Africa in a Central Powers Victory?

[historyfool]

Interesting. I didn't know that. With this in mind, how do you think the rest of the colonies would be governed?

Südwest was a bit of a special issue since it was the only explicite settler colony. That played a role in the other colonies - especially East Afrika - as well, but a smaller one. Thus in the administration mainly two schools of thought dominated. A traditional one, which mainly saw them as resource provider and a reformist one, which hoped to gain a market by building the colonies up and also claimed (had?) some altruistic motives (the names for the schools are mine, but imo fitting). Now the difference is not always clear cut, many reformists saw swift actions against risings as necessary evil while a number of traditionalists did condemn unnecessary cruelity like that of Carl Peters.

Helped by the handling of the Herero rising and some other colonial scandals the reformists temporarily managed to gain control of the colonial administration outside Südwest. That was already on the wane in 1914, but even a governor considered a traditionalist like Schnee in East Africa supported now some of the reformist politics especially the expansion of the public schools. Incidentially the British in East Africa did in 1924 estimate that they would still need some time to reach again the pre-war German education standards.

With the boost Lettow-Vorbeck´s actions will give the perception of the natives as noble subjects, the Germans probably will continue a more or less reformist policy. As I once heard in an interview with the grandson of a German-killed chief from East Africa "they were harsh, sometimes cruel, but they also gave us a lot." That being public education, beginnings of a health car system, a grammar following modern principles for the trade language Swahili and the beginnings of an infrastructure. How progressive they will govern will depend on the exact economic and political circumstances in the various colonies, internationally and in Germany itself.

 

[Monty Burns]

If you argue that Britain can't negotiate the gains of South Africa and Australia away, Germany would probably demand that the Brits hold still while the Germans TAKE those back forcibly if not returned.

The Germans are not able to do that.

The basic problem here is that Britain indeed holds all colonies and Germany cannot do anything about that, but on the other side Germany rules supreme on the continent and Britain cannot do anything about that. Unless they negotiate.

And that's what they'll do. But there are limits on what is negotiatable. Whatever Japan, South Africa or Australia took is rather un-negotiable by Britain and Germany, unless Britain is willing to exert considerable pressure. But why would the British? There's an easy way to compromise between these two over French territories. And that's acceptable for the French as well, because between the alternatives of a prolongued German occupation of France and loosing large parts of its colonial empire, the French choice should be clear.

So I would expect a major conference between Germany and Britain which may result in major land swaps not only of German, but possibly including British, French, Belgian and Portuguese colonies so that both powers consolidate their holdings. After all, these are colonies, not some holy domestic soil in Europe owned for generations. Whether Lettow-Vorbeck defended Tansania or not is only of interest in so far as that becomes a German plus on the negotiation table. Together with the occupation of Belgium and France and the increasing ineffectivity of the British blockade. The British on the other side have the increasingly ineffective blockade, the German colonies, and possibly the situation in Italy and the Balkans.

 

[historyfool]

The Germans are not able to do that.

The basic problem here is that Britain indeed holds all colonies and Germany cannot do anything about that, but on the other side Germany rules supreme on the continent and Britain cannot do anything about that. Unless they negotiate.

And that's what they'll do. But there are limits on what is negotiatable. Whatever Japan, South Africa or Australia took is rather un-negotiable by Britain and Germany, unless Britain is willing to exert considerable pressure. But why would the British? There's an easy way to compromise between these two over French territories. And that's acceptable for the French as well, because between the alternatives of a prolongued German occupation of France and loosing large parts of its colonial empire, the French choice should be clear.

So I would expect a major conference between Germany and Britain which may result in major land swaps not only of German, but possibly including British, French, Belgian and Portuguese colonies so that both powers consolidate their holdings. After all, these are colonies, not some holy domestic soil in Europe owned for generations. Whether Lettow-Vorbeck defended Tansania or not is only of interest in so far as that becomes a German plus on the negotiation table. Together with the occupation of Belgium and France and the increasing ineffectivity of the British blockade. The British on the other side have the increasingly ineffective blockade, the German colonies, and possibly the situation in Italy and the Balkans.

