Dividing the Portuguese colonial empire
- Thread starter PariahNihil
- Start date
Well, don't look at me: I'm overtaxed because my country is on the verge of bankruptcy (again
) and it has no colonies to sell out. If I remember correctly, that is part of a British propaganda piece called Germany's Future.
Anyway, the below is the best estimate I can give on how the Portuguese Colonies were going to be divided:
For those that aren't displayed, Sao Tome and Principe were to be alloted to Germany, though only because Britain had no interest in them, and others have already mentioned Timor. In regards to Angola however, the Germans and British were at odds because the Germans wished to have direct access to Katanga, preferably through a railway under the control of the Reich.
Anyway, the below is the best estimate I can give on how the Portuguese Colonies were going to be divided:
For those that aren't displayed, Sao Tome and Principe were to be alloted to Germany, though only because Britain had no interest in them, and others have already mentioned Timor. In regards to Angola however, the Germans and British were at odds because the Germans wished to have direct access to Katanga, preferably through a railway under the control of the Reich.
Back when I was writing an Anglo-German alliance timeline, I had Germany get Angola, Macau, Sao Tome and Principe, and Ouidah; while Britain got Mozambique, Goa and Diiu, and Portuguese Timor. Portugal retained Guinea and the Cape Verde islands, since neither power had any interest in them.
If Germany gained Timor, would it attach it to New Guinea or just sell it off to the Netherlands for a nice chunk of cash?
The best I can guess at is that it would be made into some sort of Naval Installation, of the kind that they had hoped to establish in the Philippines shortly before Spain lost them to the United States. I can't imagine they would sell it off however unless such plans fell through.
Is Timor really worth keeping aside from a naval facility? I thought it wasn't as profitable as the rest of the Indies, and the Netherlands would want to take the whole island and not just 1/3rd.
I'll be honest, I don't know why else the Germans would want it, given it was mentioned by someone else, and the sources I have don't mention it at all. Angola and Mozambique were the only two given any major, serious consideration, and thus often wash out discussions regarding the others.
I assumed Germany would gain Portuguese Guinea, with Portugal retaining its integrated Atlantic possessions and Macau. The rest up for grabs.
Flubber
Banned
From Friedrich von Holstein: Politics and Diplomacy in the Era of Bismack and Wilhelm II - Volume 2, written by Norman Rich, published by the Cambridge University Press, page 588:
I've no idea why Germany would want Timor, but she believed it to be worth half of Angola and Mozambique for reasons unknown to us.
BlondieBC
Banned
India and China were the land of great wealth, not Africa. Look at warship ranges and where the German ports are. Germany desperately needs a military base or at least friendly port with a few defenses halfway between Tsingtao and Dar Es Salaam. In my TL, to get the U-boats from China to Dar Es Salaam and allow any effective patroling, I had to send a tanker (really modified freigther) to refuel near Indonesia. You will get similar issues with the surface fleet. Yes, the German ships have too short a legs to get out of the North Sea, but if you assume a neutral UK then Germany can make it to Tsingtao with the high seas fleet using Germany ports and perhaps a little at sea refueling. Hamburg to Douala to SWA to Dar Es Salaam to East Timor to Tsingtao just about works. Dar Es Salaam to Tsingtao does not work. Or Even Dar Es Salaam to Rabual.
What colonies became independent as a result of WW I?
None, AFAIK. German colonies were awarded to the victorious Allied as Mandates which were de facto colonies, along with parts of the Turkish Empire.
It was damaging, but far from disastrous. The Spanish Flu of 1918 actually killed more people.
The War killed relatively few women, which is the key to demographic change; it also killed a lot more people in eastern Europe and the Middle East than in western Europe (proportionately).
France and Germany, the two hardest hit Great Powers, lost about 4% of population. Britain lost 2%, Italy 3.5%. That stings - but it doesn't cut future growth by hundreds of millions. The total for Euro-descended countries was about 13M.
Right now, you mean?
Well. How many people of European descent are there outside Europe? And do you mean "people of exclusively European descent", "almost exclusively European descent", "predominantly European descent", "significantly European descent", or "any European descent"?
Are persons of mixed ancestry pro-rated? Is Barack Obama "of European descent"? Tiger Woods?
