German colonial gains in a Central Powers escenary

Going into context, with a German victory at Verdun that in the long term breaks allied morale after a series of German offensives, what colonies can Germany demand from France (from the United Kingdom the only thing it could hope for is to recover its occupied colonies) I certainly see plausible that they demand the Belgian Congo, Dahomey and Equatorial Africa plus the recovery of Togo, Cameroon and East Africa in exchange for vacating the canal and abandoning their ambitions in Belgium. However, you could also see the French offering some extra colonies (Perhaps Indochina) as a way to avoid annexation of Briey Longwy, which could put a major brake on a French reconstruction.
 
I recall reading somewhere in here (best source ever!) that German plans for colonial expansion were an unrealistic pipe dream, unlike the big German colonial empires depicted in Kaiserwank timelines, deep inside, Germany was willing accept losing most, if not all of their overseas colonies in order to focus in maintaining their permanent rule in continental Europe, and administering their recently-established puppet states in the former Russian Empire, a famous German politician(?) even said that "our Africa is in Europe".

Out of European affairs, Britain would now focus itself on colonial issues, and Germany letting them stay with Tanganyika and New Guinea was a guarantee of "here you can have it, now leave us alone, k?", additionally, with the defeated France I can understand forcing upon them territorial demands, but could Germany really enforce Britain, South Africa, and Japan to hand them Tanganyika, South West Africa, New Guinea, Tsingtao, and the Mariana islands back? simply no.

A likely scenario would be if Germany only retains Togoland, and perhaps Cameroon as its colonies.

About the Congo, it depends the status of Belgium, Germany planned to make Belgium a puppet state, not annex it, the Belgian Congo could either become de-facto German territory "controlled" by their Belgian puppet, or Germany would outright take the Congo for themselves, but would it be worth it to take the Congo for themselves if Germany does not has Tanganyika? since their whole "Mittelafrika" intention of gaining the Congo was to create a single large colony spanning from Cameroon to Tanganyika in order to create a line to the Indian Ocean, but without Tanganyika, there is little reason for this.
 
Last edited:
I recall reading somewhere in here (best source ever!) that German plans for colonial expansion were an unrealistic pipe dream, unlike the big German colonial empires depicted in Kaiserwank timelines, deep inside, Germany was willing accept losing most, if not all of their overseas colonies in order to focus in maintaining their permanent rule in continental Europe, and administering their recently-established puppet states in the former Russian Empire, a famous German politician(?) even said that "our Africa is in Europe".

Out of European affairs, Britain would now focus itself on colonial issues, and Germany letting them stay with Tanganyika and New Guinea was a guarantee of "here you can have it, now leave us alone, k?", additionally, with the defeated France I can understand forcing upon them territorial demands, but could Germany really enforce Britain, South Africa, and Japan to hand them Tanganyika, South West Africa, New Guinea, Tsingtao, and the Mariana islands back? simply no.

A likely scenario would be if Germany only retains Togoland, and perhaps Cameroon as its colonies.

About the Congo, it depends the status of Belgium, Germany planned to make Belgium a puppet state, not annex it, the Belgian Congo could either become de-facto German territory "controlled" by their Belgian puppet, or Germany would outright take the Congo for themselves, but would it be worth it to take the Congo for themselves if Germany does not has Tanganyika? since their whole "Mittelafrika" intention of gaining the Congo was to create a single large colony spanning from Cameroon to Tanganyika in order to create a line to the Indian Ocean, but without Tanganyika, there is little reason for this.
Yes, the German plans were somewhat absurd considering their power capacity. However, I think that for reasons of prestige I do not see Germany abandoning its colonies so quickly, especially when the channel is occupied. Personally, I believe that Germany will seek a reconfiguration of its empire, accepting the loss of the Pacific but seeking to guarantee its portion of Africa, not like the Mittelafrika raised in the Kaiserreich, but some colonies in central Africa that could allow it to come out well in the colonial area. One plausible thing that occurs to me is that the UK is leaving East Africa as a means of ensuring channel security and Belgian neutrality.
 
I just put up a poll about a week ago, about 50% of the votes were for Germany to get at least some of its colonies back in a "status quo" end to the war. First, I think one must accept that London cannot be forced to accept anything but it certainly has certain vital points to gain in any peace that it will bargain. Second, Paris has little bargaining power but Britain will veto it giving away too much. Third, Germany has most of its vital interests on the continent but still has interests globally as well as "prestige" to consider. Combined I think the outcome depends of just how you believe the game of bluff and bluster is played.

