Not likely, they are not going to move into a swamp. And by then, 350K versus 12,000K blacks is too low a ratio. I have read some TL where it went differently, and Portugal encourage white immigration from the 1920's onward, but I don't remember the TL or even if it was on this board.

Algeria has a much higher native population, so it would be much harder to do, but possible still. (Perhaps the French remove some or all of the Algerians to neighboring Morocco and Tunisia?)

There weren't many German's who wanted to move to Africa as the German's had designs on areas of Poland for German Settlement, but if South West Africa fills up (which will take a lot of time), I could see German settlers trying to settle Germany's Pacific colonies or Togo perhaps. German East Africa and Cameroon would require Ethnic cleansing or genocide on such a massive scale, it would be very hard to get a White majority at any point.

Could Franco perhaps use Spanish Sahara as a large Prisoner colony? and, is America taking Spanish Sahara in the Spanish-American war unlikely or even ASB?

Good point on Cabinda

[Clandango]

Nationalist Spain believed that Africa began at the Pyrennees and that Europe began at the Atlas. Just reclaffify Moroccans as they did.

[wolf_brother]

Can you be more specific.

Angola was consider well suited then and was well suited in fact.

What? :confused:

Angola was and is a horrible condition for European settlement. Even to this day only some 3% of the country's population is European or European-descended. The Portuguese didn't even attempt to start settling white colonists there until 1838, though they had effectively held the territory since the late 16th/early 17th centuries. Even then by 1846 there were less than five thousand whites in all of Portuguese Angola. Hell, the largest influx of white settlers came decades later, and that was from far-flung Boers migrating north out of the British sphere of influence. European penetration of the country actually dropped off in the later years of the 19th century - by 1910 there was nearly less than half the number of whites in Angola than there had been half a century earlier.

Angola simply isn't situated for Western European style settlement. In the north its extensively jungle, malarial, swampy, sparsed with rolling hills and a few large mountains. In the south its an arid savannah bleeding into desert, with even more numerous and larger mountains in between the two regions. And that's just a long the coastline. The further inland you get the more of an arid wasteland it turns into unless you're following the Congo river north out of the modern state's borders, and even there its too malarial for European settlement.

Angola is/was a horrible target for increased white settlement.

[BlondieBC]

What? :confused:

Angola was and is a horrible condition for European settlement. Even to this day only some 3% of the country's population is European or European-descended. The Portuguese didn't even attempt to start settling white colonists there until 1838, though they had effectively held the territory since the late 16th/early 17th centuries. Even then by 1846 there were less than five thousand whites in all of Portuguese Angola. Hell, the largest influx of white settlers came decades later, and that was from far-flung Boers migrating north out of the British sphere of influence. European penetration of the country actually dropped off in the later years of the 19th century - by 1910 there was nearly less than half the number of whites in Angola than there had been half a century earlier.

Angola simply isn't situated for Western European style settlement. In the north its extensively jungle, malarial, swampy, sparsed with rolling hills and a few large mountains. In the south its an arid savannah bleeding into desert, with even more numerous and larger mountains in between the two regions. And that's just a long the coastline. The further inland you get the more of an arid wasteland it turns into unless you're following the Congo river north out of the modern state's borders, and even there its too malarial for European settlement.

Angola is/was a horrible target for increased white settlement.

I see what you are doing. You are confusing the Portuguese decision to not make Angola a settler colony with the underlying Geography. Sure, Angola is not as good as the USA or Australia, but it is workable.

You are right that parts of Angola are not good for settlement. As we head down towards the Congo, the swampier land is not good. The same on some of the more arid desert land. But there are good places.

The coastal strip of about 60 miles is arid but it has a climate similar to LA, San Diego or Baja California. If dams are built, it many of the advantages of a very rich region of the USA. But more likely, we just get ports here originally and some European Film industry.

The settlement would be on the Highlands. As the elevation rises, it catches the last of the water from the easterly winds. It was the area the Europeans would have settled. From Wiki.


