Central Power Gains in Africa

If the central powers had won late into the war, say 1918 or so, what territorial gains might they realistic try to take?


[I apologize if there is a thread on this already, the search isn't working for me for some reason]
 
In the event of military victory, the German Colonial Minister, Wilhelm Solf (1862-1936), advocated large-scale colonial expansion as early as the confidential September Program of 1914. Corresponding with the pre-war imperialist vision of a German Mittelafrika, Portuguese colonies, the Belgian Congo and French Equatorial Africa were to be annexed; even Nigeria might be gained in case of British defeat.[3] Wartime aspirations grew to include strategic and economically developed regions in French West Africa.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_aims_and_war_aims_discussions_africa
 

Philip

Donor
I doubt the CPs will be able to claim any territory they don't occupy at the end of the war. Maybe the Germans could take Algeria or the OE pushes UK out of Egypt. Occupying land in Sub-Saharan Africa will be more difficult.
 
I doubt the CPs will be able to claim any territory they don't occupy at the end of the war. Maybe the Germans could take Algeria or the OE pushes UK out of Egypt. Occupying land in Sub-Saharan Africa will be more difficult.

If Germany occupies northern France and the French Channel coast where they are shelling Britain and blocking the vital through-channel coastal shipping to London getting colonies in Africa will be a breeze.
 
Given the premise of central powers winning in 1918 (presumably with similar levels of body count as OTL), what they can demand (and possibly get) on paper and what they can actually govern/rule in reality might be something else, especially given that they have much less substantial colonial infrastructure than countries like UK & France.
 
If POD is very late Germany might just get its African colonies back. But best case Germany might get French Equarotial Africa, Dahomey and Belgian Congo. But Germany probably should be able capture French leadership and occupy most of France before they can't get anything from the country. But Brits are not going give anything for Germans if they can't occupy some colonies firstly.

Could Ottomans claim Libya back if Italy still joins to Entente?
 
If Germany occupies northern France and the French Channel coast where they are shelling Britain and blocking the vital through-channel coastal shipping to London getting colonies in Africa will be a breeze.

... meanwhile, in Germany, the civilian population is straining under draconian work hours, riots against the Kaiser are a near-daily occurance, bands of women spread out from the city to the countryside in an effort to scourge together enough potato flour to fill their sausage casings, and its next to impossible to find a male under the age of 70 and over the age of 10 not in a uniform, missing a limb, or at an assembly line in an arms factory or foundry. Then they learn this is continuing because some folks with Von in their name are holding out for a patch of jungle in the middle of the Dark Continent

G.B has greater staying power and they know it. Push comes to shove, they can re-route supplies to London via rail and impliment greater rationing in the city temporarily.
 
... meanwhile, in Germany, the civilian population is straining under draconian work hours, riots against the Kaiser are a near-daily occurance, bands of women spread out from the city to the countryside in an effort to scourge together enough potato flour to fill their sausage casings, and its next to impossible to find a male under the age of 70 and over the age of 10 not in a uniform, missing a limb, or at an assembly line in an arms factory or foundry. Then they learn this is continuing because some folks with Von in their name are holding out for a patch of jungle in the middle of the Dark Continent

G.B has greater staying power and they know it. Push comes to shove, they can re-route supplies to London via rail and impliment greater rationing in the city temporarily.

Germany isn't going to win the war by doing all the same things they did to lose it, winning the war requires different actions leading to different outcomes where all of those things aren't as bad. Perhaps a neutral Italy alleviates some of Germany's food problems as does the defeat of Russia earlier than OTL, while implementing the political reforms of the 1917 Easter message would reduce agitation against the Kaiser. IOTL the shoe was on the other foot and Britain kept up the blockade and after massive losses the French occupied the Rhineland for years after the war, as well as sending troops to intervene in the Russian civil war, so asking it of Germany in victory isn't impossible it's virtually standard.

In WW1 much of the domestic freight task was undertaken by coastal shipping and the railroads couldn't take up the slack if food ships couldn't travel directly into London. The answer wasn't going to be rationing, it was going to be evacuation of 1/4-1/3 of London's population. Interwar railway development meant that by 1940 this wasn't a problem, coastal shipping died out as an industry as a result, but in 1918 Britain will willingly hand over colonies if it means Germany will let the ships through.

