Butterfly advice: Impact on WWI and WWII?

This belongs in pre-1900 because of the POD.

I am about to embark on a TL about Madagascar, after having done a large amount of research. I know what is going to happen in Madagascar and southern Africa quite clearly up until 1914 or so, and have a reasonable idea of the area afterwards. The POD is 1855, but very minor and restricted wholly to Malagasy developments until the 1870s, no alternate developments in Europe until 1890.

But I don't know what to do with the World Wars. I think I'm going to keep WWI as it was in OTL, more or less, with the addition of Madagascar on the Entente, but I don't know if WWII will be butterflied away.

I don't want to give away too much, but these are the most significant butterfly-causing events:

-Independent Madagascar, friendly to British
-Portugal undergoes civil war/revolution in 1890 due to Pink map controversy
-Madagascar seizes Mozambique after Portuguese authority collapses, divides it into client states and provinces
-Independent Hawaii, friendly to USA

Would this butterfly away even WWI? Would it be too unrealistic to have Mussolini in Italy/Hitler in Germany and a roughly similar WWII? If so, does anyone have any suggestions for alternative developments in Europe during this period?
 
Last edited:
An independent Madagascar is going to be the focus of at least some of every colonial power's attention, especially Germany;s given the closeness of Tanganyika to both Madagascar and Mozambique

It would also change things with regard to Lourenco Marquez, either because Madagascar might agree the railway and port deal, or because being in the British pocket the whole issue might never come up and thus might even butterfly away the Boer War.

An independent Hawaii, even one aligned to the USA, is still going to focus diplomatic attention on it, including that of the USA, thus being a policy issue even if most of the time a stable one.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Maharajah

I think the honest, if unhelpful, answer is it depends. There are strong forces driving towards a major war in Europe but their by no means certain and if some small factor means Franz-Ferdinand doesn't get killed in 1914 it may well never happen, at least in the form we recognise.

Given a PoD that far back, even if largely restricted to Madagascar until 1870, you could have some largely random factor that means someone lives, dies, has a drastic life change and that alters quite a lot.

Easier to consider is that there are going to be clear factors. To use Grey Wolf's example if you avoid the Boer War then to pick a few factors:
a) You might ease Anglo-German tensions without Kaiser Wilhelm support for them.
b) Unless there's a later war how is the tension between the Boers and the miners resolved? If the states are still independent then there are clear economic differences.
c) Without the war a lot of people around the world live but also the British army doesn't get a big wake up call about modern warfare.

Also if Portugal collapses into civil war and Madagascar occupies Mozambique then what happens to the rest of the Portuguese empire, given the ongoing colonial scramble?

Similarly I don't know a lot about Madagascan history but OTL it became a French possession. If its independent under a de-facto British protectorate then how are relations between Britain and France especially affected.

Basically you as the author have a lot of scope for how things develop. Personally, as long as you don't mirror exactly OTL, or have too many radical differences or things that really defy logic then it should be OK. For instance don't have every character in say an army leadership being exactly as OTL as a few random changes will have occurred. Or don't have say WWI being centred around say a Franco-German alliance v a Anglo-Russian one without a damned good explanation. Especially if you have the historical Franco-Prussia war leading to bad relations and the OTL long list of Anglo-Russian tensions.

Hope that helps. Its very much a personal choice as to how many butterfly flaps occur. For instance WWI could occur at a pretty similar time and with the same great powers on the same sides. However its unlikely to be triggered by F-F being assassinated in Sarajevo in June 1914.

Steve

This belongs in pre-1900 because of the POD.

I am about to embark on a TL about Madagascar, after having done a large amount of research. I know what is going to happen in Madagascar and southern Africa quite clearly up until 1914 or so, and have a reasonable idea of the area afterwards. The POD is 1855, but very minor and restricted wholly to Malagasy developments until the 1870s, no alternate developments in Europe until 1890.

But I don't know what to do with the World Wars. I think I'm going to keep WWI as it was in OTL, more or less, with the addition of Madagascar on the Entente, but I don't know if WWII will be butterflied away.

I don't want to give away too much, but these are the most significant butterfly-causing events:

-Independent Madagascar, friendly to British
-Portugal undergoes civil war/revolution in 1890 due to Pink map controversy
-Madagascar seizes Mozambique after Portuguese authority collapses, divides it into client states and provinces
-Independent Hawaii, friendly to USA

Would this butterfly away even WWI? Would it be too unrealistic to have Mussolini in Italy/Hitler in Germany and a roughly similar WWII? If so, does anyone have any suggestions for alternative developments in Europe during this period?
 