My quick estimate is that there are about 600M people "of European descent" outside Europe. (Not counting Asian Russia.)
Most of those are in the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, Chile, and Argentina (363M; 80-95% Euro). Another 178M or so in the rest of Latin America (30% to 50% Euro). 11M in Kazakhstan (50% Russian) and Israel (35% Ashkenazim; the rest are Mizrahim and Arabs). 50M scattered through the rest of the world.
I don't see how or where "No World War I" adds 300M or 500M to that.
Furthermore, Europe has 741M people (including Russian Asia and all the non-Euros living in Europe now).
That of course reflects WW II (another demographic hit)... but where is there going to be another 300M Euros to emigrate?
There weren't very many Germans who actually wanted to settle in any of Germany's colonies. Angola has 18M people, 1% white and 2% mestizo. Namibia has 2M people, 6% white and 6% mixed. So the present area has 20M people of which about 4% are white or mixed. One would need almost 20M additional whites and mixed.
Less than 10%, then. But even that would be remarkable, because whites actually settled South Africa before the Bantus got there, whereas East Africa has been black-occupied for millenia. The present population is about 70M, so about 7M whites. Where do they come from?
Remotely possible, if France really works at it.
Possible, but only because Libya has a very small population.
Highly unlikely.
Both are almost exclusively white now.
World War I killed 13M people in Europe. For there to be "several hundred million more" Euro-descended people missing, it means each of the dead would have 15-30 descendants. Doesn't compute.
At independence Whites comprised 3.3% of Angolas population while the Mestiço population was around 4-6%, like most African colonies the White minority populations left en masse at independence resulting in greatly reduced populations to varying degrees.
Not just that, Italians in general migrated to the colonies alot on their own and IOTL the italian government began a program to encourage migration to them even more to the point by 1939 Italians comprised 12.4% of the population of Libya as a whole and 37% and 31% of Tripoli and Benghazi respectively.
Not really, by 1910 their were roughly 140,000 Europeans in Tunisia or about 7% of the population.
It's not assured it would happen, but it's only unlikely, rather than highly unlikely.
BlondieBC
Banned
WW1 and WW2 are the same war. So in reality, all of them. Now it takes time to unfold, but you look at India in 1919-1921 and you see the system falling apart. You see the RN having severe budget issues. You see end of major white population flows from Europe. You see Japan become the dominant power in China, during WW1.
First, without WW1, the conditions leading to the Spanish flu probably do not arise. Second, your numbers are too low. You have to add in the massive population losses in the RCW. And then you get to demographics of birth. In the 1915-1919 window, Germany alone is short 5.4 million births compared to 2.4 million war dead. Then you lose about 300K per year for 20 years for another 6.0 million. So we are looking at 11.4 million missing people compared to 2.4 million war dead. Then you add on the population growth for the 1939-2012 window. Then repeat for other nations. And Germany was not the worst hit region for deaths. It is easily the numbers I list, even if we assume we have a great war in the 1939-1945 time frame that kills an equal number to OTL.
I have not added up all the numbers, but the missing people excluding the Spanish Flu from WW1 in 1939 is easily 30 million and probably topped 50 million.
By European descent, I mean plurality European blood who consider themselves European or majority European blood regardless of how they self identify. Barrack is not European descent. Half and half and does not self identify as European. If he had married a white women, I would count his children as European. As would I if he self identified as white. Not a perfect rule, but we have to draw lines to have discussions.
Now in the pre WW1 dynamic, there are about 2-3% surplus males and up to 8% who will never marry if they stay in the home country. A lot of these will leave and have mixed race children, and a lot will also have pure blood European children. Sort of how world works. With shortage of women, richer/more powerful men tend to get the sex, and before modern birth control, this shows up pretty clearly in the next generation.
And there is another part of the process. If you look at Italy from 1900 to 1950, they kept the non-Italian population flat in Libya through various measures. None of them nice. I expect to see this kind of pattern happen in other areas. The Europeans will get priority access to resources, so when there is a famine, it will mostly be the non-Europeans dying. There will also be supression campaigns. Burnt earth strategies. Just like before WW1. The pattern continues. I am not saying the worlds population is higher by the amount listed. It will definitely not be the same amount. And it could be even less if these additional Europeans consume resources at a substantially higher rate than the the population they are replacing.