Some of my assumptions are that without the USA a belligerent morale fails sooner, especially in France, who is still perfectly capable of mounting good defense but can no longer mount an offensive. The wars is just costlier to London and Paris, adding urgency to some armistice and end to hostilities. The USA is pushing its neutral rights stronger and the blockade is faltering, worse London must fear the USA will intervene against it (no matter if that is wholly irrational). And Germany has avoided the blatant mistakes that truly dragged defeat out of the jaws of "victory".

Russia has "peaced" out sooner, so less gains in the East but slightly more secure, likely just Poland, Lithuania, Livonia and Courland. Finland is tumbling out of Russian control, Ukraine may still be rebellious against whatever government is in Petrograd with Austrian/Germany support but little to no boots on that ground. London is simply trying to keep Russia from collapsing into civil war as that blows the loans outstanding and threatens to fully unstop the Germans. Italy has been forced to peace out too. So it gets nothing from either side. Romania settles with Germany and falls into its orbit. Germany keeps Luxembourg. A-H is just happy to survive.

My opinion is that London must have Belgium restored to full independence. And it must at least get Germany off the French Channel coast, preferably back behind its own borders. To that end "spending" German colonial dirt is a cheaper way to buy back those losses. The danger is that Germany uses them to mount a guerre de course campaign, so it is reluctant to hand back colonies with good defensible ports. It is reluctant to undo its gifts to SA and Australia but frankly at the big table the Dominions are not that important with the stakes above their pay. France will give anything to get back its territory. Belgium simply is a pawn.

I think both London and Paris will resist German territorial gains in the East, at minimum demanding an independent Poland, at worst leaving it under an Austrian crown but still independent. I think they gave no real weight to the Baltic states. I think Britain tries hard to keep Romania from becoming a German puppet, France tries to shield Greece, no one cares about Serbia.

My opinion is that Germany must have the blockade lifted, and as importantly it needs confidence that it will be able to trade once more. Germany was nearly as dependent upon foreign trade as Britain, that trade equal to 1/3 is GDP by value, and many critical (and still unattainable from Europe) commodities must be sourced overseas (largely in areas controlled by the British or French). Germany does not need any territory in the West and adjusting its borders to the East is even less desirable, but it must have secure borders with access to those economies. Its colonies can be used to give prestige to the peace deal but likely are not actually pushed for, instead they become the shiny objects to hide the sausage making. If Germany has any smarts it realizes that trade with Russia is far more important and not something the Entente can really control so it has already bartered a deal with Russia and longer term has gotten much of what it needs penciled in.

So that likely means that Togo and Southwest Africa are offered up. Samoa is easy enough. Guinea is harder, East Africa is weird because nominally Germany is still contesting it, but with some assurances both can be handed back. For example London might demand trackage rights over an East African rail line connecting the Cape to Cairo route. And I think London demands some naval concessions, likely a permanent reduction of the German dreadnought fleet to a secondary status, up to 50% if possible, no fortifications, and seeks the reduction in both cruisers and submarines (really to eliminate the latter), etc. I think London presses Japan to surrender the pacific atolls but wrings its hands over the concessions in China. If the USA is brokering a deal, those go back to China. That does give you a salvaged AJA but strained Anglo-Japanese relations longer term. London must be concerned about its position in China and bothered by Japanese ambitions so throwing Germany into the mix as its enemy is useful politics, especially as we know it has no real teeth left in the Far East.

To avoid any indemnity for damages to Belgium, Berlin drops its claim upon the Congo, but likely gets some assurances that it can access it, maybe promising to build better rail links to the eastern areas from East Africa. Germany might, and I really do mean might, get some piece of the French Congo, or Chad or CAR if Paris is just totally desperate and London is at wits end. An even longer shot is getting Walvis Bay surrendered. And frankly that is about as far as I can roll sixes for the Germans. No Mittelafrika, no vast East European Empire, no Ukraine, not even Poland, maybe, the Baltics become the vague Duchy under a German aristocrat and bound to Berlin.