Pretty much my reading of the diplomatic situation as well. Südwest might take some long negotiations, but the Asian/Pacific possessions are not all that important to Germany in the first place and their might be a formal "sale" of those, while the main compensation will be French and perhaps Belgian/Portuguese colonies. Südwest will probably go that way as well, but there might be some additional conditions given its rather large German population. The only way I can see that returned to Germany is if the British see it as only chance to prevent a land connection between Kamerun and DOA (meaning Mittelafrika). That requires several conditions met though: That Germany appears strong enough to demand that (likely, appearance will be probably much stronger than actual power), that Britain sees preventing it as more important than satisfying one of its own dominions (possible) and that Germany sees Südwest as more important than its long-held dream of Mittelafrika (unlikely).

Japanese taking of German colonies might of course become a poisoned success, since it is well possible that with that point of tension out of the way (and German main focus on integrating its new possessions/protectorates) China and Germany expand their cooperation back to the level of the 1880s/early 1890s or beyond.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

THE Situation in Italy and the Balkans (and the OE) is indeed something that has an influence on the outcome of peace negotiations.

But I can't see that Britain negotiates away French psessions to gain some own territories. It would forever be seen as a betrayal by the French.

After all Colonies are just colonies.

The fact that Britain (the commonwealth) holds the GErman colonies simply means that Britain has not lost the war.

But it has not won too, so either Britain fights on - and risks to lose more, or it makes peace.

As I said before not all will be given back, but the change will to have happen in a way BOTH sides save face. Formally the Colonies will have to be returned and then some form of exchange can happen.

 

[historynutty]

Germany gains a protectorate over the Boer States and Natal.

 

[Deckhand]

Could we see a North African campaign in this situation?

From where, with what?

 

[Deckhand]

A 1918 defeat can have several logical outcomes, so it is not a given Germany can recover any colonies. If the BEF is not destroyed, only pushed back to the coast, & the RN undefeated then Germany has less of a negotiating position. This has no guarantee the German armies are not exhausted as well.

Based upon the casualty levels of the OTL Michael offensive, even a victorious Germany will have shot her bolt, and the cream of her army will be gone.

 

[Deckhand]

Germany gains a protectorate over the Boer States and Natal.

Yeah, not really.

 

[Deckhand]

The Germans are not able to do that.

The basic problem here is that Britain indeed holds all colonies and Germany cannot do anything about that, but on the other side Germany rules supreme on the continent and Britain cannot do anything about that. Unless they negotiate.

And that's what they'll do. But there are limits on what is negotiatable. Whatever Japan, South Africa or Australia took is rather un-negotiable by Britain and Germany, unless Britain is willing to exert considerable pressure. But why would the British? There's an easy way to compromise between these two over French territories. And that's acceptable for the French as well, because between the alternatives of a prolongued German occupation of France and loosing large parts of its colonial empire, the French choice should be clear.

So I would expect a major conference between Germany and Britain which may result in major land swaps not only of German, but possibly including British, French, Belgian and Portuguese colonies so that both powers consolidate their holdings. After all, these are colonies, not some holy domestic soil in Europe owned for generations. Whether Lettow-Vorbeck defended Tansania or not is only of interest in so far as that becomes a German plus on the negotiation table. Together with the occupation of Belgium and France and the increasing ineffectivity of the British blockade. The British on the other side have the increasingly ineffective blockade, the German colonies, and possibly the situation in Italy and the Balkans.

This. The British will also hold the middle east, and are very aware of what is under the sand, and won't be giving it back without major concessions. I could easily see Germany trading all of her nominal possessions in Africa away in exchange for the return of most of Arabia to the Ottomans and acknowledgement of Brest Litovsk.

 

[Tom_B]

Riddle of the Sands

This. The British will also hold the middle east, and are very aware of what is under the sand, and won't be giving it back without major concessions. I could easily see Germany trading all of her nominal possessions in Africa away in exchange for the return of most of Arabia to the Ottomans and acknowledgement of Brest Litovsk.