The high plateau, with an altitude ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 feet (1,200 to 1,800 m), lies to the east of the hills and mountains and dominates Angola's terrain. It consists of well-watered, wide, rolling plains, and low hills with scanty vegetation. The surface of the plateau is typically flat or rolling, but parts of the Benguela Plateau and the Humpata Highland area of the Huíla Plateau in the south reach heights of 2,500 meters and more. The Malanje Plateau to the north rarely exceeds 1,000 meters in height. The Benguela Plateau and the coastal area in the immediate environs of Benguela and Lobito, the Bié Plateau, the Malanje Plateau, and a small section of the Huíla Plateau near the town of Lubango have long been among the most densely settled areas in Angola. In the east the tableland falls away to the basins of the Congo and Zambezi, to the south in Namibia it merges into a barren sandy desert


The key to making it work is damming the high streams and irrigation. You will get an area that roughly resembles Southern California. Dry coastal cities with great weather fed by inland dams. And an agricultural are to the east that is also fed by irrigation. It will be no where near as prosperous as California, because it will not be attached to a large white nation, but it can exists, with investment.

[BlondieBC]

There weren't many German's who wanted to move to Africa as the German's had designs on areas of Poland for German Settlement, but if South West Africa fills up (which will take a lot of time), I could see German settlers trying to settle Germany's Pacific colonies or Togo perhaps. German East Africa and Cameroon would require Ethnic cleansing or genocide on such a massive scale, it would be very hard to get a White majority at any point.


You are overestimating how long it takes to fill up SWA. It 1960 population ws around 600K, so this is a good ballpark figure for discussion. Whites will take up more land than blacks due to higher demands for standard of living. Whites will also keep some blacks as a cheap labor pool. So a realistic range for a white settler colony is 100K to 300K, probably a lot closer to the lower number. And the white population will have a positive growth rate between 1914 and 1960. So it will only absorb between 50K and 100K white immigrants. And a lot less if the go the Rhodesia model with 3% white or South Africa with 15%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Namibia-demography.png

Now to the other side of the coin. Germans being exported.

How many Germans were lost in WW1? Before the war, Germany had 1800K births per year. After the war 1200K is high end. Now some land was lost, so lets call this 500K not 600K fewer births. Over 40 years, this is 24,000 missing Germans. I am not doing the greater demographic issues of WW2.

Now many of the Germans will stay in Germany, some will replace the Turkish and other immigrants in modern Germany. But many will immigrate to other areas, the question is where do they go. That is impossible to answer without a full TL. So let's go at this a different way. How much to fill up SWA. Well lets imagine by 1920, the infrastructure is finished. They were doing some rail work at the beginning of the war. If the Germans have only 6000 for 10 years move to Nambia, it will probably be a full colony since the population back then was closer to 100K, if memory serves me. So take base population of whites in 1920-10K. Add 60K immigrants. This gives a base of 70K. Now double due to population growth, and this gives ups about 140K whites in a country of 300K.

Or to put another way, if 1% of the people never born in Germany alone go to Africa (240K+), not only does it fill up Nambia where it is plurality white, we also have another major settler colony somewhere with a half million Germans. I think the likely immigration numbers out of Germany would be much higher, since many countries are likely to tighten immigration rules. If the USA shuts down immigration in the 1920 or 1930's (think reaction to dust bowl), then we can easily see a single year with over 100K German immigrants to Africa, provided someone has laid the ground work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany

[wolf_brother]

[...] It will be no where near as prosperous as California, because it will not be attached to a large white nation, but it can exists, with investment.

But why would any European nation be willing to make such an investment? This isn't a game of Civ where you simply build up settlers willy-nilly and try to grab every available plot of land you can. You're making an argument that rests on the assumption that the Portuguese would be willingly to spend unimaginably vast sums of money and employ hundreds of thousands of laborers to turn uninhabitable lands into semi-habitable ones.

[Socrates]

How about Zambia?

Quite possibly! What do we know about it?

I'd say Spanish Sahara, German South-West Africa, and Italian Libya all have potential as they have large coastlines and (relatively) low native populations.

There's a reason the Spanish Sahara wasn't really settled:

http://0.tqn.com/d/goafrica/1/0/7/F/laayounelooklex.jpg

I'm not looking to try to get white majority areas. I'm looking to get as many white immigrants to the continent as possible. So that means taking advantage of large areas with natural good climate and farmland rather than underpopulated places of poor climate. Libya is mainly desert and the climate of Namibia doesn't read as great:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Namibia

I see what you are doing. You are confusing the Portuguese decision to not make Angola a settler colony with the underlying Geography. Sure, Angola is not as good as the USA or Australia, but it is workable.

I thought the Nova Estado DID try to make Angola a settler colony in a bid to stop the Empire breaking up. However, most of my reading suggests government efforts didn't really make too much difference. A Southern Californian climate doesn't seem as high potential as other undersettled parts of Africa.

