Mass deportation of Poles to Tanzania

It would still kill most who try, diseases like Malaria, Sleeping Sickness and tons of other tropical disease will kill the people, crops and livestock in vast numbers that it will be a disaster.
Again, that would be case if settlements were built in areas other then the highlands, which formed an imperfect if still relatively effective shield from their inhabitants from Tsetse flies and to an extent mosquitoes, with land clearing and proper maintenance of nearby water sources doing much to mitigate those problems. Any beyond the highlands however probably would indeed collapse under the pressure of the natural environment given the lack of natural protections, least barring a significant land clearing project that the colonial government would be hesitate to undertake given easier alternatives.

That isn't again to say the native diseases of the region wouldn't still be an issue, they would, but they would be far more manageable.
 
As for why a Polish colony, besides trying to meet part of the OP's specifications, it makes sense as a safety valve of sorts for the Polish minority, a way to move dissidents out of the country proper and grant greater opportunities to replace those who've left with proper Germans. That isn't to say it would work like that in practice, that Germans wouldn't make their way to Ostafrika as well, or that even the goal of Germanification of the Corridor would come close to being realized, but then few such enterprises meet all such expectations. Ultimately the Poles would be worked as an anchor for German Ostafrika, Germany needing an established European presence to help maintain their control, the Polish colonists needing Germany to help establish themselves and then maintain their gains. It would be an uncomfortable relationship given recent history, even if the Germanification laws are relaxed or eliminated entirely within the boundaries of Ostafrika, but one of necessity until another power steps in to help maintain the new balance.

Why would Polish nationalists consent to being moved from Poland to distant Africa, especially as anchors for German imperialism?
 
Why would Polish nationalists consent to being moved from Poland to distant Africa, especially as anchors for German imperialism?

Much of the nationalists’ objections to the Russians and Prussians was about local education and culture—they resented the imposition of the German and Russian cultures and languages (particularly the Russian, which they viewed as objectively inferior to Polish). If they’re offered a place where they can teach and pray and read in their own tongue without persecution, it could be attractive, particularly after a failed uprising.
 
Much of the nationalists’ objections to the Russians and Prussians was about local education and culture—they resented the imposition of the German and Russian cultures and languages (particularly the Russian, which they viewed as objectively inferior to Polish). If they’re offered a place where they can teach and pray and read in their own tongue without persecution, it could be attractive, particularly after a failed uprising.
Tanzania is hardly a place where Poles could continue their traditional lifestyle.
 
Much of the nationalists’ objections to the Russians and Prussians was about local education and culture—they resented the imposition of the German and Russian cultures and languages (particularly the Russian, which they viewed as objectively inferior to Polish). If they’re offered a place where they can teach and pray and read in their own tongue without persecution, it could be attractive, particularly after a failed uprising.

Again, why would they leave their homeland to defend their traditional practices? This runs contrary to the experiences of other occupied peoples: the Canadiens did not run off to Louisiana, the Fennomens did not try to leave for Karelia, the South Tyrolians began leaving for Austria only under the pressure of rival totalitarianisms. Why would the Poles behave differently, especially when in OTL they strongly resisted efforts to displace or marginalize them in their homeland?
 
Tanzania is hardly a place where Poles could continue their traditional lifestyle.
I suppose it would be dependent on when a proper community of Poles is established and what those traditions are, but they would certainly be freer to do most then they would in West Prussia, Posen and Silesia under the established policy of Berlin. Then again it would be a side pro to the economic incentives, not the primary one.
Again, why would they leave their homeland to defend their traditional practices? This runs contrary to the experiences of other occupied peoples: the Canadiens did not run off to Louisiana, the Fennomens did not try to leave for Karelia, the South Tyrolians began leaving for Austria only under the pressure of rival totalitarianisms. Why would the Poles behave differently, especially when in OTL they strongly resisted efforts to displace or marginalize them in their homeland?
Well the movement I am thinking of would be voluntary rather than involuntary, outside of maybe those Poles who are convicted of crimes against the State who would not receive the same economic benefits as I've outlined, but would in turn have their record cleared in return for accepting settlement in Ostafrika. The idea of greater freedoms for those Poles who settled was more in line of adding additional benefits that could attract additional settlers, not as the primary attractant. At the same time I don't expect any major success for this policy, especially in its stated aim of reducing the Polish minority in the Corridor and Posen, and more settlers may be among those who might have sought out work in the Ruhr in OTL. In turn though, I believe that Ostafrika would by the First World War (ignoring butterflies, but let's say they've died) be quite profitable though not amazingly so.