None of this is pretty. But it is true.
For the Germans however, from what I have read, the land of great wealth was Africa, not India or China (the former because it was claimed by the British, and the latter given distances while also for the most part claimed by British influence). Africa in contrast was relatively untapped, undeveloped, and besides being a potential major producer of raw materials, was also viewed as a major potential market in and of itself, following some German-led uplifting and infrastructural development. Central Africa was effectively their dream Raj.
BlondieBC
Banned
Ok, I see we want to go with details on individual countries.
So lets do Angola. Angola is closer to 2-3 million at the time of WW1. Now we have to make assumptions, so we assume it goes to Germany and becomes the prestige German colony. Now likely Germany keeps the native population a lot flatter than OTL. Mostly by taking resources, which means less food for natives. But also by outright killing. It is easy to find 5, 6, and even some 7 digit native massacres with various 5 year periods. The Germans are not alone, but they also have a pretty clear prewar pattern of handling revolt. Burn the fields and villages. Attack any armies that stand to fights. This has a big impact on population. For example, in German East Africa, we have 300K or so died in single campaign in the early 1900's. Probably at least 5% of the colonies native population. Likely bigger impact if we have the demographic data to analyse births. So an native population of Angola is probably under 6 million today, if these trends/practices continue.
Now Europe was exporting over 2 million people per year. Yes, most went to white areas, but these likely close up over time. You can have a TL where all these extra people go to places like USA, Aussies, Canada and Argentina. And it is possible. But IMO, the more likely is a big chunk (10-50% are going to non-white areas OTL by 1930. So just play around with some numbers. If 10,000 Germans go to Angola for 20 years (1916-1936), we will have easily 300K Germans. They had big families and young men move. It is easy to get these people to 1.2 million compared to say 6 million blacks. This gives us a South Africa type population. If we assume either sustained population moves of 10K per year, we are easily 3-4 million whites. Add in some mix marriages, and we have a majority white country. Or we could have some larger boosts. Lets imagine the Kaiserreich actually put major subsidies into it. Then we might get 1.5 million or more Germans by 1940. Probably well over 5 million whites. And here is the nasty part. If we have this many people trying to live a European life style, they will be hogging the resources. We then likely have well under 3 million blacks. Yes at first, the Germans will use a lot of black labor. But as farms automate (tractors), this population will become unneeded and unimportant. Likely very short on food.
To show you how little Europeans carried. WW1 may have killed more Africans than Europeans in the direct war effort. Easily more Africans died than French or Germans. No one writes about it. No one carried back then, so the data is missing. They ran a human porter chain from the mouth of the Congo to Rwanda for 20K so troops or so. No real provision to stop disease. Large, but hard to estimate death tools. Same in British East Africa. Same for Germans in German East Africa. Few things are more lethal than manual labor in a malarial swamp with poor/limited food. White units lost 25% to 50% per year to disease in these campaigns. Natives would be higher with worse/less food and no medical care, only slightly helped by genetic resistance to Malaria. And just like in Germany, soldiers away means no sex with women means fewer babies.
So lets do Angola. Angola is closer to 2-3 million at the time of WW1. Now we have to make assumptions, so we assume it goes to Germany and becomes the prestige German colony. Now likely Germany keeps the native population a lot flatter than OTL. Mostly by taking resources, which means less food for natives. But also by outright killing. It is easy to find 5, 6, and even some 7 digit native massacres with various 5 year periods. The Germans are not alone, but they also have a pretty clear prewar pattern of handling revolt. Burn the fields and villages. Attack any armies that stand to fights. This has a big impact on population. For example, in German East Africa, we have 300K or so died in single campaign in the early 1900's. Probably at least 5% of the colonies native population. Likely bigger impact if we have the demographic data to analyse births. So an native population of Angola is probably under 6 million today, if these trends/practices continue.
