DBWI: International Relations Remain Singularly Guided by a Desire for More Land Longer

Okay, so, in OTL, most countries got out of their "I want to build an empire and fuck anyone who doesn't like that" phase in the mid-1800s, after imperialism and colonialism proved conclusively to be a crapshoot, although... well, the German Unification was still a thing, but that was more motivated by nationalism than imperialism.

However, what if imperialism, colonialism, and "fuck everything else" expansionism had stayed with us a few more decades, maybe even a century. What if international relations remained mostly determined by who wanted whose land, how much they wanted it, and what their neighbors thought of them wanting it?

Yeah, I know this is an extremely sarcastic over-simplification which probably falls flat at satirizing the attitudes and ideas of the time, but I figure it'll still probably be an interesting WI.

OOC: Inspired by a comment by @kernals12 on the thread "WI: Wilhelmine Germany attempts to go to war with US between 1899-1904".

I am glad that international relations is not singularly guided by a desire for more land anymore.
 

Deleted member 114175

Where was there even left to colonize in the late XIX century? Africa?

It doesn't make sense because the whole continent except Egypt and the Cape is unsuitable for European agriculture, and the few developed areas already had native empires, like Ethiopia and the Sokoto Caliphate. If the French had issues conquering Mexico, they're not going to be able to conquer an empire with a larger population, deep inland in Africa, even if it has a less technologically advanced military than Mexico.

We should remember though, that even until the year 1900, some countries like the United States, Argentina, Russia, Mexico, and Australia were still filling in large land claims that they had made up to the early 19th century and the "moratorium of colonialism" caused by the 1848 revolutions
 
The Wars of 53' is often considered "The end of history" so far as Imperialism in Eurasia goes; the Post-Napoleonic order set up by Metternich really was a masterstroke of diplomatic balance that only needed the single oversight; Russia's borders with the Ottoman Caliphate, hammered out. After the Autumn of Anarchists in 48, nobody was going to support secessionist radicals anywhere, and when the Grand Alliance decisively crushed Russian expansionist aims in the Balkans an officially signed the "Oath of Order" renouncing religion and ethnic justifications for war, brought the Turks into the Concert of Nations, and created the international rules of arbitration, we haven't seen a conflict between Eurasian nations since everybody realized the costs of war and profits of free commerce. Once the infrastructure was in place and the idea that war isen't worth it at hoe set in among he Continent, it was hardly an intellectual leap to figure out a much of malaria filled Afrcan jungles wasen't worth the squeeze

If Russia wins and actually gets what they want by force, it could easily form a vicious cycle of insecurity and trade instability, making governments turn back to merchantalist policies they had only just started to abandon and thus feel the need to have all heir raw resources come from their land on heir ships.
 
There was an attempt at a large land grab in Africa! In 1885, during the rubber boom, Portugal staked a claim over the entire Congo basin and managed to take control of large regions and created an extremely brutal exploitation regime there, and would have been able to keep it if the events of 1891 had not happened.
 
The Revolutionary Wars were just really horrible, that's all there is to it- especially the Sixth Coalition, which was just this brutal seesaw over Germany after Austria took so long to join. When Bonaparte was finally pushed back to Paris in 1817, when the dust cleared and this beautiful city had been destroyed by war and revolution- how could the rulers of Europe, and their people, not look at this and say "no more"?
 
Top