As for way Polish nationalists would consent, I wouldn't actually imagine many would, 'least at first. Stefan Szolc-Rogozinski, Leopold Janikowski, among others, had previously sought to establish a Polish colony in what had become German Kamerun, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them and like-minded individuals to try and take advantage of the initiative and establish the refuge that they looked to create. Political freedoms given to the Polish community there would allow for the organizing of a political movement(s) that Berlin would not be keen on fostering, but that would have to be measured against the draw of Polish settlers and how effectively they could counteract their influence outside of Ostafrika. However in that context we would then have to take into account whether immigration of Poles from Russia and Autria-Hungary would be accepted (as nationalists would indeed try to ply some settlers from those areas), and I'm not sure Germany would be willing to take in what could often be political dissidents (especially in they are refugees from such events Polish Revolution of 1905, and whether it may effect relations with their neighbors in the negative manner or not).

And as for why they would even serve the Germans, it really would come down to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"; a fair few would not be content under German rule, least of all the nationalists, but they would be incapable on their own of either protecting themselves from the native Africans should they revolt, or Germany should they opt to try for Independence (the Second Boer War casting a shadow over such a concept). Others simply may not care who is in charge so long as they are able to live as they see fit, and serve as a loyal faction the Germans could draw support from. It ultimately depends on what factions are able to take control of the Polish colonial communities that are established, and whether the Germans allow the more radical political factions to be in a position to control the colony, or instead move to restrict some of the political privileges they have given in an effort to counteract them.
 
How did the Europeans and natives deal with it in otl

Most of the times, they didn’t. Everyone just moved to higher and cooler ground.

Before I go further, I need to explain that before the late Arab slave trade of the 1700’s – 1900’s, sleeping sickness was actually isolated to a few places in tropical West Africa. Nagana was prevalent almost everywhere, being an animal plague, but sleeping sickness was contained to only a few places, partly because the affected tribes don’t wander much and partly because the death rate (near certain for the time) also ensured it to burn out quickly, though not before it hid into the tsetse fly each time. The growth of Arab slavers in the Congo in the 1800’s changed that, allowing the disease to hitchhike and spread throughout the continent with the captured tribes and slavers.

For the natives, the only way to deal with it was to just move. That’s what most early Europeans did too. It wasn’t until 1910 that the first effective treatments were produced, but they were mostly arsenic-based and had side-effects that included blindness. It didn't stop the trade and quickly became the main drug of choice for the colonies, but it took until the 1930’s that scientists could create safer drugs (though when most of your drugs are still classified as toxic and can cause brain malfunctions as side-effects, safe might not be the accurate word).

Today, we are still trying to produce a vaccine for the disease, but the parasite is seriously complex in a genetic scale and can mix-and-match proteins to bypass the immune system.

Given the scale and scope, you can see why most colonial officials threw up their hands and just moved to the mountains.
 
Last edited:
Well the movement I am thinking of would be voluntary rather than involuntary, outside of maybe those Poles who are convicted of crimes against the State who would not receive the same economic benefits as I've outlined, but would in turn have their record cleared in return for accepting settlement in Ostafrika. The idea of greater freedoms for those Poles who settled was more in line of adding additional benefits that could attract additional settlers, not as the primary attractant. At the same time I don't expect any major success for this policy, especially in its stated aim of reducing the Polish minority in the Corridor and Posen, and more settlers may be among those who might have sought out work in the Ruhr in OTL. In turn though, I believe that Ostafrika would by the First World War (ignoring butterflies, but let's say they've died) be quite profitable though not amazingly so.

