Hi Hörnla!
Interesting comment by you!.
Thank you very much. I appreciate contributing to this timeline.
You are right that a reaction would be happening in London. But it will be changing over time. At first, London will be rather amused about the "fumbling" fools in Berlin, we cannot forget the supreme arrogance displayed by the British Empire in that timeframe. "Look at the Prussians, their first foray into getting a real colony and what happens? They let themselves being pulled over the table by Slant-eyes. These poor Sods!"
Decades later London will still be arrogant, but now, with the positives Germany got over time, it will be more thoughtful. Or even envious..
Well, that is a reaction. Benevolent or not, a major nation (Prussia is not Belgium or Denmark) entering the colonial scene will be marked upon.
Now the great colonial grab begins and Germany takes say, DSWA/Namibia for all the reasons of that Era. Hokkaido was not cheap for Germany, far from it, but the result is impressive. Now Berlin hopes for a second Hokkaido, but what happens? Nothing of that sort! Due to climate and other things (not the last being Hokkaido itself), there is only a trickle of settlers and Berlin just pays and pays, without all that much coming out of it. Unlike the Japanese the tribes in DSWA have no wish to become a Great Power, so in comparison to Hokkaido, DSWA will be seen as an epic fail by Berlin. Under these circumstances I cannot see ATL Germany doing much in the colonial department later on, because Berlin will be spoiled rotten by the success of Hokkaido and will overlook that ATL Hokkaido is the colonial outlier and not the norm. .
I am afraid that this is not how that era's chauvinism would work. A success in Hokkaido will only encourage other designs. If they are less successful economically? They won't be presented that way beforehands, and they won't be given up once failure is proven. That also didn't hinter OTL's Germany at all. AFAIK, only Togo was marginally profitable for the Kaiserreich. ITTL, I am certain that the net gains from Hokkaido will be used to present a good balance of the German Colonial Empire and to promote more gains.
That's how I understand the consequences of being "spoilt rotten" by a "Hokkaido economic miracle": such a success might encourage Germany to acquire more territories earlier instead of putting those chances down (as Bismarck OTL prefered to until 1884).
Yes, in the early days, Japan might get more out of her membership in the Zollverein, but the european part of the Zollverein has every incentive to ramp up production and expansion, with both sides pushing the other forward. If we extrapolate from OTL with it´s less optimal start points, it would not be bold to speculate that Germany and Japan reach their 1910 level a decade earlier ATL, maybe even a bit more earlier.
I fear you exaggerate the possibilities. Please detail on us what they shall trade with each other which would generate so much economic growth? For Germany, Japan is about the geographically most remote possible trading partner!
I am not an expert, but probably only manufactured goods would be valuable enough to justify such a distance. How'd Japan whose economy is a step behind Germany's pay for those? What would both partners produce which couldn't be rather produced on the home market, or, despite tarriffs, still be cheaper imported from the UK, the USA or in the respective neighbourhood?
I am not saying that this kind of Zollverein were a bad idea. I am just very much arguing that you shouldn't expect wonders.
Crucial would be the following:
Japan must find export-areas (China/Korea) where they can sell their goods which they are enabled to produce due to German investment resp. with equipment bought in Germany. Japan could obtain these at fairer prices than elsewhere. It would IMHO work as a trade-triangle at the expense of non-Japanese East Asia, with Japan indirectly profiting by having a higher turnover and quicker development, economically and due to more revenues in infrastructure, too, and Germany being the main profiter as it would have an excellent growing market for its most advanced goods.
But, I might be wrong or overlook something.
As for Britain, I don't see them as getting involved militarily against Germany. IIRC Britain was interested in maintaining naval superiority. Assuming Tirpitz doesn't talk Germany into building a short range fleet to challenge the RN, I don't see them having a problem with Germany. .
I won't say that Anglo-German conflict was inevitable. But economic rivalry was a key proponent of that, too. In OTL, did Britain have the gravest colonial disputes around 1900 with Germany? No, with France and Russia. Which country had the ability in 1914 to built a fleet to match and challenge the Royal Navy? Not Germany, which had to afford a huge first-class Army and was unable to keep up with the British naval programme, but rather, if at all, the United States. If there is a war in the 1910s, and your POD is pre-1900, it is up to personal taste whether Germany and Britain fight with or against each other.
As you point out, they will also not have the same colonial conflict drivers. Hokkaido will be a success, and Namibia, not so much. After that, they probably will not press for anything else in Africa, which will reduce tensions with the British.
Again, Germany's African colonies were hardly the decisive conflict drivers up to 1914, with the possible exception of East-Africa. However, London and Berlin could cooperate neatly enough to envisage a partition of the Portoguese territories on that continent.
