Glen
Moderator
Well, turbulent at least.
Rather Prussian and Korsgaardian - and seeing the world's sorrows as their opportunities...
Glen
Moderator
It could be - it's not quite fascism, but it has many of the features of fascism, and fills a similar ecological niche.
I may take you up on that, though I may wait to the turn of the century in the TL, before I start musing stroy ideas.
Glen
Moderator
The economic downturn in the world led to several powers seeking more economic resources in the form of increased trade partners in the world, especially in Africa. Several powers expanded or even established for the first time footholds on the African continent. Some more philosophical souls in the Western World decried the practice, calling it a form of parasitism on less advanced nations. Most, however, saw it as a tool to crawl out of the economic tailspin of the 1880s and as a form of exerting national pride.
Africa circa 1885:
Africa circa 1885:
Glen
Moderator
Yeah, I was feeling lazy - really hoping Plumber will swoop in with a new and improved version....
Curious. The thing about Africa was that most of the continent was nothing more than a colossal drain on resources. There were a few good spots, but by and large they were taken already and if they weren't on the coast then at this stage, no-one knew about them. For those countries choosing to invest in Africa to solve their financial crisis...well, to me it's about the worst possible idea they could have had. There's no profit to be gained from it. Methinks those countries which went down the Africa route are going to have just prolongued their own recession by a good 2-3 years...more, in fact, if they insist on pumping money into the colonies in the hope of making them more viable.
Just my opinion, of course.
Just my opinion, of course.
yea unless they make considerate investments in Africa they wont make much profit in the long run but in the short term it will just be a drain and really strange seeing how bug the Ottomans are so late
zeppelin247
With the Ottomans I think that is technically pretty much as OTL as officially Egypt and its Sudanese colony were Ottoman satellites and until the Mahdist rebellion they also had positions along the Eriterian coastline. How secure this control was inland is another matter.
With Africa, other than a few areas, such as the S African gold and diamond mines it was more speculation, some settlement in favourable areas and a lot of political interests in terms of stamping out slavery, increasing national prestige, keeping other powers out and seeking to protect trading interests. As you say most colonies meant losses, especially for the metropolitan governments, although often at least some traders or colonists made profits.
Steve
I agree with this very much so. That Congo colony for one is utterly and ridiculously useless without the ENORMOUS cost of bypassing the Livingstone falls via railroad. The Portuguese failure to move into the basin was not due to laziness you know.
The resources have not been found, infrastructure hasn't been built, and anti-malarials are only just starting to get really cheap. It was the ending of the OTL Long Depression and states being flush with cash that spurred the New Imperialism, not its beginning.
Glen
Moderator
I shall answer the comments in detail below, but I have to say, I found this dismay about the depresison spurring colonialism funny, since I basically stole it from OTL. This little blurb here specifically about the impact of OTL's Long Depression on New Imperialism. While some of the comments about the long term economic inviability may or may not be correct, what only matters in terms of history is what the prevailing feelings and thoughts of the time are.
And of course, you may be correct, but nonetheless, it is what actually happened IOTL, and it is a lot of the big empires both then and now doing it - maybe that is part of the reason why the Long Depression was so long - then again, we shall see.
Strange but true. Don't get the Ottoman comment here though, could you explain?
This Ottoman Empire thus far is far healthier and stronger at this point in history than OTL. They never lost effective control of Egypt or the Sudan the way they did OTL, and they even reasserted control in other areas as well.
And I suspect some making profits will be all it takes to keep interest going.
Fair enough - I imagine that Prussian-Polish will have similar joy of it.
Ah, and Nugax gets the comparison! Good man!! I was in fact inspired by the posting on this time period on wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source), but I think trying to establish new markets (i.e. take all the wealth out of a colony) will be attractive enough - note that this is just an acceleration of a historical trend already established in the 1870s, and not completely mature as of the posting that spurred all this discussion. Time will tell how the African colonial drives end up.
This little blurb here specifically about the impact of OTL's Long Depression on New Imperialism. While some of the comments about the long term economic inviability may or may not be correct, what only matters in terms of history is what the prevailing feelings and thoughts of the time are.And of course, you may be correct, but nonetheless, it is what actually happened IOTL, and it is a lot of the big empires both then and now doing it - maybe that is part of the reason why the Long Depression was so long - then again, we shall see.
Strange but true. Don't get the Ottoman comment here though, could you explain?
zeppelin247
With the Ottomans I think that is technically pretty much as OTL as officially Egypt and its Sudanese colony were Ottoman satellites and until the Mahdist rebellion they also had positions along the Eriterian coastline. How secure this control was inland is another matter.
This Ottoman Empire thus far is far healthier and stronger at this point in history than OTL. They never lost effective control of Egypt or the Sudan the way they did OTL, and they even reasserted control in other areas as well.
And I suspect some making profits will be all it takes to keep interest going.
Fair enough - I imagine that Prussian-Polish will have similar joy of it.
Ah, and Nugax gets the comparison! Good man!! I was in fact inspired by the posting on this time period on wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source), but I think trying to establish new markets (i.e. take all the wealth out of a colony) will be attractive enough - note that this is just an acceleration of a historical trend already established in the 1870s, and not completely mature as of the posting that spurred all this discussion. Time will tell how the African colonial drives end up.
I'm curious - what comparison did Nugax pick up on?
Also I think, pardon my saying, that you're missing the point about this - or maybe you have understood, and are simply leading up to a catastrophic Eurocolonyfail that we are simply not anticipating enough here. The idea of bleeding a colony dry of its resources to feed the struggling economies back home may be an attractive proposition, but it simply won't work like that. No colony established in Africa at this point will (in the short or medium terms) turn any profit whatsoever to send back to Europe. The outlay of establishing colonies will entirely negate what revenue can be made, because what revenue can be made will be exceedingly small indeed. Thus, these colonies will only serve to drive Europe deeper into recession. As Nugax said, in OTL African colonies were only attempted at this point when Europe was pulling itself out of recession - in other words, when the markets had already recovered and there was spare money which countries could afford to spend without hope of seeing profit on. It would have been economic suicide to attempt it before that, as a method of enacting that pulling oneself out of recession, because it simply cannot work.
Glen
Moderator
That this was a depression similar to the OTL Long Depression, and that the effects of this Long Depression was supposed to be similar to OTL's in terms of New Imperialism.
Could be either way.
I expanded my search a bit on the impact of the Long Depression on New Imperialism. But I am still coming up with the responses that actually expansion of colonialism during that depression was seen as a way to improve the economy (not the sole way to be sure). Prolonged depression led to increased protectionism and theory of needing 'captive markets' for trading raw materials for finished goods. I agree that it didn't happen in the first years of the depression (nor did it here), but neither does it appear that it only happened after the Long Depression was ending.
Now then, I will point out that this is only a parallel to OTL, not an exact recapitulation. If you look carefully at the map I posted, as well as reading the previous posts on African colonialism, you will see that the growth of colonies in Africa actually started about a decade before the start of this depression, but that it was used as a rationale to continue it. I agree that colonialism isn't going to pull them out of this depression, but that's not the point - I am merely reporting the mindset of the times, not the actual results thereof, yet.
Glen
Moderator
With British Patagonia and Australia would the DSA really be referred to as "the South"? Also what are people from the USA called? USAians or Freedonians sounds stupid, the existence and prominence of the DSA vetoes "Americans". IMHO I think Yankee will win out despite the complaints of Virginians and those from the mid-Atlantic states.