Of course that rests upon the OHL failing and being returned to its subordinate position under the Reichstag, Chancellor and Kaiser, a thing that certainly should occur for it has lots of influence but institutionally the federal structure, its elected government and limited monarchy are the political arbiters. The SPD is still likely to finally gain recognition of its power, in coalition with the left leaning Liberals and Zentrum it will truly moderate the peace, SPD proved loyal and likely still has to quash the revolutionaries with the Right and Army so earns its place as part of the system. The Kaiser has lost a lot of influence but is still the figure head and glue that bonds the Empire together if only in official loyalties. So I truly think the grand schemes evaporate, if Germany can get "peace with honor" and the promises that things get back to "normal", it leaves a lot on the table.

With or without any colonies Germany must quickly restore its own civil economy and build trade links into East Europe, establish trade with Russia, and likely find alternatives to French or British supplies, the only place left is South America and the USA for "free" trade. With its colonies Germany has another generation of investment to hopefully extract the resources it requires, a net drain, and frankly investment into Europe is going to be about the same struggle. But Germany does gain a larger Mark-zone, it can work on a customs union that favors the flow of goods both direction to its profit, and has at least some better security. And that is the best I can do to get as close to an antebellum outcome and "maximum" German gains. It leave a lot of broken glass to step on and leaves a lot of hurt feelings to fester over time. So it has much of the dysfunction our time got. That was how I played the cards.
 
I just put up a poll about a week ago, about 50% of the votes were for Germany to get at least some of its colonies back in a "status quo" end to the war. First, I think one must accept that London cannot be forced to accept anything but it certainly has certain vital points to gain in any peace that it will bargain. Second, Paris has little bargaining power but Britain will veto it giving away too much. Third, Germany has most of its vital interests on the continent but still has interests globally as well as "prestige" to consider. Combined I think the outcome depends of just how you believe the game of bluff and bluster is played.

Some of my assumptions are that without the USA a belligerent morale fails sooner, especially in France, who is still perfectly capable of mounting good defense but can no longer mount an offensive. The wars is just costlier to London and Paris, adding urgency to some armistice and end to hostilities. The USA is pushing its neutral rights stronger and the blockade is faltering, worse London must fear the USA will intervene against it (no matter if that is wholly irrational). And Germany has avoided the blatant mistakes that truly dragged defeat out of the jaws of "victory".

Russia has "peaced" out sooner, so less gains in the East but slightly more secure, likely just Poland, Lithuania, Livonia and Courland. Finland is tumbling out of Russian control, Ukraine may still be rebellious against whatever government is in Petrograd with Austrian/Germany support but little to no boots on that ground. London is simply trying to keep Russia from collapsing into civil war as that blows the loans outstanding and threatens to fully unstop the Germans. Italy has been forced to peace out too. So it gets nothing from either side. Romania settles with Germany and falls into its orbit. Germany keeps Luxembourg. A-H is just happy to survive.

My opinion is that London must have Belgium restored to full independence. And it must at least get Germany off the French Channel coast, preferably back behind its own borders. To that end "spending" German colonial dirt is a cheaper way to buy back those losses. The danger is that Germany uses them to mount a guerre de course campaign, so it is reluctant to hand back colonies with good defensible ports. It is reluctant to undo its gifts to SA and Australia but frankly at the big table the Dominions are not that important with the stakes above their pay. France will give anything to get back its territory. Belgium simply is a pawn.

I think both London and Paris will resist German territorial gains in the East, at minimum demanding an independent Poland, at worst leaving it under an Austrian crown but still independent. I think they gave no real weight to the Baltic states. I think Britain tries hard to keep Romania from becoming a German puppet, France tries to shield Greece, no one cares about Serbia.

My opinion is that Germany must have the blockade lifted, and as importantly it needs confidence that it will be able to trade once more. Germany was nearly as dependent upon foreign trade as Britain, that trade equal to 1/3 is GDP by value, and many critical (and still unattainable from Europe) commodities must be sourced overseas (largely in areas controlled by the British or French). Germany does not need any territory in the West and adjusting its borders to the East is even less desirable, but it must have secure borders with access to those economies. Its colonies can be used to give prestige to the peace deal but likely are not actually pushed for, instead they become the shiny objects to hide the sausage making. If Germany has any smarts it realizes that trade with Russia is far more important and not something the Entente can really control so it has already bartered a deal with Russia and longer term has gotten much of what it needs penciled in.