Now Europe was exporting over 2 million people per year. Yes, most went to white areas, but these likely close up over time. You can have a TL where all these extra people go to places like USA, Aussies, Canada and Argentina. And it is possible. But IMO, the more likely is a big chunk (10-50% are going to non-white areas OTL by 1930. So just play around with some numbers. If 10,000 Germans go to Angola for 20 years (1916-1936), we will have easily 300K Germans. They had big families and young men move. It is easy to get these people to 1.2 million compared to say 6 million blacks. This gives us a South Africa type population. If we assume either sustained population moves of 10K per year, we are easily 3-4 million whites. Add in some mix marriages, and we have a majority white country. Or we could have some larger boosts. Lets imagine the Kaiserreich actually put major subsidies into it. Then we might get 1.5 million or more Germans by 1940. Probably well over 5 million whites. And here is the nasty part. If we have this many people trying to live a European life style, they will be hogging the resources. We then likely have well under 3 million blacks. Yes at first, the Germans will use a lot of black labor. But as farms automate (tractors), this population will become unneeded and unimportant. Likely very short on food.
To show you how little Europeans carried. WW1 may have killed more Africans than Europeans in the direct war effort. Easily more Africans died than French or Germans. No one writes about it. No one carried back then, so the data is missing. They ran a human porter chain from the mouth of the Congo to Rwanda for 20K so troops or so. No real provision to stop disease. Large, but hard to estimate death tools. Same in British East Africa. Same for Germans in German East Africa. Few things are more lethal than manual labor in a malarial swamp with poor/limited food. White units lost 25% to 50% per year to disease in these campaigns. Natives would be higher with worse/less food and no medical care, only slightly helped by genetic resistance to Malaria. And just like in Germany, soldiers away means no sex with women means fewer babies.
BlondieBC
Banned
Not true. More access to. Just compare the investment in the ports/naval bases for Tsingtao to Dar Es Salaam or Douala. One had capital ships and an imperial unit of marines. One had a cumulative capital budget of over 100 million marks. The others had almost no defenses, no marines, and a budget under 1 million marks. In Dar Es Salaam, you could hunt lines from the roof tops. It is clear which one Willie valued more.
BlondieBC
Banned
It is post 1027 in my TL if you want to see details, but I did Italy not in WW1.
Now there are some things that will happen here that will not happens say in Angola. To become white, you basically need to convert to Christianity. IMO a lot of this happens. But let us assume the Muslims have 100% retention of Muslims. And Italy follows OTL policy and the non-Christian population does not grow until 1950. So in 1950 we have 2.0 million Muslims. We take about the 0.7 million "whites" there at the start of WW1. Add 20 years growth gets us above a million. Take the mid range for immigation of 0.5 million. We are up to 1.5 million "whites" and 2.0 million Muslims in 1950. With limited continuing immigration or any noticeable conversion to Christianity (Italianess) or suppression of Muslims ability to have children in the next Generation, we easily have a majority Italian state. Well more than 75%. It will not be one big things such as the final solution for Muslims. It will be various revolts harshly punished. It will be pushing the Muslims from the cities either to new slums or the desert areas. It will be worse health care in these slums. It will be ambitious young men becoming Italian to lessen discrimation. It will be Italian men marry Muslim women and the children being "Italian". It is clear where this ends.
Now there are some things that will happen here that will not happens say in Angola. To become white, you basically need to convert to Christianity. IMO a lot of this happens. But let us assume the Muslims have 100% retention of Muslims. And Italy follows OTL policy and the non-Christian population does not grow until 1950. So in 1950 we have 2.0 million Muslims. We take about the 0.7 million "whites" there at the start of WW1. Add 20 years growth gets us above a million. Take the mid range for immigation of 0.5 million. We are up to 1.5 million "whites" and 2.0 million Muslims in 1950. With limited continuing immigration or any noticeable conversion to Christianity (Italianess) or suppression of Muslims ability to have children in the next Generation, we easily have a majority Italian state. Well more than 75%. It will not be one big things such as the final solution for Muslims. It will be various revolts harshly punished. It will be pushing the Muslims from the cities either to new slums or the desert areas. It will be worse health care in these slums. It will be ambitious young men becoming Italian to lessen discrimation. It will be Italian men marry Muslim women and the children being "Italian". It is clear where this ends.
Germany was prepared to give up its Pacific holdings in return for expanded gains in Africa, and its proposed gains in the First World War were exclusive to Africa. I have seen little if any evidence of German designs in Asia other than economic access to China (something which Tsingtao secured, and given the Boxer Rebellion, it made sense to keep a relatively large military station there). Even that was laid on the table as a sacrifice.