No, they are not "very aware of what is under the sand" as of 1918 unless you are referring to Mosul, which they only captured after the Armistice of Mudros (probably illegally) which I regard as being highly unlikely in TTL There are a few people like Frank Holmes speculating about a huge Middle East but he is insignificant until 1920.

Oil was not discover in Saudi Arabia until 1938 and the drilling project came very close to being abandoned as a failure. The huge Ghawar field was not discovered until 1948.

Oil was discovered in Bahrain in 1932, in Qatar and Kuwait in 1938. In fact it wasn't until 1927 that it was finally tapped at Mosul.

 

[Deckhand]

No, they are not "very aware of what is under the sand" as of 1918 unless you are referring to Mosul, which they only captured after the Armistice of Mudros (probably illegally) which I regard as being highly unlikely in TTL There are a few people like Frank Holmes speculating about a huge Middle East but he is insignificant until 1920.

Oil was not discover in Saudi Arabia until 1938 and the drilling project came very close to being abandoned as a failure. The huge Ghawar field was not discovered until 1948.

Oil was discovered in Bahrain in 1932, in Qatar and Kuwait in 1938. In fact it wasn't until 1927 that it was finally tapped at Mosul.

Yes, the major fields in the whole of mesopotamia had not been proven as yet but Masjed Soleiman had hit in 1908, and it was well expected there would be more. There were prewar search expeditions by the Americans and British, and the Germans and Turks formed the Turkish petroleum Company in 1914. Such exploration was obviously stopped by the war, but by the fall of Baghdad Hankey and Balfour already considered that "Control of these oil supplies becomes a first-class war aim", referring to future finds in Iraq.

So yeah,they didn't know where the oil was specifically, but they knew it was there, and they wanted it.

Mosul only fails to fall if the British don't feel like taking it. It was held by 3 donkeys and a guy named Ahmed by the end of the war. OTL The British sat for nine months and only moved when they felt their bargaining position needed improving, and when they moved they blitzed right over the Ottomans. So yes they might not take Mosul, or if things are going badly in France they may feel they need to move earlier and so take it well before any negotiations begin.

 

[Driftless]

Lettow-Vorbeck certainly seems to have had an effective military relationship with the Askari soldiers in East Afrika.

Heinrich Schnee (East Afrika governor) was nominally in charge of the local military at the start of the war, but disagreed with Lettow-Vorbeck, and progressively got shunted to the side track. He was an advocate for German colonialism, but he seems to have been marginal in leadership qualities.

Who runs the show in post-war-victorious-German-Sub-Saharan-Africa? Lettow-Vorbeck wears the hero's mantle, but he was also no trained diplomat or politico either. Schnee doesn't appear to have the gravitas for the task either.

 

[Chris Triangle]

Concerning the portugese colonies - Portugal was at war with the CPs - Both Britain and Germany had - at one Point considered to take over those colonies - now is the time.

I did not want to say that the OE gets Egypt - but they will get Libya back - and if only to "punish" the Italians for "betraying" the CPs - Before WWI the Southeast part of Libya was part of Egypt and given later to the Italians for their war effort - So ist probably considered as "spoils of war for the OE".

Much of the advance against the OE was made in late 1917/1918 a CP victory in (early) 1918 probably puts enozugh pressure on Britain to undo (Most) of those advances - maybe on the battlefield, but more probable on the green table (Not so muchbecuase the Ottomans can rightfully demand it, but ist in Germanys interest that there is access to the Indian Ocean (I assume Germany would demand and get a naval base at Basra from the turks. Thats - at least - a powerful bargaining chip against future Britain

I don't think Austria-Hungary let alone Germany intended to impose particularly harsh terms on Italy because it just wasn't tremendous and persistent long term rival and threat like, say, France. Even after the declaration of war against the central powers it was worthwhile not completely alienating them.

Italy took great pride in its Libyan colony and had fought hard to subdue it in a brutal war. The act of not only taking it away but handing it over to the Turks while Italy still controlled it (and when the Turks had no way of reaching on their own it anyway) would be at best impossible to enforce and at worst, unnecessarily infuriating to Italy. It was of minimal benefit to the Ottomans and the Germans had no reason to waste bargaining power on humiliating Italy on Turkey's behalf. For that reason, Libya remains Italian. The most the Italians relinquish are some very hefty reparations and a small amount of land east of the Piave river to teach just enough of a lesson without creating another Alsace-Lorraine.