But why would any European nation be willing to make such an investment? This isn't a game of Civ where you simply build up settlers willy-nilly and try to grab every available plot of land you can. You're making an argument that rests on the assumption that the Portuguese would be willingly to spend unimaginably vast sums of money and employ hundreds of thousands of laborers to turn uninhabitable lands into semi-habitable ones.

Yes, I think this is right. To maximise white settlement, we need to use the areas that were naturally attractive climate, like the Kenyan Highlands in OTL.


1) Angola Highlands. Good rainfall, good soil, good sites for hydro dams. Down side is lack of coal, but SA is not too far away.

2) Parts of Kamerun are good locations. Same as Angola.

3) Little bit of NE Nigeria, and some coal nearby.

4) Around Kilamanjaro, German East Africa.

5) Rwanda and Burundi.

6) Highlands of Kenya.

8) Uplands of Uganda.

This list I like. Why is coal so important? What were the other important things you considered? Is there a good place I could find a map of what shows a "European climate"? Maps here seem to show things like the Kenyan Highlands as "forest tundra", which sounds bad!

http://printable-maps.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/map-of-climate-of-africa.html

[Sevarics]

What would it take to keep Algeria French and to make it more French populated? How likely could it have been made into a continuous part of the Metropole?

[BlondieBC]

But why would any European nation be willing to make such an investment? This isn't a game of Civ where you simply build up settlers willy-nilly and try to grab every available plot of land you can. You're making an argument that rests on the assumption that the Portuguese would be willingly to spend unimaginably vast sums of money and employ hundreds of thousands of laborers to turn uninhabitable lands into semi-habitable ones.

All most all the colonies were money loser, but the ego of leaders combined with the profits made by private individuals. Colonialization was never a rational decision. So to some extent, decisions are made like people are playing a game, mostly a ego game of the leaders.

Now Yes, the Portuguese are too small, but not the Germans.

We can look at German History. Colonial office founded. Ports and railroads were built. Universities were established. Leading up to WW1, Germany was on a building spree in SWA. The Germans were negotiating acquiring Angola before the war, so presumably they planned to build the infrastructure.

And if you look at my post, I assume a very small % of the Germans go to German colonies until better places like the USA/Brazil shut down the open doors. Then the excess will flow to other locations, which may be African colonies. We only need a 100K's of people out of over 24,000K extra people.

[BlondieBC]

I thought the Nova Estado DID try to make Angola a settler colony in a bid to stop the Empire breaking up. However, most of my reading suggests government efforts didn't really make too much difference. A Southern Californian climate doesn't seem as high potential as other undersettled parts of Africa.


LA was nothing until the Hoover dam and related projects. You have to have the same investment to make Angola work. The question becomes - If there is no WW1 and Germany gets Angola, does the Kaiser/Reichstag really want a settler colony or it is mostly just hot air of politics? It takes a TL to answer and it depends on the POD avoiding WW1.

IMO, if someone movies the water to the coast, many European film industry will move to the area for low cost and good weather. Same reason Hollywood exists. All the same benefits.



This list I like. Why is coal so important? What were the other important things you considered? Is there a good place I could find a map of what shows a "European climate"? Maps here seem to show things like the Kenyan Highlands as "forest tundra", which sounds bad!


Coal is required for for steel which is required for heavy industry which is required for a military-industrial complex. I did the research for my ATL, where a German Field Marshall has an Unlimited budget and is suffering from a partial blockade. So he is building the infrastructure needed to support 30 AMC, up to 100 U-boats, and 18 Divisions.

The reason I did Angola is the Germans conquered it.

I also look at potential petroleum sources which would have been seen river deltas back then. So the found the Nigerian oil. Then after looking at the coal map, my colony did not have enough power, so I went to other sources. Nuclear does not exists. Petroleum is not available in large enough sources, so I went to dam sites. I then looked at iron or and aluminum deposits, which are generally easier to find than coal. I then looked at all dams built plus I found a list of 40 dams the UN wants to build.

Then I exclude Malarial zones excluding Douala. You have to have a port. Then I looked for areas with temps under 30 C, which often means at least 1000 feet elevation. I then check the soil is fertile and that the area gets enough rain to farm. Basically must be grassland or better with locations for dams on rivers.

I can't speak to some areas like Kenya, because the Germans did not conquer it. But in my middle Africa, you get from good to bad.

1) Angola highlands. Must be dams, but with a budget approaching 3 billion marks, there was plenty in the war.

2) West provience of Kamerun.

3) One place in NE Nigeria.

4) Rwanda - Probably, did not research in detail for TL area.

5) SWA - Only so, so. But has infrastructure.