As for way Polish nationalists would consent, I wouldn't actually imagine many would, 'least at first. Stefan Szolc-Rogozinski, Leopold Janikowski, among others, had previously sought to establish a Polish colony in what had become German Kamerun, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them and like-minded individuals to try and take advantage of the initiative and establish the refuge that they looked to create. Political freedoms given to the Polish community there would allow for the organizing of a political movement(s) that Berlin would not be keen on fostering, but that would have to be measured against the draw of Polish settlers and how effectively they could counteract their influence outside of Ostafrika. However in that context we would then have to take into account whether immigration of Poles from Russia and Autria-Hungary would be accepted (as nationalists would indeed try to ply some settlers from those areas), and I'm not sure Germany would be willing to take in what could often be political dissidents (especially in they are refugees from such events Polish Revolution of 1905, and whether it may effect relations with their neighbors in the negative manner or not).

Even if this would work--something that is not at all likely, since Polish migrants were looking for a better life not a worse one--it would run against the whole rationale of the German colonial empire to expand German power, and prestige, and culture. Why make an expensively-won German colony into a settlement for disloyal Poles?
 
Even if this would work--something that is not at all likely, since Polish migrants were looking for a better life not a worse one--it would run against the whole rationale of the German colonial empire to expand German power, and prestige, and culture. Why make an expensively-won German colony into a settlement for disloyal Poles?
As for why a Polish colony, besides trying to meet part of the OP's specifications, it makes sense as a safety valve of sorts for the Polish minority, a way to move dissidents out of the country proper and grant greater opportunities to replace those who've left with proper Germans. That isn't to say it would work like that in practice, that Germans wouldn't make their way to Ostafrika as well, or that even the goal of Germanification of the Corridor would come close to being realized, but then few such enterprises meet all such expectations. Ultimately the Poles would be worked as an anchor for German Ostafrika, Germany needing an established European presence to help maintain their control, the Polish colonists needing Germany to help establish themselves and then maintain their gains. It would be an uncomfortable relationship given recent history, even if the Germanification laws are relaxed or eliminated entirely within the boundaries of Ostafrika, but one of necessity until another power steps in to help maintain the new balance.
..........
 
..........

But the Germans do have a safety valve already for their Polish population: the United States (and to a lesser extent Canada).

I mean, I am descended from Prussian Poles who emigrated to Canada before WW1.

That kind of pressure was there, but if you really wanted to ditch Europe, North America was offering free land too, and land that wasbt infested with European killing diseases.
 
The Second Reich is not capable of this. It was authoritarian and frequently illiberal, and its policies towards its Polish minority were unhelpful at best, but it was still a constitutional state. It was simply not interested in engaging in the sort of thorough ethnic cleansing that is being proposed here--it was not Nazi. That the Polish deportations involved Poles of non-German citizenship is indicative of how far it was capable of going.

This (filler).
 
But the Germans do have a safety valve already for their Polish population: the United States (and to a lesser extent Canada).

I mean, I am descended from Prussian Poles who emigrated to Canada before WW1.

That kind of pressure was there, but if you really wanted to ditch Europe, North America was offering free land too, and land that wasbt infested with European killing diseases.
The safety valve is not the sole reason, and yes a fair share are making their way to North America. The difference between Ostafrika and the United States in this case however, and Canada unless I've read the homesteading laws wrong, is that the Poles who travel to North America would be left solely with what they could carry until such a time they could become citizens (and little especially fertile land was left by that time in the USA at least), whereas in Ostafrika they could file applications straight-away as German citizens and potentially petition for further monetary support from the colonial authorities in establishing their economic well-being.
 