So that likely means that Togo and Southwest Africa are offered up. Samoa is easy enough. Guinea is harder, East Africa is weird because nominally Germany is still contesting it, but with some assurances both can be handed back. For example London might demand trackage rights over an East African rail line connecting the Cape to Cairo route. And I think London demands some naval concessions, likely a permanent reduction of the German dreadnought fleet to a secondary status, up to 50% if possible, no fortifications, and seeks the reduction in both cruisers and submarines (really to eliminate the latter), etc. I think London presses Japan to surrender the pacific atolls but wrings its hands over the concessions in China. If the USA is brokering a deal, those go back to China. That does give you a salvaged AJA but strained Anglo-Japanese relations longer term. London must be concerned about its position in China and bothered by Japanese ambitions so throwing Germany into the mix as its enemy is useful politics, especially as we know it has no real teeth left in the Far East.

To avoid any indemnity for damages to Belgium, Berlin drops its claim upon the Congo, but likely gets some assurances that it can access it, maybe promising to build better rail links to the eastern areas from East Africa. Germany might, and I really do mean might, get some piece of the French Congo, or Chad or CAR if Paris is just totally desperate and London is at wits end. An even longer shot is getting Walvis Bay surrendered. And frankly that is about as far as I can roll sixes for the Germans. No Mittelafrika, no vast East European Empire, no Ukraine, not even Poland, maybe, the Baltics become the vague Duchy under a German aristocrat and bound to Berlin.

Of course that rests upon the OHL failing and being returned to its subordinate position under the Reichstag, Chancellor and Kaiser, a thing that certainly should occur for it has lots of influence but institutionally the federal structure, its elected government and limited monarchy are the political arbiters. The SPD is still likely to finally gain recognition of its power, in coalition with the left leaning Liberals and Zentrum it will truly moderate the peace, SPD proved loyal and likely still has to quash the revolutionaries with the Right and Army so earns its place as part of the system. The Kaiser has lost a lot of influence but is still the figure head and glue that bonds the Empire together if only in official loyalties. So I truly think the grand schemes evaporate, if Germany can get "peace with honor" and the promises that things get back to "normal", it leaves a lot on the table.

With or without any colonies Germany must quickly restore its own civil economy and build trade links into East Europe, establish trade with Russia, and likely find alternatives to French or British supplies, the only place left is South America and the USA for "free" trade. With its colonies Germany has another generation of investment to hopefully extract the resources it requires, a net drain, and frankly investment into Europe is going to be about the same struggle. But Germany does gain a larger Mark-zone, it can work on a customs union that favors the flow of goods both direction to its profit, and has at least some better security. And that is the best I can do to get as close to an antebellum outcome and "maximum" German gains. It leave a lot of broken glass to step on and leaves a lot of hurt feelings to fester over time. So it has much of the dysfunction our time got. That was how I played the cards.
Thank you very much for your observations. In the TL that I am developing, the United Kingdom and Germany agree on a naval regulation, although it hits German pride a lot, they can recover their colonies and ensure their new acquisitions while London reaffirms its control over the seas. Regarding what you mention about Japan, at least I was thinking that although Germany loses New Guinea and the Pacific, they have been gaining a part of Indochina; in my TL, Indochina is a mess and to avoid the occupation of Briey Longwy they cede part of Tonkin and Annam to the Germans, while keeping the rest for themselves, the British would be worried but they know that the French can't hold all of Indochina and the Japanese can't they are a reliable option, so Paris, Berlin and London agree to a division of Indochina while negotiating the size of the German navy. I know this Indochina thing is unrealistic but I do it more because of the effects it could have on China and Japan.
 
A few points. I will start with something I brought up in another post. Smuts was adamant about not giving up Namibia no matter what happens in Europe. What I see as a very possible compromise if that the Germans get back the diamond rich Sperrgebiet region along with the decent port of Luderitz. While small in size this was what Germany cared about most. Also I can see Germany having a long range goal of seducing the Boers away from being in the British sphere in influence so letting them hold to the lion's share of the land could be justified.

It is almost certain that Germany will insist on Morocco becoming fully independent of French influence. They might try to negotiate a small German Morocco at Agadir but I see only a small chance of that happening.