Given the premise of central powers winning in 1918 (presumably with similar levels of body count as OTL), what they can demand (and possibly get) on paper and what they can actually govern/rule in reality might be something else, especially given that they have much less substantial colonial infrastructure than countries like UK & France.

The British and French will hold these colonies until the Germans can sort out transfer arrangements. Germany will be able to send its big navy and peacetime Army to take control of the colonies in the immediate aftermath of the war and transition to a regular colonial organisation as the months and years pass. This is all quite normal post war business.

But Brits are not going give anything for Germans if they can't occupy some colonies firstly.

Who gets what colonies will be decided by the situation in Europe not Africa.
 
The consensus seems to be that African colonies are used as bargaining chips in lieu of real concessions in Europe. I tend to look at most floated "war aims" as hyperbole, the aim might be far but the reach is what it actually is. In most scenarios I can craft Germany gets some range of her colonies returned, it takes something looking like a victory to get any gains and I really only see that coming out of Belgium and France's holdings, anything from the UK is just as much hyperbole.

I have two scenarios, one with a non-belligerent UK and the other a belligerent UK, both result in an essentially stalemated war as concerns he UK and France. In the former we do not involve Belgium and do not occupy northwest France, in the later we have the war with all the usually players. The conundrum is that for Germany to win the former scenario works best, but gives it the least leverage unless you indulge in some leniency for Germany to give her a strategic breakthrough, or in the latter you have Germany too exhausted to exploit the gains.

As much as the colonies are not that valuable in 1917-1919, I keep returning to them because they add complexity to the future and opportunity for some better fiction. Where else does Germany build its spaceport but East Africa? And why not play with Germany more at odds with Imperial Japan and rattling around in China? But I digress.

My least likely but rather favored would be limited war and no UK at war, that requires France to take German colonies and I think that limits things to Togo and Kamerun, maybe the Pacific islands and Quingdao and/or Tientsin. And if Germany can push into France at all then these can more easily be traded back and the more of France overrun the more France would offer up. Here I think you can argue for some portion of Equatorial Africa, likely not Chad at all unless you conjure Italy in the CP then it might occur to someone to link things, and maybe Dahomey. Indochina, Algeria and such sound of fantasy. My "more" likely scenario is a draw with the war almost as is. For France it looks like what just went, but now we can think of British possessions too. Here I find merely getting colonies returned the most likely "best" result. But I think it has a lot of fun twists.

if Britain pressures Japan in returning German possessions it could break their alliance. You get the divergence the WNT set in motion for Japan to feel slighted. Could the Germans have sold the pacific islands to the USA? That gives us a bit of a mess. If Germany must concede to Japan then we set in motion a long term animosity that could be stoked into some future showdown not unlike Germany backing China as OTL. We further alienate Australia to the UK's disadvantage. And so on.

Short of a victory where I guess you just write what you want, the most plausible scenario I get is the African colonies returned, no additions, the Pacific islands a maybe and Quingdao lost. Sad too because I have tried to imagine a German Hong Kong.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
If the central powers had won late into the war, say 1918 or so, what territorial gains might they realistic try to take?


[I apologize if there is a thread on this already, the search isn't working for me for some reason]
In a late CP-victory, beside the Vorbeck raiders around east-africa, every german asset abroad will be taken by some Entente-power.
Therefore, IMHO, these "colonies" wouldn't and couldn't be more, than some kind of bargaining chip for the final "peace-treaty", which will be a negotiated, not octroyed one due to the exhaustion of everybody.

In that respect any of the "war-aims" of OTL would be IMO moot to be discussed.
 
I doubt the CPs will be able to claim any territory they don't occupy at the end of the war. Maybe the Germans could take Algeria or the OE pushes UK out of Egypt. Occupying land in Sub-Saharan Africa will be more difficult.

Well, unless you count the Ottomans
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If the Germans win, they are going to be sitting on Belgium and a healthy chunk of France, so they will get Congo and probably French Equatorial Africa in exchange for evacuating the European real estate (unless they simply swallow Belgium up, in which they will get Congo anyway). But I see no scenario in which they get British territory, since there is no realistic CP-Victory scenario that sees the Germans invade and conquer Britain.
 
