AHC: Earliest possible decolonization of Africa after 1890

[raharris1973]

After the Berlin Conference of Africa, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference, and the establishment of European claims to the whole African coast, what is the earliest we could have decolonization of the continent?

In OTL the phases were largely 1885-1914 - thorough completion of colonization
1950s - peripheral reduction of colonization
1960 - burst of independence for French Africa & Congo, 1960s - independence for British Africa
1975 - end of Portuguese Africa

How could we push these post 1950 developments as early as possible?

 

[Thistle and Rose]

have the british lose real bad in ww2 where germany invades britan and still gets beat

 

[Deleted member 94680]

have the british lose real bad in ww2 where germany invades britan and still gets beat

Unlikely (for the obvious reasons - please let’s not go into it here)

How about a far worse post-WWII financial situation for Britain? Say America takes a far harder line for its repayments or forces anti-colonial policies on the Attlee government in exchange for Marshall Plan money? Once the British Empire begins to ‘reform’ (crumble under American pressure) the other European Empires begin to fail through a combination of American coercion and financial power.

With aggressive American pursuit of an anti-colonial policy, the decolonisation can start in earnest in the fifties.

 

[tallthinkev]

Unlikely (for the obvious reasons - please let’s not go into it here)

How about a far worse post-WWII financial situation for Britain? Say America takes a far harder line for its repayments or forces anti-colonial policies on the Attlee government in exchange for Marshall Plan money? Once the British Empire begins to ‘reform’ (crumble under American pressure) the other European Empires begin to fail through a combination of American coercion and financial power.

With aggressive American pursuit of an anti-colonial policy, the decolonisation can start in earnest in the fifties.

Could lead to a case of, 'Do you want your money or not?' and or 'Start treating your black population the same as your white and we may.'

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Could lead to a case of, 'Do you want your money or not?'

That’s what I’m thinking.

or 'Start treating your black population the same as your white and we may.'

Maybe not in so many words given how, you know, America treated their own blacks. More of a case of America wanted the Empires gone to open the markets to American control.

 

[GeographyDude]

Or, Germany takes a pass on WWI.

One of the reasons it entered the “Great War” was that it believed this would be a chance to catch up with other European powers in terms of colonies.

Instead . . .

Germany advocates for free trade, that Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, etc, should be able to trade with whoever they damn well pleased — backed up by gunboat diplomacy as necessary.

So, instead of the First World War, we have the occasion skirmish or even protracted period of tension among European powers,

But a plum deal for new African nations.

 

[tallthinkev]

Maybe not in so many words given how, you know, America treated their own blacks. More of a case of America wanted the Empires gone to open the markets to American control.

What I mean is Britain is saying that to the US

 

[Deleted member 94680]

What I mean is Britain is saying that to the US

Oh right. Britain (literally) can’t afford to turn the American financial aid down though.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Or, Germany takes a pass on WWI.
. . .
Germany advocates for free trade, that Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, etc, should be able to trade with whoever they damn well pleased — backed up by gunboat diplomacy as necessary.

So, they end up in a War by using gunboats to force trade into British colonies? Ummm...

So, instead of the First World War, we have the occasion skirmish or even protracted period of tension among European powers,

But a plum deal for new African nations.

“Plum new deal for new African nations”? What “new African nations” would that be? Without WWI they would still be British possessions and London would call the shots.

 

[GeographyDude]

“Plum new deal for new African nations”? What “new African nations” would that be? Without WWI they would still be British possessions and London would call the shots.

Not if Germany plays it aggressively and insists that Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, Egypt, etc., have the right to trade with any and all nations.

* Of course Germany would be taking a high-minded principle and using it for reasons of personal gain. But as long as they keep it simple and straightforward, there’s a pretty good chance they could pull it off.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Not if Germany plays it aggressively and insists that Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, Egypt, etc., have the right to trade with any and all nations.

* Of course Germany would be taking a high-minded principle and using it for reasons of personal gain. But as long as they keep it simple and straightforward, there’s a pretty good chance they could pull it off.

It doesn’t work like that when it comes to colonies. They don’t “have the right to trade with any and all nations”. Britain can just tell Germany to go away and mind their own business.

 

[WolfNeuron]

So this is a quick scenario we could imagine:

>No world wars leave tensions higher in colonial Africa. It becomes a reality that invasion could happen, and as such the 1910s and 1920s see small military forces of native africans be created, which would create an african urban proto middle class by the 1930s.
>No world wars allows for no great depression, and with more inventors and capital around, technology progresses faster. We see oil become more dominant early on, in the 1930s, and air conditioning becomes readily available in the 30s instead of 60s. This allows for limited urbanisation in several countries and faster spread of ideas. The truth is only a few people in colonised countries truly fought for independence, and as such we would only need small numbers in this Africa,
>Earlier spread of TV into households 20 years earlier without the WWs. A big reason for opposition to Vietnam was that the horrors of the war by 1970 were broadcasted straght into people's front rooms. This would happen by 1940 in our world, hopefully in colour too, so that the horrors of colonialism, victims of the Congo Horros, those living under segregation could be easily seen etc, so that opinion in the west turns against colonialism.
>Have widespread peaceful protests in the colonies. These could of course turn into riots, but by the 1940s we may see large urban areas, with a strong middle class advocating for independence and helping whip up the poorer people.
>Faster decolonisation. So even with all of that we may only bring decolonisation forward by a decade, so that Ghana for example would become independent in 1947 not 57. However I do think it's reasonable that by 1955 we could see all of the british colonies gain independence, followed by the Congo, some french colonies are gone.
>Good examples and foreign powers. For example in this world we could very well see an Egypt with Sudan being a great power in north and east africa, funding independence campaigns etcera. For example people in the UK drinking tea in their front rooms may be watching a crowd of tens of thousands demonstrate for independence in Nairobi, and they will probably have the attitude of 'these people just want to be free, why would we start shooting at these crowds for that' and politicans may be hard pressed. Shooting at them would almost certainly be seen as unpopular and probably a waste of money.