The Germans might think a little outside the box in regards to the Belgian Congo and while letting Belgium hold on to it they must formally include Germany as a junior partner in its economic development. So Germany gets a piece of the action without having to do any of the heavy lifting.

I really don't see Germany getting East Africa back and I'm even more negative about a German Indochina. The logical postwar strategy for Germany in the Far East is to turn China into a military ally and a trading partner. They sort of did that OTL.

If France gets Briey and Longwy back they might have to accept some small border adjustments in the Vosges such as giving German complete control of the Col de la Schlucht.
 
Thank you very much for your observations. In the TL that I am developing, the United Kingdom and Germany agree on a naval regulation, although it hits German pride a lot, they can recover their colonies and ensure their new acquisitions while London reaffirms its control over the seas. Regarding what you mention about Japan, at least I was thinking that although Germany loses New Guinea and the Pacific, they have been gaining a part of Indochina; in my TL, Indochina is a mess and to avoid the occupation of Briey Longwy they cede part of Tonkin and Annam to the Germans, while keeping the rest for themselves, the British would be worried but they know that the French can't hold all of Indochina and the Japanese can't they are a reliable option, so Paris, Berlin and London agree to a division of Indochina while negotiating the size of the German navy. I know this Indochina thing is unrealistic but I do it more because of the effects it could have on China and Japan.
Frankly I use a naval accord to parallel the Washington Treaty and ease myself into that paradigm while also letting it form a sort of slow burn towards Anglo-German detente as potentially the AGNA did. But I do think it had a high probability of being a British condition for peace. Aside from the Kaiser I don't think anyone is bothered, the sentiment was that the naval arms race helped cause the war, pacifists really hated warships and their construction, thus why WNT was easy and the later treaties achieved despite being arguably bad for peace. And I think Germany is nearly as broke as France so building another round of ships is just not in the cards unless its a matter of national survival, but I think some hulls are completed as it helps the recovery and industrialists have some say.

My understanding was that the British preferred the USA take the Pacific Islands but were not overly bothered, the USA preferred Japan get them so that it would be enemy territory rather than as pre-war a complicated non-belligerent. I used that logic to have London give them back, it makes Germany and Japan enemies, makes Germany partly responsible to defend Australia from Japan, and London can play all innocent since Germany "demands" it. New Guinea was harder but if you hold it back, so goes the Pacific Islands too, and I am willing (wanting) to put Germany back into the Pacific mix for the future.

I think giving Indochina to Germany has become a trope. Not to say it is impossible but that was both a rich and prestigious extractive colony for France, like Algeria was as a quasi-settlor colony, too close to the heart to give up easily. I think only if Paris fell could Germany ask for that and I think London vetoes it. Indochina gives Germany a real base and stronghold in the Far East to compete with Britain, never mind that we know the Vietnamese are not going quietly, in London the little folks there are just so much willing pawns, Germany will use them to conquer Malay and China! And next India! The British would rather give all of French Africa in my opinion.

In my own thinking having Germany kicked out of China is the wildcard that unravels the "imperialism" in China, Japan already wants to conquer China and it must push out the British and French to get there, Germany here joins the USA "Open Door" policy, as the USA likely loses interest, Germany supports the Nationalist Chinese (along with the Soviet support if you have them), and that could tip the balance to secure a ROC. And the ROC surviving longer term unravels the hold on Indochina as they push France from southwest China and back the nationalists in Indochina. Germany can play in this messy playground without a presence in Indochina, or even its former Far East possessions at all really. But it is your story, not mine.
 
A few points. I will start with something I brought up in another post. Smuts was adamant about not giving up Namibia no matter what happens in Europe. What I see as a very possible compromise if that the Germans get back the diamond rich Sperrgebiet region along with the decent port of Luderitz. While small in size this was what Germany cared about most. Also I can see Germany having a long range goal of seducing the Boers away from being in the British sphere in influence so letting them hold to the lion's share of the land could be justified.

It is almost certain that Germany will insist on Morocco becoming fully independent of French influence. They might try to negotiate a small German Morocco at Agadir but I see only a small chance of that happening.

The Germans might think a little outside the box in regards to the Belgian Congo and while letting Belgium hold on to it they must formally include Germany as a junior partner in its economic development. So Germany gets a piece of the action without having to do any of the heavy lifting.