6) Near Kilamanjara. Did not research since the Germans lost in a battle. If WW1 is avoided and Germany does not get Angola, it is probably the second settler area.

The only things I had to build in malaria zones was the Port of Douala, the coal mine in Nigeria, oil wells in Nigeria, and some connecting Railroads. And if one is not concerned about black deaths such as the Germans would be, they used mostly black supervisor and a minimum of white skilled labor.

I am taking a break for the TL and I will not have the surplus population due to WW1 related demographic issues in Europe, but if these were not true, I could easily have a 20+ million series of white majority settler colonies in Africa by 1960.

[BlondieBC]

What would it take to keep Algeria French and to make it more French populated? How likely could it have been made into a continuous part of the Metropole?

IMO avoid WW1, and it is 99% probable. Avoid WW2, and it is 90% likely.

The western 1/3 of Algeria was approaching white majority, so just following France 1913 plan to 1950 with no wars gets Algeria majority "French".

Take the 1937 policies and continue them to 1960 with no war, and you get to keep at least the western 1/3 of the country, and maybe the majority.

[pearsonwright]

You are overestimating how long it takes to fill up SWA. It 1960 population ws around 600K, so this is a good ballpark figure for discussion. Whites will take up more land than blacks due to higher demands for standard of living. Whites will also keep some blacks as a cheap labor pool. So a realistic range for a white settler colony is 100K to 300K, probably a lot closer to the lower number. And the white population will have a positive growth rate between 1914 and 1960. So it will only absorb between 50K and 100K white immigrants. And a lot less if the go the Rhodesia model with 3% white or South Africa with 15%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Namibia-demography.png

Now to the other side of the coin. Germans being exported.

How many Germans were lost in WW1? Before the war, Germany had 1800K births per year. After the war 1200K is high end. Now some land was lost, so lets call this 500K not 600K fewer births. Over 40 years, this is 24,000 missing Germans. I am not doing the greater demographic issues of WW2.

Now many of the Germans will stay in Germany, some will replace the Turkish and other immigrants in modern Germany. But many will immigrate to other areas, the question is where do they go. That is impossible to answer without a full TL. So let's go at this a different way. How much to fill up SWA. Well lets imagine by 1920, the infrastructure is finished. They were doing some rail work at the beginning of the war. If the Germans have only 6000 for 10 years move to Nambia, it will probably be a full colony since the population back then was closer to 100K, if memory serves me. So take base population of whites in 1920-10K. Add 60K immigrants. This gives a base of 70K. Now double due to population growth, and this gives ups about 140K whites in a country of 300K.

Or to put another way, if 1% of the people never born in Germany alone go to Africa (240K+), not only does it fill up Nambia where it is plurality white, we also have another major settler colony somewhere with a half million Germans. I think the likely immigration numbers out of Germany would be much higher, since many countries are likely to tighten immigration rules. If the USA shuts down immigration in the 1920 or 1930's (think reaction to dust bowl), then we can easily see a single year with over 100K German immigrants to Africa, provided someone has laid the ground work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany

Good points, so it seems like all of German Africa could easily become ethnic German.

If Germany wins WWI big, and commits a lot of genocide and ethnic cleansing perhaps Mittelafrika could become a huge settler colony?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Mittelafrika2.PNG

[Socrates]

Coal is required for for steel which is required for heavy industry which is required for a military-industrial complex. I did the research for my ATL, where a German Field Marshall has an Unlimited budget and is suffering from a partial blockade. So he is building the infrastructure needed to support 30 AMC, up to 100 U-boats, and 18 Divisions...

I also look at potential petroleum sources which would have been seen river deltas back then. So the found the Nigerian oil. Then after looking at the coal map, my colony did not have enough power, so I went to other sources. Nuclear does not exists. Petroleum is not available in large enough sources, so I went to dam sites. I then looked at iron or and aluminum deposits, which are generally easier to find than coal. I then looked at all dams built plus I found a list of 40 dams the UN wants to build.

These things weren't needed in Rhodesia or Kenya though... I'm not sure how important they are.

Then I exclude Malarial zones excluding Douala.Turns out my malaria maps weren't so good. Your comments caused me to find this better one, which seems a good start:

http://www.africahunting.com/hunting/big-game-hunting/malaria-africa-map.gif

Nigeria seems to fail on this count. All of West Africa does for that matter.

You have to have a port.Rhodesia didn't...

Then I looked for areas with temps under 30 C, which often means at least 1000 feet elevation.Do you have a good map for this? The ones I have make Rhodesia you look excessively hot.

