Could the German Empire "keep" africa if they win WWI?

[Gukpard]

German controlled a few african colonies that were lost after WWI.

Assuming Germany wins WWI they are going to get a few more. This lead me to think about how Germany would act about them. In a simplistic way, colonies either are opressed to the point that they turn into a black hole in the budget or they are invested it and the people begin to rebel asking for independence. This leads me to ask what would be the "natural conclusion" of German colonialism since Germany was not a player in the post WWII colonization.

A rule is that in this scenario there is no direct danger to Germany in Europe, and as the 1960s roll in the scenarios mentioned above happen with their colonies being a black hole and/or rebelling, so they can try to hold them by force, try to integrate them into the german political structure or pull out. Since Namibia was germanized to the point that german is widely spoken today I left a option for they trying to keep only Namibia.

 

[Enigmajones]

As far as I know, they lost control of their colonies (with the exception of Von Lettow Vorbeck) to British occupation early on. Even with WW1 won, Germany would be sated by continental hegemony over Europe.

 

[JuliusClonkus]

As far as I know, they lost control of their colonies (with the exception of Von Lettow Vorbeck) to British occupation early on. Even with WW1 won, Germany would be sated by continental hegemony over Europe.

I could see the colonies, both German and some French being sold off to Britain for a largely symbolic amount in a German victory, to buy British acquiescence to the war outcome on the continent - namely the gutting of Russia and France, with client states being established and rolled into Germany's economic orbit.

 

[Gukpard]

As far as I know, they lost control of their colonies (with the exception of Von Lettow Vorbeck) to British occupation early on. Even with WW1 won, Germany would be sated by continental hegemony over Europe.

To prevent this debate, they keep their colonies after the victory

 

[Aphrodite]

The European powers gave up their colonies because they cost more to hold than they paid in taxes.

That may or may not occur in a German WWI victory.

Who finances the rebels? In OTL, the anti-colonial movements were largely financed by the Soviets and Chinese. Who is backing the rebels here?

The Western colonial powers also believed in democracy which conflicted with their ruling colonies. It wasn't insurmountable for the powers OTL and wouldn't be for a monarchial power like Germany

Finally, there are examples of territories ruled democratically at home but with less power at the center. Puerto Rico would be an example.

 

[JohnBull]

I believe they would keep the colonies indefinitely, even if the Empire liberalize over the decades. German society is very conservative and took till the 1970's in OTL for West Germany to become more liberal. In such ATL, WWII would have been butterflied away, and though the century would be more peaceful, social change would probably be slower in any case.

Namibia would probably become "Germany's Nevada", and could have 500,000 or more settlers by today. Other colonies, specially Tanzania, could also have sizeable German population. Tsingtao could also be kept as Hong Kong in OTL. And as Germany was strong, they could hold on to them if they want so.

 

[Lalli]

There probably wouldn't be WW2 so Germany is slightly better position keeping colonies than Britain and France were in OTL after WW2.

Much of depends how stubborn Germany is keeping its colonies. But even in best case, decolonisation would be quiet gradual and it would happen later, probably in 1970's or 1980's. Some colonies would gain full independence but some probably have German version dominion status, most plausible original colonies. Namibia would be integrated to German Empire since it had quiet low population and it would get more and more German population.

 

[mjwebb76]

I think this really comes down to the nature of the victory.

For example, imagine that Germany wins a quick Franco-Prussian War 2.0 in 1914 (imagine the Schlieffen Plan works and they also crush the Russians in the East). Presumably you have some type of negotiated peace where Germany gains some territory in the East, perhaps a Belgian puppet state, gets some reparations and some from France and/or Britain. In this case, I imagine colonialism could last far longer than IOTL. A major impetus for anti-colonial movements IOTL was the general horror after WWI combined with the immense economic waste. These two factors combined to make colonies economically unviable. Even if they are a net drain on a countries finances (a dubious proposition) all of these countries would have far more resources because they did not destroy them in Flanders and Eastern Europe.

Next imagine a late victory. For example, imagine that Verdun goes a bit worse for the French and the mutinies actually succeed at the same time that the USSR collapses. In this case Germany may seek to become a continental hegemon but not really have the resources to make this work or to keep its colonies. If Britain and France are also crushed financially, perhaps because of the requirement to pay reparations decolonization may occur sooner and/or along a similar time frame as IOTL.

 

[Interdimensional Nomad]

The European powers gave up their colonies because they cost more to hold than they paid in taxes.

That may or may not occur in a German WWI victory.

Who finances the rebels? In OTL, the anti-colonial movements were largely financed by the Soviets and Chinese. Who is backing the rebels here?