I really don't see Germany getting East Africa back and I'm even more negative about a German Indochina. The logical postwar strategy for Germany in the Far East is to turn China into a military ally and a trading partner. They sort of did that OTL.

If France gets Briey and Longwy back they might have to accept some small border adjustments in the Vosges such as giving German complete control of the Col de la Schlucht.
They are all stretches, some more plausible and some less possible, but as I discussed in the Poll thread I did, Germany does not need any of this overseas stuff, take it away and you likely do far more good for Germany in the 50 to 100 year future than not. But for the narrative, a restored German colonial empire puts Germany into the politics and process of decolonization. If London is really smart, they force Germany back into their colonies, it binds them to a system dear to London, otherwise you get another disruptor who has everything to gain by supporting independence, the USA is there, the USSR will be, China will be, even Japan will begin to nip at the edges. As to what Smuts or anyone else wants is going to be brushed aside as London protects its vital interests first, it can easily let the Germans look like the baddie. Colonial concessions likely buy weakening Germany in Europe, that is pure gold, the loyalty of the Boer state is already rather tarnished brass.

London wants no German toehold near Gibraltar, again, London will veto that and offer something shiny but useless. East Africa is dominated from Zanzibar. Namibia is controlled by Walvis Bay, nothing Germany has can resist British power, but Morocco or Indochina are real bases, too dangerous. Thus why Britain steered into the Entente and already capsized those years ago.

But it really depends on the strength of Germany as they sit in France. And how badly London wants to get done with the war. You can tip it either way.
 
Frankly I use a naval accord to parallel the Washington Treaty and ease myself into that paradigm while also letting it form a sort of slow burn towards Anglo-German detente as potentially the AGNA did. But I do think it had a high probability of being a British condition for peace. Aside from the Kaiser I don't think anyone is bothered, the sentiment was that the naval arms race helped cause the war, pacifists really hated warships and their construction, thus why WNT was easy and the later treaties achieved despite being arguably bad for peace. And I think Germany is nearly as broke as France so building another round of ships is just not in the cards unless its a matter of national survival, but I think some hulls are completed as it helps the recovery and industrialists have some say.

My understanding was that the British preferred the USA take the Pacific Islands but were not overly bothered, the USA preferred Japan get them so that it would be enemy territory rather than as pre-war a complicated non-belligerent. I used that logic to have London give them back, it makes Germany and Japan enemies, makes Germany partly responsible to defend Australia from Japan, and London can play all innocent since Germany "demands" it. New Guinea was harder but if you hold it back, so goes the Pacific Islands too, and I am willing (wanting) to put Germany back into the Pacific mix for the future.

I think giving Indochina to Germany has become a trope. Not to say it is impossible but that was both a rich and prestigious extractive colony for France, like Algeria was as a quasi-settlor colony, too close to the heart to give up easily. I think only if Paris fell could Germany ask for that and I think London vetoes it. Indochina gives Germany a real base and stronghold in the Far East to compete with Britain, never mind that we know the Vietnamese are not going quietly, in London the little folks there are just so much willing pawns, Germany will use them to conquer Malay and China! And next India! The British would rather give all of French Africa in my opinion.

In my own thinking having Germany kicked out of China is the wildcard that unravels the "imperialism" in China, Japan already wants to conquer China and it must push out the British and French to get there, Germany here joins the USA "Open Door" policy, as the USA likely loses interest, Germany supports the Nationalist Chinese (along with the Soviet support if you have them), and that could tip the balance to secure a ROC. And the ROC surviving longer term unravels the hold on Indochina as they push France from southwest China and back the nationalists in Indochina. Germany can play in this messy playground without a presence in Indochina, or even its former Far East possessions at all really. But it is your story, not mine.
Perhaps the Australians could return New Guinea as a kind of buffer between them and the Japanese?

And well, from the rest I already have a little clear what I could do, I just need to investigate more for the details. Thank you very much for the observations!
 

Riain

Banned
Most importantly the fate of colonies will be decided in Europe based on the situation on the ground in Europe, which given the CP won is pretty dire.

This article lays out the general war aims for the Germans in Africa. In addition they would get their own colonies back, or be compensated for those they dont.