 

[Mikestone8]

Italy took great pride in its Libyan colony and had fought hard to subdue it in a brutal war. The act of not only taking it away but handing it over to the Turks while Italy still controlled it (and when the Turks had no way of reaching on their own it anyway) would be at best impossible to enforce and at worst, unnecessarily infuriating to Italy.

How much of it did they have to lose?

Iirc, the Senussi rebels had overrun most of it, with the Italians just hanging on in Tripoli and Benghazi. Wasn't it only postwar that the Italians finally made the conquest effective?

 

[Chris Triangle]

How much of it did they have to lose?

Iirc, the Senussi rebels had overrun most of it, with the Italians just hanging on in Tripoli and Benghazi. Wasn't only postwar that the Italians finally made the conquest effective?

While that is a good point, I still argue that it didn't matter that they had lost control of much of it, they still considered the territory completely theirs and a matter of great national importance which they would be willing to fight hard to retain. Besides that, the Italians still had a strong navy between themselves and Libya.

On the other hand, the Germans might have welcomed a friendly power in Libya if they were granted certain privileges there, especially a naval base, and just pushed for it despite any consequences with regards to relations with Italy.

 

[ThePest179]

How progressive they will govern will depend on the exact economic and political circumstances in the various colonies, internationally and in Germany itself.

Devastated and under possible communist threat. This is immediately after the First World War, which has bled Germany even after victory, in terms of economic and human cost.

 

[Mikestone8]

While that is a good point, I still argue that it didn't matter that they had lost control of much of it, they still considered the territory completely theirs and a matter of great national importance which they would be willing to fight hard to retain. Besides that, the Italians still had a strong navy between themselves and Libya.
.

But aren't we discussing a situation where France has been knocked out of the war, and the CPs are free to bear down on Italy with everything they've got. Presumably it leaves the war a few weeks after France does. Wouldn't the CP be able to dictate a withdrawal from Libya rather as the Entente, OTL, was able to make the Germans withdraw from Posen after the 1918 Armistice?

Small point. Does anyone know if the French kept any of their PoWs in North Africa? If they did, these, when released under the terms of an Armistice, might form the nucleus of an "Afrika Korps". But despite hunting round the Internet I've not so far been able to establish if there were any.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

How much of it did they have to lose?

Iirc, the Senussi rebels had overrun most of it, with the Italians just hanging on in Tripoli and Benghazi. Wasn't only postwar that the Italians finally made the conquest effective?

THIS - I think ist funny the national pride in such discussion seems only to be found within Entente states, while the CPs seem to give up everyting without thinking ...

 

[ThePest179]

Bumping...

how would the border changes affect independence groups of the colonies Germany takes, if at all?

 

[JAG88]

Well, the most attractive solution I see for the Germans is to trade France to the British for colonies, they leave France untouched (save for a compromise not to fortify their frontier, and the Germans would take care of demolishing all the French ones) but get their colonies back plus Congo, French Equatorial, Angola and Mozambique (remember that before the war Grey was offering Portuguese colonies to the Germans) so they can have a nice and uninterrupted Deutsche Mittel Afrika.

Belgium is gone, divided into 2 demilitarized states, the Flemish one would be offered the chance to join the Netherlands, the Wallon one would be a buffer, minus Liege, now German.

The British are to evacuate the Boer states as well, to be independent under German "tutelage".

The Japanese have to return the German Pacific colonies, unless they think they can pull a second Tsushima... and IF the Japanese Army allows it.

Italy is invaded by the CPs and partitioned into 4-5 smaller states, Turkey gets back the territories lost in 1911.

AH is reformed into the United States of Greater Austria, a civil war would soon follow to quash a Hungarian uprising... with German help.

A German-backed league of former Russian colonies is formed to keep the Soviets in check.

I think a Turco-German war for Baku would not have been unlikely.