The Western colonial powers also believed in democracy which conflicted with their ruling colonies. It wasn't insurmountable for the powers OTL and wouldn't be for a monarchial power like Germany

Finally, there are examples of territories ruled democratically at home but with less power at the center. Puerto Rico would be an example.

Most likely, the US would be the one backing rebels in the colonies.

The German Empire before WW1 had designs on the Caribbean and South America, even though they were aware that it would conflict with the Monroe Doctrine. They dropped their plans for direct confrontation with the US when it became increasingly clear that they had a more pressing issue closer to home; Europe building up towards war. A victorious Germany where that's no longer an issue is liable to start getting confrontational with the US again. The US likely won't be fond of them either; even in OTL, in a world where their allies were practicing it and they were worried about communism gaining strength in colonial insurgencies and former colonies, they weren't friendly to colonialism (they strongly pressured Britain and France to let go of India and Indochina). In a world without a communist superpower, where their fellow superpower is instead the confrontational German Empire, they'll likely be even less friendly towards colonialism.

With Germany being more authoritarian and conservative than Britain or France, I think it's likely they would try to pull a Portugal and hold onto their colonial empire at all costs. Like Portugal, I don't think it would entirely work out for them in the long run. But they'll still be highly powerful in the meantime, and willing to get into a global rivalry with another superpower that ideologically opposes them.

 

[marathag]

Only way to keep the Colonies is to defeat the British, by occupation of at least England proper, or the UK never going to war with Germany in the first place.
I know which of the two is possible, and the other in ASB Land.

 

[Lalli]

Most likely, the US would be the one backing rebels in the colonies.

The German Empire before WW1 had designs on the Caribbean and South America, even though they were aware that it would conflict with the Monroe Doctrine. They dropped their plans for direct confrontation with the US when it became increasingly clear that they had a more pressing issue closer to home; Europe building up towards war. A victorious Germany where that's no longer an issue is liable to start getting confrontational with the US again. The US likely won't be fond of them either; even in OTL, in a world where their allies were practicing it and they were worried about communism gaining strength in colonial insurgencies and former colonies, they weren't friendly to colonialism (they strongly pressured Britain and France to let go of India and Indochina). In a world without a communist superpower, where their fellow superpower is instead the confrontational German Empire, they'll likely be even less friendly towards colonialism.

I don't see Germany and USA having much of rivalry. Germany has now quiet much more land and massive influence in Europe and good part of Africa. Germans hardly have much reason to confront USA. And Britain would be still around. So more plausible is just some cordial relations where Germany not step to American backyard and USA not bother with colonies. Evenif there is some Cold War thing, it wouldn't be anything like OTL one was.

With Germany being more authoritarian and conservative than Britain or France, I think it's likely they would try to pull a Portugal and hold onto their colonial empire at all costs. Like Portugal, I don't think it would entirely work out for them in the long run. But they'll still be highly powerful in the meantime, and willing to get into a global rivalry with another superpower that ideologically opposes them.

Why Germany would be more authotarian? Yes, it would be while but it is possible that the country would liberalise later since there would be still much of internal pressure for reforms. And USA don't care what kind of government some country has as long as it is not threat to USA. USA is about best pal of Saudi Arabia so slightly authotarian but still democratic Germany hardly is problem as long as Germany is not going around Americas.

 

[marathag]

Germany hardly is problem as long as Germany is not going around Americas

Things were not friendly after Samoa and Spanish-American War, areas well away from the Americas.

 

[Lalli]

Things were not friendly after Samoa and Spanish-American War, areas well away from the Americas.

I would imaginate that Germany can't get its Pacific holdings even after it has won the war so wouldn't that help things?

 

[marathag]

I would imaginate that Germany can't get its Pacific holdings even after it has won the war so wouldn't that help things?

Yeah, Japan is never giving those areas back.

 

[Catspoke]

I believe they would keep the colonies indefinitely, even if the Empire liberalize over the decades. German society is very conservative and took till the 1970's in OTL for West Germany to become more liberal. In such ATL, WWII would have been butterflied away, and though the century would be more peaceful, social change would probably be slower in any case.

Namibia would probably become "Germany's Nevada", and could have 500,000 or more settlers by today. Other colonies, specially Tanzania, could also have sizeable German population. Tsingtao could also be kept as Hong Kong in OTL. And as Germany was strong, they could hold on to them if they want so.

Agree,

With the advent of air conditioning, and its dry climatic conditions, and diamond mines, Namibia would have decent German settlement.

The relatively cool Ngorongoro highlands in Tanzania would also have considerable German settlement.

The Germans would want to keep those two in any negotiated WW1 settlement, not sure how the Germans would get Namibia back from South Africa, so maybe only German East Africa is retained.