Also if Portugal collapses into civil war and Madagascar occupies Mozambique then what happens to the rest of the Portuguese empire, given the ongoing colonial scramble?

Similarly I don't know a lot about Madagascan history but OTL it became a French possession. If its independent under a de-facto British protectorate then how are relations between Britain and France especially affected.

Steve

Two damn good points, Steve, as usual.

1. The most vulnerable of other Portuguese possessions would be Angola; I don't think anything more would happen to Goa, Macao, E Timor, Cape Verde, but Britain and Germany, and probably France, are going to be swooping in on Angola

2. France is almost certainly going to have been compensated elsewhere, if it has good relations with Britain, not necessarily an accord or even a conscious "here, have this instead" but Britain can't focus everywhere at once, and I would think the Niger is going to be the region where France gains at Britain's expense, since Britain's position in Egypt/Soudan would be too strong for a Fashoda-focused loss

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Thank you all for your input so far!

Also if Portugal collapses into civil war and Madagascar occupies Mozambique then what happens to the rest of the Portuguese empire, given the ongoing colonial scramble?

Two damn good points, Steve, as usual.

1. The most vulnerable of other Portuguese possessions would be Angola; I don't think anything more would happen to Goa, Macao, E Timor, Cape Verde, but Britain and Germany, and probably France, are going to be swooping in on Angola

2. France is almost certainly going to have been compensated elsewhere, if it has good relations with Britain, not necessarily an accord or even a conscious "here, have this instead" but Britain can't focus everywhere at once, and I would think the Niger is going to be the region where France gains at Britain's expense, since Britain's position in Egypt/Soudan would be too strong for a Fashoda-focused loss

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, I'd been thinking, partially just out of the rule of cool, that the Royalist-sympathetic governor of Angola refuses to submit to the republican government and declares a conservative, dictatorial republic in Angola, which the British and Germans then divide into spheres of influence. Portugal would then be able to retain control over its more minor colonies.

Otherwise I'm not sure if they'd actually take over the area, as the borders of the Portuguese colonies had recently been established and it would be a significant violation of Portugal and Britain's "perpetual peace." Of course, the British could just say the republican government isn't legitimate.

And I hadn't actually thought about the French being compensated - in OTL, up until about the 1870s, the British and French had competed for whatever influence the Malagasy government would allow them, with the British actually having the upper hand most of the time. I'm thinking the Malagasy government in this TL, during the late 1800s, would not be so much a de facto British protectorate with much British involvement, but simply be more friendly to the UK due to the fact that A) France had been the most avid of the two countries in seeking out naval bases, settlements, and concessions, and thus the bigger threat, and B) the UK had a strong naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and had colonies just a few hundred miles away, and would thus be unwise to anger. In short, I hadn't imagined it would be thought of as a matter of compensation, just as nobody had to be compensated when Japan escaped foreign domination in OTL. But I will take what you said into consideration.
 

Glen

Moderator
This belongs in pre-1900 because of the POD.

I am about to embark on a TL about Madagascar, after having done a large amount of research. I know what is going to happen in Madagascar and southern Africa quite clearly up until 1914 or so, and have a reasonable idea of the area afterwards. The POD is 1855, but very minor and restricted wholly to Malagasy developments until the 1870s, no alternate developments in Europe until 1890.

But I don't know what to do with the World Wars. I think I'm going to keep WWI as it was in OTL, more or less, with the addition of Madagascar on the Entente, but I don't know if WWII will be butterflied away.

I don't want to give away too much, but these are the most significant butterfly-causing events:

-Independent Madagascar, friendly to British
-Portugal undergoes civil war/revolution in 1890 due to Pink map controversy
-Madagascar seizes Mozambique after Portuguese authority collapses, divides it into client states and provinces
-Independent Hawaii, friendly to USA

Would this butterfly away even WWI? Would it be too unrealistic to have Mussolini in Italy/Hitler in Germany and a roughly similar WWII? If so, does anyone have any suggestions for alternative developments in Europe during this period?

Well, the degree of butterflies is really up to you. The more important question is what are the direct effects of your POD(s)? Not so sure I understand how your Madagascar events lead to an independent Hawaii, for example...