In the event of military victory, the German Colonial Minister, Wilhelm Solf (1862-1936), advocated large-scale colonial expansion as early as the confidential September Program of 1914. Corresponding with the pre-war imperialist vision of a German Mittelafrika, Portuguese colonies, the Belgian Congo and French Equatorial Africa were to be annexed; even Nigeria might be gained in case of British defeat.[3] Wartime aspirations grew to include strategic and economically developed regions in French West Africa.
 
Belgium will have to cede the Congo in almost any cp win that starts after the invasion. The french might have better luck (strictly speaking, none of their colonies would be needed for a "kleinmittleafrika,") but eventually with no US help and Russia out it will make peace. The fact is britain doesn't have a larger economy than all of europe anymore. Eventually, Britain will be brought to the table. And if all that germany wants is its occupied colonies back? Better than nothing
 
Most importantly the fate of colonies will be decided in Europe based on the situation on the ground in Europe, which given the CP won is pretty dire.

This article lays out the general war aims for the Germans in Africa. In addition they would get their own colonies back, or be compensated for those they dont.

In the event of military victory, the German Colonial Minister, Wilhelm Solf (1862-1936), advocated large-scale colonial expansion as early as the confidential September Program of 1914. Corresponding with the pre-war imperialist vision of a German Mittelafrika, Portuguese colonies, the Belgian Congo and French Equatorial Africa were to be annexed; even Nigeria might be gained in case of British defeat.[3] Wartime aspirations grew to include strategic and economically developed regions in French West Africa.
But exactly how much did the British or French develop the colonies they gained OTL? Admittedly the French badly underinvested in their colonies outside of Algeria or Indochina, and the British invested mostly in plantations or mines where profitable, but I am not seeing the investment relative to how badly they are argued to need those pieces. Did we get the Cape to Cairo railway? At bottom I agree, London and Paris are not going to suffer losing the German colonies and the real gains are on the map of Europe and those spheres.

As far as German war aims, I tend to see them more as the propaganda (both ways) I think they are. I look more at what SPD or Zentrum feel, they are the two leading political parties who will control the Marks coming out of the Reichstag. Neither look inclined to expand the colonies, hell I doubt they even care to want the colonies back. So I toss those aims right out by 1918. Instead I look at what London is willing to give to get what it wants. I can see them yielding the colonies in Africa, even Guinea, Samoa and the Islands back, after that maybe something of France's colonies, but London should not need to give another inch to get everything it wants. It still loses a lot it prefers to get a peace. A surviving German Navy, Germany left in power over the continent, a German war machine capable of winning another war, and a German industry still capable of recovery and besting England's. That is as bad as it could be, England certainly believed it would win, not winning is tantamount to disaster enough, the draw here is gruesome without the hindsight as to what is the alternatives. I think the arguments back and forth underestimate that coming to the table will be a real kick in the bollox for everyone.
 
Belgium will have to cede the Congo in almost any cp win that starts after the invasion. The french might have better luck (strictly speaking, none of their colonies would be needed for a "kleinmittleafrika,") but eventually with no US help and Russia out it will make peace. The fact is britain doesn't have a larger economy than all of europe anymore. Eventually, Britain will be brought to the table. And if all that germany wants is its occupied colonies back? Better than nothing
I think London would veto it and can make it stick. Frankly I think Berlin has no stomach to swallow the Congo, in fact they should easily be persuaded to let it go, leave Belgium, pay nothing for the damages done to her, hope to be friends one day. But I do think what hay is to be made if German secures the Congo. What would Germany do about the atrocities uncovered under Belgian rule? Quite the riposte to German savagery whilst in Belgium. And how might is expose turn the minds of civilized Europe to colonialism? I never have seen that explored. Germany certainly has motive to show the ugliest of colonial rules if only to make themselves not the only ones painted as evil. And in doing so they really blow open the notion of a civilizing mission. I would love to see Germany on the right side of that moral wave/revulsion. It doesn't absolve them of their own past, but it might give them a totally different positive place in that ATL.
 