If POD is very late Germany might just get its African colonies back. But best case Germany might get French Equarotial Africa, Dahomey and Belgian Congo. But Germany probably should be able capture French leadership and occupy most of France before they can't get anything from the country. But Brits are not going give anything for Germans if they can't occupy some colonies firstly.

Could Ottomans claim Libya back if Italy still joins to Entente?

I mean in a Victory at 1918 they just lost Libya literally 6 years ago, so yeah the definitely could get Libya back without any type of Nationalist movements.
 
If the Germans win, they are going to be sitting on Belgium and a healthy chunk of France, so they will get Congo and probably French Equatorial Africa in exchange for evacuating the European real estate (unless they simply swallow Belgium up, in which they will get Congo anyway). But I see no scenario in which they get British territory, since there is no realistic CP-Victory scenario that sees the Germans invade and conquer Britain.

If they insist on swallowing Belgium due to their dominance on land, I see no reason why Britain woulden't return the favor by saying "If possession is 9/10ths of the law...) and just taking the Congo and all of Germany's African possessions to boot. Maintaining the occupation of non-settler colonies is, proportionatly, FAR less intensive and controversial than a long-standing military occupation of Northern France and Belgium that would be needed for Germany to keep pressure on London for their return, especially with Germany having some quite large military commitments to occupy territory acquired in Eastern Europe.
 
In defeat there will be a period where the British and French governments will barely be in control of the streets. Instability will be a general strike or some French general's ill-timed coup away. That will be a major factor in if and how long they drag out the issue of Germany's territorial demands. London is not going to just be able to summon the spirit of Wellington and Churchill, go "right", and pretend the new German order in Europe doesn't exist. After the military collapse of France, Germany's next move will be to eject the British out of the Ottoman Empire, bringing Egypt and other British possessions under threat. The attitude in London will be a desire to cut losses, make the most out of the new global balance of power, and avoid something like what's happening in Russia. Germany will hold the cards, and everyone will know it.
 
In defeat there will be a period where the British and French governments will barely be in control of the streets. Instability will be a general strike or some French general's ill-timed coup away. That will be a major factor in if and how long they drag out the issue of Germany's territorial demands. London is not going to just be able to summon the spirit of Wellington and Churchill, go "right", and pretend the new German order in Europe doesn't exist. After the military collapse of France, Germany's next move will be to eject the British out of the Ottoman Empire, bringing Egypt and other British possessions under threat. The attitude in London will be a desire to cut losses, make the most out of the new global balance of power, and avoid something like what's happening in Russia. Germany will hold the cards, and everyone will know it.
 
Germany has zero capacity to retake the Middle East. the existing infrastructure can only support about a quarter of a million German troops whereas the British with their sea supply can support about a million. I suppose the Germans can keep throwing away Army after Army trying to do it maybe after they run out of men British can retake Europe.
 
Germany has zero capacity to retake the Middle East. the existing infrastructure can only support about a quarter of a million German troops whereas the British with their sea supply can support about a million. I suppose the Germans can keep throwing away Army after Army trying to do it maybe after they run out of men British can retake Europe.

... which they will, because even with the war economy cranked up to an 11 and the civilian population squeezed out like a sponge their army was suffering from major supply shortages and had to minimize its commitments to stablizing its already seized. The size of their army is already unsustainable even with the full weight of the state thrown behind it... I'm flabbergasted that people think they can keep it deployed long-term if they have ANY desire to put some part of the economy back on a civilian footing or conduct any kind of meaningful reform or rebuilding/recapitalization (Which they'd need to do, especially to integrate Eastern Europe's economy into the Reichs and keep A-H and their newly-established clients from imploding from the already-in-progress domestic disorder, starvation, infastructure breakdown, ethnic violence, ect.). Everybody here seems to highlight every German maximium exertion and declare it permenantly sustainable while shuffling any consquenses/weaknesses and misteps under the rug, while declaring said misteps to be the norms/ declaring snowballing of any crack in the Entente to be inevitable

The truth is both sides are exhausted, but Germany is exhausted, has crises coming at her from multiple directions rather than just the one, and has to metaphorically "run" further to dodge them than the Entente does due to the international and state of decay in the domestic situation.
 
Top