Colonialism if the Allies had lost WW1?

Britain and France had the advantage in Africa, and would never lose most of their colonies (well, Germany would take colonies from France). In fact, Germany could lose SW Africa even in a victory.
 
But Germany can't force a British surrender - it's ASB territory given the overwhelming dominance of the Royal Naval. Even in a continental "total victory scenario" wherein Russia, France and Italy all collapse the UK and Empire are inevitably getting a white peace because the Reich can't meaningfully threaten them.

I agree it's ASB territory. I don't believe there is any way for WWI to end with a CP victory. The British would not allow total victory on the continent to stand - because Germany would just get stronger and stronger until it was able to roll over Britain in a decade or two. Unless there's a revolution in Britain, which seems unlikely, the blockade will stay in place until Germany agrees to negotiate. In which case, Germany only gets what it has previously been negotiating for - Belgian Congo, French Equatorial Africa, Portugese East Africa, and probably Uganda and British East Africa in exchange for the South West.

How would it make any sense for the British to give up the trading centre of the Swahili coast - very close to Zanzibar, with established trading routes to India, and with some pretty decent agricultural land - in exchange for a largely desert territory in the South West?

Britain gave up the trading centre of the Swahili coast in 1886. The only functioning port in British East Africa is Mombasa, and that's only functioning at all because Britain has built a railway there. It's not turning a profit because they have to subsidise settlers to go and farm that decent agricultural land in the interior. And as I said, the only reason Britain didn't abandon it when the East Africe Company collapsed, was the potential loss of prestige. On the other hand, gaining GSWA would secure the flanks of Botswana and the Cape Colony.
 
Gregg: we seem to use quite different sources about the German colonialism. Of course sources about this theme are often biased or take the political position of a later time, which is not a fair thing in history. I would cite you some of the works I read about this theme, but they are with my parents and I won´t have access to them for several weeks. I admit that German colonial politics were really nasty before 1907. But the reforms which were initiated by Bernhard Dernburg were real as was the immense popularity of the Askaris in Germany over the decades after the war. I think you underestimate it. Even the NAZIS!!! honored their loyality and the Bundesrepublik reinstituted a Pension for them in the 60s wich was paid till the death of the last one in the 90s.
 
The Central Powers will be more pro-colonialist, though the possibility of an expanded German Empire in Africa is going to be bad for the Africans under German rule. An elephant in the room, so to speak, is what Germany would do with Tsingtao. If it demands that back, in any second coalition war, you'd possibly see Japan in the anti-German alliance. The Central Powers would be no more than the Allies able to hold onto the Empires by brute force.
 
But Germany can't force a British surrender - it's ASB territory given the overwhelming dominance of the Royal Naval. Even in a continental "total victory scenario" wherein Russia, France and Italy all collapse the UK and Empire are inevitably getting a white peace because the Reich can't meaningfully threaten them.

They, however, have no means to seriously menace Germany on land. 1918 would not be 1940, and the British may well seek an armistice for a white peace, one Germany would have obvious reasons also to seek. A problem for any CP victory timeline is the Russian Civil War, as the Bolsheviks are too strong to overthrow bar serious German intervention, and in 1918, there'd be no guarantee the Germans would want that kind of intervention.

And if the Soviet Union shows up in the 1920s.....:eek:
 
I've often wondered if the CPs would try to present themselves as champions of Islam in the post-war period (sort of, but not quite like Mussolini tried IOTL). Annexing large parts of North Africa and Central Asia are out of their cappabilities even with a total victory so why not try to win the minds and hearts of the people there?

See, the Turkish sultan is already the Caliph. The Austrian emperor has no colonies and can claim that he treats the Bosniaks no different than other Slavs. The Kaiser likely has a large empire in central Africa that is mostly inhabited by "uncivilized savages" and where Muslims from the eastern coast get the better treatment and are employed in the army and administration.

So yeah, they could easily claim that Muslims are civilized enough to seek their own destiny, and what a coincidence, the ones that are going to pay for it are Britain, France, Italy and Russia.
 

Commissar

Banned
The Failure of the Spring Offensive disagrees with that notion. The USA ended the War much faster, however Germany would not of won. They had already transferred all the Troops they were willing to Transfer from the east (since ya know, the Russian empire was completely collapsing).

The Spring Offensive failed because on May 1918 over one million U.S. troops were stationed in France, half of them being on the front lines with 10,000 more arriving everyday. American Troops blocked key bridges and road junctions and then followed up with a counter attack.

No American Troops means the British, Belgians, Portuguese, and French are stretched far too thin to cover key areas and get pulverized in April and May.
 