I think London would veto it and can make it stick. Frankly I think Berlin has no stomach to swallow the Congo, in fact they should easily be persuaded to let it go, leave Belgium, pay nothing for the damages done to her, hope to be friends one day. But I do think what hay is to be made if German secures the Congo. What would Germany do about the atrocities uncovered under Belgian rule? Quite the riposte to German savagery whilst in Belgium. And how might is expose turn the minds of civilized Europe to colonialism? I never have seen that explored. Germany certainly has motive to show the ugliest of colonial rules if only to make themselves not the only ones painted as evil. And in doing so they really blow open the notion of a civilizing mission. I would love to see Germany on the right side of that moral wave/revulsion. It doesn't absolve them of their own past, but it might give them a totally different positive place in that ATL.
I think that by the time many had been relaxed by the authorities, perhaps the Germans could make propaganda to demonstrate their superiority in the civilizing mission, but I think there is not much to expose.
 

Riain

Banned
But exactly how much did the British or French develop the colonies they gained OTL? Admittedly the French badly underinvested in their colonies outside of Algeria or Indochina, and the British invested mostly in plantations or mines where profitable, but I am not seeing the investment relative to how badly they are argued to need those pieces. Did we get the Cape to Cairo railway? At bottom I agree, London and Paris are not going to suffer losing the German colonies and the real gains are on the map of Europe and those spheres.

As far as German war aims, I tend to see them more as the propaganda (both ways) I think they are. I look more at what SPD or Zentrum feel, they are the two leading political parties who will control the Marks coming out of the Reichstag. Neither look inclined to expand the colonies, hell I doubt they even care to want the colonies back. So I toss those aims right out by 1918. Instead I look at what London is willing to give to get what it wants. I can see them yielding the colonies in Africa, even Guinea, Samoa and the Islands back, after that maybe something of France's colonies, but London should not need to give another inch to get everything it wants. It still loses a lot it prefers to get a peace. A surviving German Navy, Germany left in power over the continent, a German war machine capable of winning another war, and a German industry still capable of recovery and besting England's. That is as bad as it could be, England certainly believed it would win, not winning is tantamount to disaster enough, the draw here is gruesome without the hindsight as to what is the alternatives. I think the arguments back and forth underestimate that coming to the table will be a real kick in the bollox for everyone.

Colonies were pretty low on the priority list of German war aims, but the OP asked about them so I answered.

I think it's important to spell out the 'or else' threat to Britain for playing hardball in negotiations. In 1918 Lenin tried to obfuscate the negotiations with the Germans, hoping for a revolution in Germany that would solve his problems. The Germans ceased negotiations and went back on the offensive, Op Faustschlag, where they advanced 150 miles in a week against no opposition. This forced Lenin back to the negotiating table.

In a British situation such a commencement of hostilities would entail shelling Dover, air battles over Kent, renewed uboat sinkings and attacking opportunist targets where they xan be found. What colony is so valuable to Britain that its worth renewing hostilities for?
 
Colonies were pretty low on the priority list of German war aims, but the OP asked about them so I answered.

I think it's important to spell out the 'or else' threat to Britain for playing hardball in negotiations. In 1918 Lenin tried to obfuscate the negotiations with the Germans, hoping for a revolution in Germany that would solve his problems. The Germans ceased negotiations and went back on the offensive, Op Faustschlag, where they advanced 150 miles in a week against no opposition. This forced Lenin back to the negotiating table.

In a British situation such a commencement of hostilities would entail shelling Dover, air battles over Kent, renewed uboat sinkings and attacking opportunist targets where they xan be found. What colony is so valuable to Britain that its worth renewing hostilities for?
In Africa...Eygpt and likely South Africa . In Asia India and Malaya. And that's at the bare minimum. Also given this is WWI what air battles and coastal shellings? Fighters lack the range and good luck fighting the RN.
 

Riain

Banned
In Africa...Eygpt and likely South Africa . In Asia India and Malaya. And that's at the bare minimum.

None of which were on Germanys wish list, even Nigeria was a bit of an afterthought.

Also given this is WWI what air battles and coastal shellings? Fighters lack the range and good luck fighting the RN.

Germany has won, France has been defeated and Germany holds strategic positions like the Pas de Calais, 22 miles from Dover. Langer Max guns can be emplaced in 3 weeks and have a range of 47km/29 miles, and tactical aircraft in 1918 had the range to fly and fight over the Dover narrows.

Much of the RNs strength came form its geographical position. Victory over France would drastically reduce the RNs geographic advantage, giving the KM bases such as le Havre and Cherbourg.

Also, how much of the BEF does Germany hold as a result of its victory? I suspect a lot, maybe hundreds of thousands of men.
 
Top