With all of this, all of Africa should be independent by 1970 at the very latest, and mostly by 1960, as compared to 1975 and 1980 IOTL.

 

[GeographyDude]

It doesn’t work like that when it comes to colonies. They don’t “have the right to trade with any and all nations”. Britain can just tell Germany to go away and mind their own business.

But if Germany can find a sentence or two in a treaty that was meant for a merely high-minded introduction and never put in practice or even intended to be put in practice, or maybe recent statements by a British politician. I mean, Germany merely needs enough of a reason (excuse) to have some degree of support from other European nations. And the UK having the largest colony network, after all, is not that popular with European citizens of other countries.

And Germany might very correctly calculate that the UK is more motivated to avoid a war than they are,

The real challenge might be to not publicly embarrass the British, and to allow them to save face. To cloak gunboat diplomacy as something else. Germany would be on the "right" side of history, or at least on the factual side of globalization, just decades early. And globalization has raised the living standards of many millions of people, in China most of all.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

But if Germany can find a sentence or two in a treaty that was meant for a merely high-minded introduction and never put in practice or even intended to be put in practice, or maybe recent statements by a British politician.

What? I don’t follow what you mean here. What treaty? Britain didn’t sign treaties with their colonies that regulated trade with the outside world, they signed treaties with local rulers that handed control of trade and foreign policy to Britain. That’s it. London regulated and controlled everything.

I mean, Germany merely needs enough of a reason (excuse) to have some degree of support from other European nations. And the UK having the largest colony network, after all, is not that popular with European citizens of other countries.

Revisionist nonsense. Germany doing this is taking a wrecking ball to the whole idea of colonialism. No one else with an Empire would support it and even those officially without an Empire (i.e. America, although they did for all intents and purposes, and the others) wouldn’t like the idea because of the forced nature. It’s a dangerous precedent.

And Germany might very correctly calculate that the UK is more motivated to avoid a war than they are,

Britain is willing to avoid a War over the very nature and control of their own Empire? Yeah, no.

The real challenge might be to not publicly embarrass the British, and to allow them to save face. To cloak gunboat diplomacy as something else. Germany would be on the "right" side of history, or at least on the factual side of globalization, just decades early. And globalization has raised the living standards of many millions of people, in China most of all.

Yeah, none of that is how Colonial Empires work. The last thing the Germans want to put the idea of forcing trade from one Empire into another Empire’s colonies via gunboat diplomacy. That’s a game Britain wins, all day, everyday

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

WWIII over korea could speed it up a decade. Can't think of any other ways to do it.

 

[StrangeMedicine]

View attachment 517363

"Liberation" is a very loaded word, and inaccurate in this case, since it shows apartheid South Africa as being a "liberated" African country. Black Africans had more rights in the British colonies than they did under Apartheid.

 

[Magniac]

The Soviet Union never exists, international revolutionary Leftist violence never progresses beyond the era of anarchist assassins.

If there is never a Cold War, that alone should make European policy makers less hostile to black nationalist processes in a world where there have still been World Wars to bust their home finances/politics.

(Heh, is the recent movie Siege of Jadotville inadvertently role playing that scenario? In going for the non-ideological-professionals-killing-one-another-over-riches aesthetic---Michael Mann inspired I guess---it almost replaces Cold War politics with something that looks more like a nineties Balkan War ISOTed.)

 

[GeographyDude]

. . Germany doing this is taking a wrecking ball to the whole idea of colonialism. No one else with an Empire would support it . .

This worries me.

Even with France, Belgium, Italy, etc, resenting the UK for being so far ahead, they may feel German proposals risk too much radicalism in the future.

A lot comes down to have much risk the Germans are willing to take.

PS You’ve got to think there are smarter chances than the catastrophe which became WWI.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Even with France, Belgium, Italy, etc, resenting the UK for being so far ahead, they may feel German proposals risk too much radicalism in the future.

Where’s the evidence that France, Belgium or Italy “resented” Britain? Or rather “resented” Britain to the point they would do anything about it? It’s a tired cliche on this site that everyone hated Britain and were secretly waiting for a chance to screw them over. Britscrew revisionist nonsense IMHO.

A lot comes down to have much risk the Germans are willing to take.

PS You’ve got to think there are smarter chances than the catastrophe which became WWI.

Willing to take risks? Smarter chances? So they plunge into a diplomatic crisis directly with Britain and indirectly with every other Great Power with an Empire or a “sphere of influence”?

This insane “gunboat diplomacy plan” pisses all over the Berlin Conference and the agreements reached there. The Conference had proven that Britain, France and Belgium (not to mention the “lesser powers” like Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands) all rejected Germany’s attempt to “revise” the ideas of colonial control. This would make them a pariah.