While I agree that the war entry of the americans was deciding and without it Germany could have won lets stay (for once) on the topic. There are more than enough threads about a German victory in the Great war. This is about colonialism afterwards
 
The Spring Offensive failed because on May 1918 over one million U.S. troops were stationed in France, half of them being on the front lines with 10,000 more arriving everyday. American Troops blocked key bridges and road junctions and then followed up with a counter attack.

No American Troops means the British, Belgians, Portuguese, and French are stretched far too thin to cover key areas and get pulverized in April and May.

No US troops also means a completely different framework in 1918, not a desperate gamble to defeat the Allies before US power matters in a serious sense in combat.
 
Well, while Britain would probably get a white peace, I could see Germany taking over France's African colonies, and Austria could take Tunis and Libya from Italy. The Ottoman Empire would get Egypt and Sudan, considering it was technically their land before the war...the British just administered it, same with Kuwait.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Well, while Britain would probably get a white peace, I could see Germany taking over France's African colonies, and Austria could take Tunis and Libya from Italy. The Ottoman Empire would get Egypt and Sudan, considering it was technically their land before the war...the British just administered it, same with Kuwait.
I agree about Germany getting nothing from Britain, and instead annex Belgian Congo and French Central African possessions, to create Mittelsafrika. I don't think Austria would get any colonies (they have enough problems already), I think instead Libya would go to the Ottoman Empire (and since Britain gives up nothing, Egypt and Sudan remain under British protection).
 
I agree about Germany getting nothing from Britain, and instead annex Belgian Congo and French Central African possessions, to create Mittelsafrika. I don't think Austria would get any colonies (they have enough problems already), I think instead Libya would go to the Ottoman Empire (and since Britain gives up nothing, Egypt and Sudan remain under British protection).
But it was technically Ottoman land, so I could see that being the concession. Or maybe they keep it, and as the Empire industrializes, it becomes an argument that precedes the Second World War?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
But it was technically Ottoman land, so I could see that being the concession. Or maybe they keep it, and as the Empire industrializes, it becomes an argument that precedes the Second World War?
Yes, it was technically Ottoman, so was Cyprus. The Ottoman Empire still won't get either, since they can't beat Britain.
 
Yes, it was technically Ottoman, so was Cyprus. The Ottoman Empire still won't get either, since they can't beat Britain.

Actually Cyprus was'nt, the OE gave it to Britain in 1878 in return for diplomatic and military support during the Congess of Berlin era.
 
I honestly think that the Kaiserreich would let the Ottomans hang out to dry. Although the CPs winning the war probably prevents the British from continuing against the Ottomans, I also don't see the British giving up Egypt and Sudan unless there's simply no other choice.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I honestly think that the Kaiserreich would let the Ottomans hang out to dry. Although the CPs winning the war probably prevents the British from continuing against the Ottomans, I also don't see the British giving up Egypt and Sudan unless there's simply no other choice.
I think the Ottomans would get Libya.
 
If the Ottomans are on the CP's side I think they'll just be happy to be left alone honestly.

I mean let's be realistic here, Egypt was to big and to rebellious (and thus a major headache) for the Ottomans to even want back, while Libya is a non-contiguous territory that has no real value to the OE.
 
Libya could be left as an independent state ruled by the Senussi - it pretty much was already since Italy only controlleda couple of ports in the coast at the time. Of course we could make an argument about if the CPs would care about the issueduring the signature of a peace treaty with Italy but still.

Also, when we look at the issue of Egypt we have to take into account that everything the British did there during the war was plain illegal. They replaced the reigning sultan (who would then fight for the Ottomans) and declared Egypt a British colony overnight. Back in 1911 Britain had defended that Egypt was an independent state to deny the Ottomans the possibility to use it in the defense of Libya so why not use that precedent against them?

I imagine a scenario where France and Italy have been defeated already and Britain is left alone fighting a war it didn't have many reasons to do in the first place. Moral would be going down in Britain while increasing in Germany now that they are getting food from eastern Europe. If the Germans send troops and materiel to assist the Ottomans in the Middle East and there is already a revolt in Egypt against British occupation, is it that far out of the question for the British public to give up the place? I suppose it would be easier than say, Ireland. And they could do it in a way that they could save face, with a gentlemen's pact recognizing the definite independence of Egypt rather than annexation by the Ottomans. Britain could retain the Suez Canal and even gain sole sovereignty over the Sudan.

Hell, look at the things the Ottomans still ruled on paper and had to "give up" at Sevres: the Dodecanese, Egypt, even Tunis.
 
Top