I could also see the Germans getting compensated for their Pacific colonies and Namibia with Portuguese Angola, which also has highlands suitable for Euro settlement.

Without WW2 racial superiority theories would still be respectable (unfortunately), and German East might have some sentimental value to the German resistance there (and so might be overvalued vs its actual economic value). So I could see the Germans holding on to these through the 80s.

 

[CountofDooku]

That may or may not occur in a German WWI victory.

Even before WW1 OTL the German Colonies costs widely mroe then they ever returned, wich was beside as a Presitge Object for the Emperor/ Empire and the German Colonial Society, they were rather unpopular, both among parts of the Reichstag, as well as the overall population.

 

[JohnBull]

Only way to keep the Colonies is to defeat the British, by occupation of at least England proper, or the UK never going to war with Germany in the first place.
I know which of the two is possible, and the other in ASB Land.

I don't think so. If there is Peace Treaty like OTL Versailles, a victorious Germany would certainly demand all the colonies back and might pursue a more benign approach on Europe, not demanding much territories on Western Europe.

Most likely, the US would be the one backing rebels in the colonies.

The German Empire before WW1 had designs on the Caribbean and South America, even though they were aware that it would conflict with the Monroe Doctrine. They dropped their plans for direct confrontation with the US when it became increasingly clear that they had a more pressing issue closer to home; Europe building up towards war. A victorious Germany where that's no longer an issue is liable to start getting confrontational with the US again. The US likely won't be fond of them either; even in OTL, in a world where their allies were practicing it and they were worried about communism gaining strength in colonial insurgencies and former colonies, they weren't friendly to colonialism (they strongly pressured Britain and France to let go of India and Indochina). In a world without a communist superpower, where their fellow superpower is instead the confrontational German Empire, they'll likely be even less friendly towards colonialism.

With Germany being more authoritarian and conservative than Britain or France, I think it's likely they would try to pull a Portugal and hold onto their colonial empire at all costs. Like Portugal, I don't think it would entirely work out for them in the long run. But they'll still be highly powerful in the meantime, and willing to get into a global rivalry with another superpower that ideologically opposes them.

The US is also an imperial power as well, with a very controversial presence in Latin America. German influence might be welcomed, specially in South America. It would be both ways.

I would imaginate that Germany can't get its Pacific holdings even after it has won the war so wouldn't that help things?

They would certainly demand those on the peace treaty and the defeated would have to comply otherwise the war would keep going on.

 

[Clandango]

I don't think so. If there is Peace Treaty like OTL Versailles, a victorious Germany would certainly demand all the colonies back and might pursue a more benign approach on Europe, not demanding much territories on Western Europe.

They would certainly demand those on the peace treaty and the defeated would have to comply otherwise the war would keep going on.

Yes, I am sure the Japanese and New Zealanders will be terrified of war restarting with whatever rafts the Germans have left. Speaking of which, even if the Germans get back most of their Africa colonies, Southwest Africa is a no go. British officials were chatting among themselves that if the war went the wrong way the Germans would need to get something instead of that area, as giving it up would anger the South Africans. Much like how the Australians and New Zealanders would be very angry that islands they personally invaded were being demanded by the British, to give back to the people who had been machine gunning them in trenches. The Germans probably wouldn’t care about distant islands or deserts anyways, when Europe and the Congo offered so much more labor, resources, land, etc.

 

[Hawkeye]

I can't see how Germany can keep Britain from overrunning its colonies. The only way they could get them back is through negotiations and I don't see what they could offer the British that they're willing to part with.

 

[Big Schwartz]

Even before WW1 OTL the German Colonies costs widely mroe then they ever returned, wich was beside as a Presitge Object for the Emperor/ Empire and the German Colonial Society, they were rather unpopular, both among parts of the Reichstag, as well as the overall population.

Regarding their colonies being money sinks, they hadn't even had most of them for 30 years, so I think that's a relatively unfair statement. German Tanzania could have mounted nice returns, being their only colony on the Indian Ocean. Had they held it longer, I imagine Dar El Salaam would have become more developed than our time line, as the port wouldn't have had to compete with Mombasa and other British ports in the Indian Ocean.

I don't think so. If there is Peace Treaty like OTL Versailles, a victorious Germany would certainly demand all the colonies back and might pursue a more benign approach on Europe, not demanding much territories on Western Europe.

Germany can gain territory at the expense of France and Belgium or it can keep its colonies, but not both. In contradiction to what I said above, annexing the iron mines of Longwy Briey and Luxemburg, and establishing naval bases on the Flemish coast is far more valuable at the time than any of their colonies. Britain would likely give Germany the option/ultimatum.