The safety valve is not the sole reason, and yes a fair share are making their way to North America. The difference between Ostafrika and the United States in this case however, and Canada unless I've read the homesteading laws wrong, is that the Poles who travel to North America would be left solely with what they could carry until such a time they could become citizens (and little especially fertile land was left by that time in the USA at least), whereas in Ostafrika they could file applications straight-away as German citizens and potentially petition for further monetary support from the colonial authorities in establishing their economic well-being.

I cant speak to the States, but I do know Canada was settled later.

My ancestors came from both Austrian Poland and Prussian Poland. My prussian ones actually settled in Montreal first before moving west, while the Austrian ones went straight to Saskatchewan.

See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Best_West

It was the last best west program.

Also, the land settled in Canada was actually very fertile along the Saskatchewan rivers (the growing season is shorter, but its much less arid).

Moreover, the Canadian system not only picked up steam after the Americans "closed" the frontier, but the homesteading worked slightly differently in Canada.


The following is from the wikipedia article on the Dominion Lands Act.
An important difference between the Canadian and U.S. systems was that farmers under the Canadian system could buy a neighboring lot for an additional $10 registration fee, once they had made certain improvements to their original quarter-section. This allowed most farmsteads to quickly double in size, and was especially important in the southern Palliser's Trianglearea of the prairies, which was very arid. There it was all but impossible to have a functional farm on only 160 acres (0.65 km2), but it could be managed with 320. Canadian agriculture was consequently more successful than U.S. agriculture in this arid region.[6]

Bloc settlements were encouraged by section 37 which allowed associations of 10 or more settlers to group their houses together to form a settlement to fulfil their cultivation obligations on their own homestead while residing in a hamlet.

So not only could someone increase their land, it was easy to bring over communities or extended clans... which is what my family did.
This is the Austrian side, but one brother came, then paid to gave his other two brothers come over. This ballooned to the other twelve brothers and sisters, and their spouses.

The bloc settlements also allowed communities to maintain their languages and culture. My grandparents were born in Canada in the late 20s, and their home language was Polish. Its why you can still find Polish or Ukrainian speaking churches in the Prairies to this day.

The point I want to make is that when the American frontier closed, the Canadian one boomed.
There was always an outlet for east european farmers.

Especially for Canada, during the Laurier government years, it was policy to recruit East/Central European 'peasants'.

This iswhat the minister of the interior said during those years of the immigrants he wanted:

"When I speak of quality I have in mind, I think, something that is quite different from what is in the mind of the average writer or speaker upon the question of Immigration. I think a stalwart peasant in a sheep-skin coat, born on the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations, with a stout wife and a half-dozen children, is good quality."

That quote gets seen in a lot of Canadian textbooks.

As another source, see here: http://www.british-immigrants-in-montreal.com/clifford_sifton_policy.html
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
How did the Europeans and natives deal with it in otl

Avoid it. You keep the brush cleared. You stay at higher altitude. The key is the soil temperature because the puppa dies below a certain temperature. You stay away from area fly live in. You accept the higher death rate.

I would also like to point out that when the Germans tried to stop the sleep sickness between 1900 and 1914, they made things worse. They only partially understood the disease. Before the Germans tried to fix things, the Serengeti was farm land. Now it is a nature preserve. The Germans trying to move Poles to East Africa in large numbers and trying to fight the disease will be an unintentional genocide.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Again, that would be case if settlements were built in areas other then the highlands, which formed an imperfect if still relatively effective shield from their inhabitants from Tsetse flies and to an extent mosquitoes, with land clearing and proper maintenance of nearby water sources doing much to mitigate those problems. Any beyond the highlands however probably would indeed collapse under the pressure of the natural environment given the lack of natural protections, least barring a significant land clearing project that the colonial government would be hesitate to undertake given easier alternatives.

That isn't again to say the native diseases of the region wouldn't still be an issue, they would, but they would be far more manageable.

Only at massive cost and after clearing the highlands. The Germans were well aware of the altitude limits of the tsetse fly. You could reasonable establish some white enclaves with a total population in the 10's of thousands with incentives. It is just this plan is way to ambitious. I would also like to point out that the Germans ran east Africa on a plantation system much like the old American South. It takes a pretty radical POD to get wide spread white immigration to these areas.