I then check the soil is fertile and that the area gets enough rain to farm. Basically must be grassland or better with locations for dams on rivers.This looks like great qualifiers. Do you have maps I can use for it? I found this one for fertility.

http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/metadata/maps/afrpotsd.gif

1) Angola highlands. Must be dams, but with a budget approaching 3 billion marks, there was plenty in the war.The dams are needed for energy right? Or is it needed for fertile farms too?

2) West provience of Kamerun.This is a very interesting one.

3) One place in NE Nigeria.See my malaria point.

4) Rwanda - Probably, did not research in detail for TL area.Hasn't Rwanda and this area always been very densely populated? Somewhat low population density seems important for whites to move in.

5) SWA - Only so, so. But has infrastructure.Did this really meet the fertility requirements?

6) Near Kilamanjara. Did not research since the Germans lost in a battle. If WW1 is avoided and Germany does not get Angola, it is probably the second settler area.Yes, I'm in full agreement here. What about the other mountains in Tanzania?

You're clearly the best expert on these issues on AH. What do you think about places like Mozambique? Zambia? Malawi? Botswana?

[BlondieBC]

I attached a map with the red areas that could become majority white. The rest of Africa is unsuitable for various reasons - malaria, desert, poor soils, lack of minerals.

So in terms of Africa, it is a very small area. But each of the areas is the size of a European country. Think Belgium or Latvia.

And a lot will depend on how decolonization works. If we assume the red areas are 75% white, call it 50-100 million Europeans. We can have several Rwandan size white countries. But if the Europeans want to try to keep the surrounding lands, we will South African type places. 10-20 million Whites in Nigeria is just an interesting minority population.

The smallness of the area is also what makes i manageable. Over any 25-35 year period, any great power could easily create a white settler colony. It only takes the will, money, ethnic cleansing, and diverting settlers to the new lands.

[BlondieBC]

These things weren't needed in Rhodesia or Kenya though... I'm not sure how important they are.


In Kenya and Rhodesia the whites were largely expelled. You need industry to get a higher % of the population white. If just farms you tend to end up with 3-5% whites, the rest black laborers.


Turns out my malaria maps weren't so good. Your comments caused me to find this better one, which seems a good start:

http://www.africahunting.com/hunting/big-game-hunting/malaria-africa-map.gif

Nigeria seems to fail on this count. All of West Africa does for that matter.


You can see the lighter colors in Kamerun. It is the area I am talking about. And by 1915, there were ways to control Malaria, it just cost more. New Orleans is in a Yellow Fever, Malarial swamp, but it had the issue under control by then.

Nigeria is less suitable, but it is drier, so again, it can be done at extra costs. It is easier to make a grassland with some swamps Malaria free than Southern Louisiana. Again, it takes serious investment, which tended to be lacking in OTL.




Do you have a good map for this? The ones I have make Rhodesia you look excessively hot.


No, I had to go country by country using google. You can also use altitude. Tropics near water rarely top 30-35 C, and you lose 6-10 C for each 1000 meters of elevation.


This looks like great qualifiers. Do you have maps I can use for it? I found this one for fertility.

http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/metadata/maps/afrpotsd.gif


No, I just used if they currently have farming. Except for Angola where the long, long civil war prevented development.


The dams are needed for energy right? Or is it needed for fertile farms too?


Both. It really depends on the location. Angola is more water than energy, since I can import SA coal. Kamerun is more energy for my vast Aluminium plants being built.


This is a very interesting one.


The problem by the 1950's is it had had a black population boom. But in the 1920's, it was still lightly populated.


Hasn't Rwanda and this area always been very densely populated? Somewhat low population density seems important for whites to move in.


Did not do that level of research, since was not done in TL for other reasons. But would the Germans really think twice about relocating a population in Africa? It would be pretty mild compared to what happened in SWA.


Did this really meet the fertility requirements?


No, SWA was very marginal, but since they invested before WW1, it was clear it was the first area. IMO, a pure white settler colony is 100K-200K. Each European demands a much higher standard of living than a native, so they take up more land. More likely, it is 50K -100K Germans with 250K blacks in 1960. This is why it will fill up so quickly. Even 1500 immigrants for 30 years combinded with a little population growth (white babies) gets you to the likely range of settlement.

