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.
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?
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.
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.
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).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.
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?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).
Yes, it was technically Ottoman, so was Cyprus. The Ottoman Empire still won't get either, since they can't beat Britain.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.
Ah, didn't know that.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 think the Ottomans would get Libya.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.