I shall answer the comments in detail below, but I have to say, I found this dismay about the depresison spurring colonialism funny, since I basically stole it from OTL.
This little blurb here specifically about the impact of OTL's
Long Depression on New Imperialism. While some of the comments about the long term economic inviability may or may not be correct, what only matters in terms of history is what the prevailing feelings and thoughts of the time are.
Curious. The thing about Africa was that most of the continent was nothing more than a colossal drain on resources. There were a few good spots, but by and large they were taken already and if they weren't on the coast then at this stage, no-one knew about them. For those countries choosing to invest in Africa to solve their financial crisis...well, to me it's about the worst possible idea they could have had. There's no profit to be gained from it. Methinks those countries which went down the Africa route are going to have just prolongued their own recession by a good 2-3 years...more, in fact, if they insist on pumping money into the colonies in the hope of making them more viable.
Just my opinion, of course.
And of course, you may be correct, but nonetheless, it is what actually happened IOTL, and it is a lot of the big empires both then and now doing it - maybe that is part of the reason why the Long Depression was so long - then again, we shall see.
yea unless they make considerate investments in Africa they wont make much profit in the long run but in the short term it will just be a drain and really strange seeing how bug the Ottomans are so late
Strange but true. Don't get the Ottoman comment here though, could you explain?
zeppelin247
With the Ottomans I think that is technically pretty much as OTL as officially Egypt and its Sudanese colony were Ottoman satellites and until the Mahdist rebellion they also had positions along the Eriterian coastline. How secure this control was inland is another matter.
This Ottoman Empire thus far is far healthier and stronger at this point in history than OTL. They never lost effective control of Egypt or the Sudan the way they did OTL, and they even reasserted control in other areas as well.
With Africa, other than a few areas, such as the S African gold and diamond mines it was more speculation, some settlement in favourable areas and a lot of political interests in terms of stamping out slavery, increasing national prestige, keeping other powers out and seeking to protect trading interests. As you say most colonies meant losses, especially for the metropolitan governments, although often at least some traders or colonists made profits.
Steve
And I suspect some making profits will be all it takes to keep interest going.
I agree with this very much so. That Congo colony for one is utterly and ridiculously useless without the ENORMOUS cost of bypassing the Livingstone falls via railroad. The Portuguese failure to move into the basin was not due to laziness you know.
Fair enough - I imagine that Prussian-Polish will have similar joy of it.
The resources have not been found, infrastructure hasn't been built, and anti-malarials are only just starting to get really cheap. It was the ending of the OTL Long Depression and states being flush with cash that spurred the New Imperialism, not its beginning.
Ah, and Nugax gets the comparison! Good man!! I was in fact inspired by the posting on this time period on wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source), but I think trying to establish new markets (i.e. take all the wealth out of a colony) will be attractive enough - note that this is just an acceleration of a historical trend already established in the 1870s, and not completely mature as of the posting that spurred all this discussion. Time will tell how the African colonial drives end up.