Which African countries had most potential for more white settlement?

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Socrates

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...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...s/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

[Marius]

Originally Posted by oshron

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cimon

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]

Originally Posted by Socrates

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

Suitable with varied proportions.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by Marius

You are thinking of the Lemba people in Southern Africa

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

There are some in Uganda too, and there are also some lost-tribe legends centering on the Igbo.

[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 and Link 2.

Cheers,
Ganesha