Colonies excluding things like diamond mines and gold mines were money losers in Africa. All Colonies did was transfer welfare payments from the taxpayer to the connected political class though the process of the colonial office. Nigeria had a revenue of 300K and a profit of 10K British pounds. You could not afford a single destroyer station there for that costs, much less the 3000 various Whites in the colony combined with three ports, two major railroads, and the need to defended it. Just imagine allocating 1% of the UK naval budget to the colony for costing purposes.

The UK/France should have traded Nigeria and French Equitoral Africa to German for a major naval reduction by Germany. The UK finances would have improved, and the colonies would have become a major drain on German resources. Just put some innocent sounding clause that Germany has to have 100K white settlers in the area in 20 years or the revert back to the original owner. It would have been a huge black hole in the German budget as the Kaiser realized building Nova Germania somewhere down there would cost an absolute fortune.


Yes, I'm in full agreement here. What about the other mountains in Tanzania?

You're clearly the best expert on these issues on AH. What do you think about places like Mozambique? Zambia? Malawi? Botswana?

I only did the areas listed. It takes the better part of day to research a single colony. The sources are so spread out, and not one really cared much about Africans.

[wietze]

think this map gives a good impression of the climate http://waterwiki.net/images/0/08/WBAfricaClimate.jpg

[Marius]

i'd heard uganda; iirc, there are actually some jewish descendants somewhere in east africa who, in the present day, most closely resemble black africans but still carry on old hebrew customs. supposedly, their ancestors brought the ark of the covenant into africa when they emigrated there

You are thinking of the Lemba people in Southern Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people

[cimon]

In ATLs, which parts of Africa were suitable for white settlement but didn't get that much in OTL? People cite malaria as a reason for low settlement in, say, Malawi, but Angola and Mozambique can't be much better and had huge numbers. The climate of places like Eritrea doesn't seem particularly special, yet it managed more white settlement than othe rplaces.

So your challenge is to find countries that could have plausibly had lots more white settlement if the politics had been different. I'm thinking Tanzania is a prime option.
not such huge numbers;only some parts of Mozambique were reasonably populated,especially in the South,in the North look at Porto Nacala,which did not see any substancial population despite the rich surrounding aerea.
The climate was(is) very difficult for europeans;malaria is not the only reason;Africa is the mother of diseases,Africans enjoy certain immunity there,but Europeans are very vulnerable.yellow fever and the cece fly are lethal.In the savanna Africa is relatively habitable,but very dangerous,but not the jungle aereas where habitation is impossible(like North Mozambique),having lived more than 12 years in Rhodesia and having visited many African countries,I would say for certain that only South Africa could easily double or even triple the number of white population (and Rhodesia could quadraple it).It was then the biggest country in Africa,(SA=2.173.000 sklm)almost as big as half Europe without European Russia then.Angola may have accepted afew more,but the terrain and the climate was not suitable,Kenya and Tanzania as well as Somalia and Erythraia.Also Gabon,Liberia Ivory Coast and possibly Mauricius and Cape Verde islands.

[Socrates]

not such huge numbers;only some parts of Mozambique were reasonably populated,especially in the South,in the North look at Porto Nacala,which did not see any substancial population despite the rich surrounding aerea.
The climate was(is) very difficult for europeans;malaria is not the only reason;Africa is the mother of diseases,Africans enjoy certain immunity there,but Europeans are very vulnerable.yellow fever and the cece fly are lethal.In the savanna Africa is relatively habitable,but very dangerous,but not the jungle aereas where habitation is impossible(like North Mozambique),having lived more than 12 years in Rhodesia and having visited many African countries,I would say for certain that only South Africa could easily double or even triple the number of white population (and Rhodesia could quadraple it).It was then the biggest country in Africa,(SA=2.173.000 sklm)almost as big as half Europe without European Russia then.Angola may have accepted afew more,but the terrain and the climate was not suitable,Kenya and Tanzania as well as Somalia and Erythraia.Also Gabon,Liberia Ivory Coast and possibly Mauricius and Cape Verde islands.

Thanks. Are you saying Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia are suitable for more settlement or not suitable?

[cimon]

Thanks. Are you saying Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia are suitable for more settlement or not suitable?

Suitable with varied proportions.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

You are thinking of the Lemba people in Southern Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people

There are some in Uganda too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abayudaya), and there are also some lost-tribe legends centering on the Igbo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_Jews).

[Ganesha]

I'm surprised no one has yet brought up the two timelines which most directly deal with this topic; TheMann's The African Superpowers and David bar Elias' Zionist Uganda. Both are interesting, plausible, and well worth a read. Here's links to them: Link 1 (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=151752) and Link 2. (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=38786)

Cheers,
Ganesha