Different Berlin Confenference 1885

What If instead of the U.S. and C.S.A. as obsevers how about them be members along with England, France, Russia, Germany, and the others? What colonies in Asia and Africa would each nation get wth these 2 different nations in the mix?
 
The Berlin Conference didn't exactly partition Africa, at most it partitioned the coast. The main result of the conference was teh establishment of a new set of conventions/rules to determine how a power's claims could be evaluated ("effective occupancy" etc.) though it was also imp[ortant in terms of defining Germany's role in the scramble and in determining the fate of the Congo.

the chance of two powers without any territory or claims in Africa being "awarded" much is therefore very slight, though of course if the USA had pursued colonies in Africa it could probably have got something later on
 
The Hinterland policy to boot

and the taking of areas to deny others them
- hence clashes over Ubangi, Fashoda, Baretseland, the Caprivi Strip etc

Grey Wolf
 
ConfederateFly said:
What If instead of the U.S. and C.S.A. as obsevers how about them be members along with England, France, Russia, Germany, and the others? What colonies in Asia and Africa would each nation get wth these 2 different nations in the mix?

I'm going to exclude the CSA from this mix, seeing as you have a double POD here. However, the most the USA could do at the conference is renew its claim on Liberia. They had more means to hold Liberia by 1885.
 
I think the CSA would try to get something maybe on Africa east Coast and most definatly something in Asia because if they got a Pacific Coast the will want an influence in the Pacific
 
Ace Venom said:
I'm going to exclude the CSA from this mix, seeing as you have a double POD here. However, the most the USA could do at the conference is renew its claim on Liberia. They had more means to hold Liberia by 1885.

But did they ever want to HOLD it ? I was under the impression they wanted to PROTECT IT ? And this isn't the Italian euphenism used in Somaliland, this is to keep it independent and safe from the clutches of Britain and France - i.e. see TR's involvement in the 20th century

Grey Wolf
 
ConfederateFly said:
I think the CSA would try to get something maybe on Africa east Coast and most definatly something in Asia because if they got a Pacific Coast the will want an influence in the Pacific

The problem for the CSA is that is likely to be no more powerful than Austria-Hungary in Asia, or at the very most Italy. Austria-Hungary retained a naval squadron to be able to have influence in joint decisions (eg re the Boxer Rebellion) but no dreams of colonies. Italy had dreams of colonies but not the power to enforce them - eg Ningpo

These places are not ripe for the taking if you are not ripe for the picking thereof

Grey Wolf
 
ConfederateFly said:
I think the CSA would try to get something maybe on Africa east Coast and most definatly something in Asia because if they got a Pacific Coast the will want an influence in the Pacific

Providing they can defend their interests I doubt CS interest would be on the African east coast but predominately on the WEST coast. It'll just be easier to cross the Atlantic rather than both the Atlantic and Indian. There's nothing in Asia for them to pick up by the 1880s unless they blatantly go to war and seize Siam - which I think would be beyond them.

Undoubtedly the major obstacle to any African possession would be the issue of slavery in the CS. The British certainly aren't going to allow the CS to have any African territory so if can renew the slave trade. The British, and probably the Americans also, will seize ships carrying slaves and theres nothing the CS would be able to do about it.
 
What if They got and African Nation to send some free blacks who want to got to Africa. If the CSA has a Pacific port wouldn't they want to project to asia because they would be dominated in the Atlantic?
 
First of all, you had to have an interest in Africa to get invited to the Berlin Conference. The CSA had no possessions in Africa, so they would not have been invited. The USA was invited as an observer because Liberia was sort of a "protectorate". It was not viewed as a colonial possession, and it would have been a totally alien concept at the time ror either the USA or CSA to have an empire - as late as the Spanish-American War the nation was deeply divided over having ex-Spanish possessions.

Second, even if the Confederates wanted to attend they wouldn't be allowed, since one of the primary justifications for African imperialism was the destruction of slavery.
 
David S Poepoe said:
Undoubtedly the major obstacle to any African possession would be the issue of slavery in the CS. The British certainly aren't going to allow the CS to have any African territory so if can renew the slave trade. The British, and probably the Americans also, will seize ships carrying slaves and theres nothing the CS would be able to do about it.

And that would be a blatant act of war, seeing as how it's legal interstate commerce, which is not infringed upon by the ban on the slave trade or the Confederate Constitution, rather than international commerce. But that's beside the point. The CSA would be forced to install a loyalist black regime to even get the idea to work and even Amero-Liberians wouldn't cooperate with them.

But the biggest obstacle for claiming an African colony for the Confederates is the Confederacy itself. There wasn't room for slavery to expand, so there was little use to import more slaves from Africa. The self-sustaining slave population in North America was more than enough.

As far as the US laying a claim to Liberia, as I stated, all you require is a slight shift in US policy. Perhaps, seeing the Congress of Berlin as a threat to their interests in Africa, they opt to claim Liberia rather than take the chance of Britain or France occupying the nation. I'm under the understanding that Germany would love this idea simply because it keeps British and French attentions off Germany.

The US having possessions on both sides of the Atlantic would have some other butterflies. The Spanish-American War may happen, but it may erupt into a larger war. Who knows?
 
The CSA would be forced to install a loyalist black regime to even get the idea to work and even Amero-Liberians wouldn't cooperate with them.

If they tried what black leader would they install?

What about the CSA and Asia/Pacific?
 
ConfederateFly said:
If they tried what black leader would they install?

What about the CSA and Asia/Pacific?

The CSA would be more interested in an open-door economic policy in Asia and the Pacific. Relations would be quite friendly with the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Confederates may claim Midway just so they can have a coaling station for their navy near the Hawaiian Islands.

But the Confederate agenda in East Asia would be as follows:

1) Open-Door Policy in China
2) Friendly relations with Japan (I'm under the belief that Confederate and Prussian military tactics will influence the modernization of the Imperial Japanese Army)
3) Friendly relations with Russia

The main Confederate interest in the Pacific/East Asia would be for economic rather than imperialist opportunities.
 
ConfederateFly said:
What possessions would the CSA and USA have by the WW 1?

Well the way this discussion is going your glorious CSA would have a few rocky islands in the Pacific

The USA would have a bit more - its hard to say what. Defeat against the CSA may well mean no Spanish-American War, after all consider where the nearest US naval base is compared to Cuba !

Grey Wolf
 
Top