Given your statement that changes in Europe don't really seem to occur significantly until the 1890s, then WWI is a pretty safe bet, assuming you still want Kaiser Bill born (WWI is still likely without his birth, but more likely to be OTL-like with). Of course, being triggered by the assassination of an Arch-Duke seems pretty unlikely with an 1850s POD - but even then you could decide to make it more butterfly resistant and allow that.

WWII is also likely, though the existence of Hitler and Stalin, Nazis and Communists per se are less likely.
 
WWII is also likely, though the existence of Hitler and Stalin, Nazis and Communists per se are less likely.

Communists will still be around, but perhaps not in Russia...

How developed will Madagascar be and how quickly? That may be important.
 
Well, the degree of butterflies is really up to you. The more important question is what are the direct effects of your POD(s)? Not so sure I understand how your Madagascar events lead to an independent Hawaii, for example...

Oh, I guess I didn't make it clear there - that's a separate POD, but possibly resulting from a butterfly from the original one. I haven't worked out the details on that situation, I just know it will happen.

Communists will still be around, but perhaps not in Russia...

How developed will Madagascar be and how quickly? That may be important.

I'm imagining that heavy industry will be reestablished in the area around Antananarivo in the early 1860s, with a push for greater self-sufficiency during that decade, involving sending Malagasy nobles and middle-class overseas for education and training, as well as hiring European advisors (from a variety of countries so as to avoid one dominant influence) to supervise the establishment of more specialized industries with little background in Madagascar, such as modern shipbuilding. The Malagasy military had been using European-style weapons (and tactics, to varying degrees) from the 1820s, it would just be a matter of importing/manufacturing up-to-date models of weapons. The government would also model their efforts after Japan beginning in the 1870s, and I actually imagine it might be in a better position than Japan (at least in the core areas) due to it not having a strict policy of isolation and purposeful technological backwardness in the era before full-scale modernization, as well as not facing a Boshin War-analogue.
 
Maharajah

The reason I mentioned Angola and the rest of the Portuguese empire was partly that I remembered a proposed deal that would partition Angola and Mozambique between Britain and Germany in the event of Portugal imploding, probably during the 1910 revolution, although not sure on that. Given feeling from the 1880's during the scramble I can't see many independent, even if nominally still Portuguese areas surviving. However you're idea of a local military commander maintaining royal rule in the area may well work, especially if say a claimant to the throne escaped to there.

On de-facto, possibly I worded it wrong, but basically there is at least an unofficial, possibly official, alliance with Britain and Madagascar being seen by the other Europeans as in Britain's sphere of influence and Britain would fight to protect it against intervention by others. I wasn't sure that otherwise someone else would seek to step in, probably either France or Germany. It sounds like you are proposing a markedly more powerful state than I would have thought was possible at the time although I know very little about Malagasy history.

In terms of their control of Mozambique how much do the two have in common in terms of racial and cultural background? Aren't the Malagasy more descended from SE Asian settlers? Or is it more a colonial arrangement? They are likely to find their position in Mozambique challenged by at least some powers, possibly including the Boers looking for access to the sea. However if their starting to surpass Japan, at least at that time, their likely to be able to handle them.

Sounds some interesting prospects.

Steve

Thank you all for your input so far!





Well, I'd been thinking, partially just out of the rule of cool, that the Royalist-sympathetic governor of Angola refuses to submit to the republican government and declares a conservative, dictatorial republic in Angola, which the British and Germans then divide into spheres of influence. Portugal would then be able to retain control over its more minor colonies.

Otherwise I'm not sure if they'd actually take over the area, as the borders of the Portuguese colonies had recently been established and it would be a significant violation of Portugal and Britain's "perpetual peace." Of course, the British could just say the republican government isn't legitimate.

And I hadn't actually thought about the French being compensated - in OTL, up until about the 1870s, the British and French had competed for whatever influence the Malagasy government would allow them, with the British actually having the upper hand most of the time. I'm thinking the Malagasy government in this TL, during the late 1800s, would not be so much a de facto British protectorate with much British involvement, but simply be more friendly to the UK due to the fact that A) France had been the most avid of the two countries in seeking out naval bases, settlements, and concessions, and thus the bigger threat, and B) the UK had a strong naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and had colonies just a few hundred miles away, and would thus be unwise to anger. In short, I hadn't imagined it would be thought of as a matter of compensation, just as nobody had to be compensated when Japan escaped foreign domination in OTL. But I will take what you said into consideration.
 