I have started ATL with white population movement to German colonies. It is just what is proposed here is far too ambitious. There will be no 2 million man immigration.

Also, it is clear how to move white immigration. It is free travel plus economic incentive (land or job). It will not pull by racial group but by economic classes. i.e. The poles moving to German Africa will come from Russia and Austria.

Also, Kamerun is actually better since West African Sleeping sickness is much less severe than East African Sleeping sickness. I put a lot of the research into the thread below.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...y-of-prussia-rise-of-the-u-boat-redux.398657/
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Again, why would they leave their homeland to defend their traditional practices? This runs contrary to the experiences of other occupied peoples: the Canadiens did not run off to Louisiana, the Fennomens did not try to leave for Karelia, the South Tyrolians began leaving for Austria only under the pressure of rival totalitarianisms. Why would the Poles behave differently, especially when in OTL they strongly resisted efforts to displace or marginalize them in their homeland?

Look at New Zealand for an example of how to move populations with incentives. Also compare Brazilian versus Argentine immigration. Pay special attention to the incentives. The push is economic poverty. This is much like turning on a fire hose. The pull is free steerage and land/job. This is like aiming the fire hose. I can build you modest white settler colonies in any part of Africa if you can give me a government which will spend money and a government that does not care where the settlers come from.
 
Look at New Zealand for an example of how to move populations with incentives. Also compare Brazilian versus Argentine immigration. Pay special attention to the incentives. The push is economic poverty. This is much like turning on a fire hose. The pull is free steerage and land/job. This is like aiming the fire hose. I can build you modest white settler colonies in any part of Africa if you can give me a government which will spend money and a government that does not care where the settlers come from.

New Zealand was a temperate paradise without hostile indigenous populations or a terrible disease climate. None of the German colonies counted as such. If one had, then it would had been preserved for German settlement, on the model of Southwest Africa. Why would Germany allocate a precious colony to a disliked ethnic minority suspected of disloyalty? Why would any significant number of Poles abandon their homeland for a profoundly unhealthy and unpromising colony, as opposed to any number of other potential other destinations (cities of the Ruhr, farms of the Americas, etc)?

There are just no incentives, at any level, for this program. Sorry.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
New Zealand was a temperate paradise without hostile indigenous populations or a terrible disease climate. None of the German colonies counted as such. If one had, then it would had been preserved for German settlement, on the model of Southwest Africa. Why would Germany allocate a precious colony to a disliked ethnic minority suspected of disloyalty? Why would any significant number of Poles abandon their homeland for a profoundly unhealthy and unpromising colony, as opposed to any number of other potential other destinations (cities of the Ruhr, farms of the Americas, etc)?

There are just no incentives, at any level, for this program. Sorry.

Look at the data for New Zealand. It shows a clear response to incentives. Also, look at the descriptions of the time. It was not view as a temperate paradise. It did involve hostile natives at time. You basically have all the facts wrong.
 
The safety valve is not the sole reason, and yes a fair share are making their way to North America. The difference between Ostafrika and the United States in this case however, and Canada unless I've read the homesteading laws wrong, is that the Poles who travel to North America would be left solely with what they could carry until such a time they could become citizens (and little especially fertile land was left by that time in the USA at least), whereas in Ostafrika they could file applications straight-away as German citizens and potentially petition for further monetary support from the colonial authorities in establishing their economic well-being.

Not necessarily true. Although a massive amount of farms established with the Homestead Acts failed, there was still a lot of more or less viable land open until the Dust Bowl. Incidentally, many farmers most affected by the Dust Bowl were immigrants or their children, including a sizable number of Volga Germans.

Overall, it's probably better taking your chances on the High Plains in the 1890s than it is in Tanganyika due to disease and hostile natives (Amerindian resistance in the Plains was pretty much dead by 1890). And even better than Africa or the High Plains might be the Southern Cone where indeed a large number of Poles immigrated.
 
Top