And I hadn't actually thought about the French being compensated - in OTL, up until about the 1870s, the British and French had competed for whatever influence the Malagasy government would allow them, with the British actually having the upper hand most of the time. I'm thinking the Malagasy government in this TL, during the late 1800s, would not be so much a de facto British protectorate with much British involvement, but simply be more friendly to the UK due to the fact that A) France had been the most avid of the two countries in seeking out naval bases, settlements, and concessions, and thus the bigger threat, and B) the UK had a strong naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and had colonies just a few hundred miles away, and would thus be unwise to anger. In short, I hadn't imagined it would be thought of as a matter of compensation, just as nobody had to be compensated when Japan escaped foreign domination in OTL. But I will take what you said into consideration.

I wasn't meaning, primarily, that the French would be compensated consciously, just that if you take diplomatic influence, investment of energy, and strategic focus as being finite quantities, then any such expended by Britain on Madagascar would result in a weakening of such in another area, and one where France would concomittantly have MORE of these things available because of the energies the French are not expending on Madagascar.

I don't think the door is open for the British to be LESS pushy in Egypt/Soudan (tho see below) or for France to be MORE successfuly there, but I did think that the Niger area could see less British success, and more French

Regarding Soudan, when Gordon was sent out there he basically didn't have a sorted-out mandate. Some hoped he would co-ordinate the withdrawal of Egyptian garrisons from the Soudan, others hoped he would establish proper government, and he himself basically decided he could sort it all out by his force of personality and make some sense of it as things went along.

Now its not even a given that Gladstone would be in power to send him out, since a 1850 POD resulting in more British focus on Madagascar could result in more success for Disraeli and thus see Gladstone lose the relevant election - he can't play on foreign policy's costly failures so much if Madagascar is an obvious and clear success.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
A united Madagascar (which I think is unlikely without being externally imposed) is still going to be a pathetically weak state.

This isn't like an Asian state modernising, how is a polity of ~2 million people on less than amazing land (with no industrial resources) going to bring together the material needed to launch an invasion across a thousand miles of sea of a colonial territory at least a populous and developed as it, and backed up by a state with global reach and wealth?

Comparing it to Japan is moronic - Japan had twenty times the population and an established government and transport infrastructure before they began to modernise. Not to mention Japan actually had a whole bunch of goods to sell to generate capital and hire European specialists, plus a climate where European technology was actually useful.

And this is all before you get to the fact that 19th century Mozambique's economy was run by a consortium of British companies. Threatening Mozambique is going to see London send gunboats to smack the Malagasy's down pretty quick (hell the companies could smash a Madagascan invasion on their own funds even).
 
I wasn't meaning, primarily, that the French would be compensated consciously, just that if you take diplomatic influence, investment of energy, and strategic focus as being finite quantities, then any such expended by Britain on Madagascar would result in a weakening of such in another area, and one where France would concomittantly have MORE of these things available because of the energies the French are not expending on Madagascar.

I don't think the door is open for the British to be LESS pushy in Egypt/Soudan (tho see below) or for France to be MORE successfuly there, but I did think that the Niger area could see less British success, and more French

Regarding Soudan, when Gordon was sent out there he basically didn't have a sorted-out mandate. Some hoped he would co-ordinate the withdrawal of Egyptian garrisons from the Soudan, others hoped he would establish proper government, and he himself basically decided he could sort it all out by his force of personality and make some sense of it as things went along.

Now its not even a given that Gladstone would be in power to send him out, since a 1850 POD resulting in more British focus on Madagascar could result in more success for Disraeli and thus see Gladstone lose the relevant election - he can't play on foreign policy's costly failures so much if Madagascar is an obvious and clear success.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, I guess I realize now that I have a lot more to figure out than I previously thought. :eek:
 
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, I guess I realize now that I have a lot more to figure out than I previously thought. :eek:

You don't have to worry about the examples I give - just because something doesn't have to go the same as OTL and could go radicallly different does not mean that it will, or that it should. Things going largely as per OTL is perfectly acceptable in most cases since all history ever is is the balance of possibilities.

I would change a few little bits and pieces simply to add colour - eg Gordon may still be sent to Khartoum, but by Disraeli and when he starts asking for help the British government might be more receptive and send Wolseley early, so that he arrives in time to defeat the Mahdi and save both Gordon and Khartoum.

Its just an example and can be ignored, of course. Just ideas I'm throwing around

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top