Massive European Immigration To Africa?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by RandomWriterGuy, Sep 25, 2019.

  1. Coley Well-Known Member

    May 23, 2016
    As quoted in quite a few books,it's the ambitious who move.If you're humping a hundred pounds of jute or coal or whatever 12-14 hours a day for a pittance,why not work that hard in a place where it makes sense........On a personal note,my father used to marvel at the Irish kids in the 80s in Boston who were working 10-14 hours a day,he came over in the 50s.He said you couldn't get them to work in Ireland,I told him because they got to keep more of their pay here,they worked harder.Anyone,regardless of ethnic group,looks at things logically,that's why blackmarket economies really thrive in socialist and high tax economies. I'm no genius,but it's the way things work.
  2. Lusitania Well-Known Member

    Oct 18, 2009
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    The thing is that people who have never emigrated they do not understand the mentality of emigrants who many times work in jobs they never do in their own country. That Irish boys work like dogs while back home they be hard pressed to break a sweat is nothing different than a doctor from Russia driving a cab in New York or emigrant Portuguese or South American professional doing menial work.

    I remember talking to a man a few years ago who had emigrated to Canada and was working cleaning office buildings. He said “ if I had known I be cleaning other people’s shit I never would of left my country. I never would of done such work back home”.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2019
    Blorg, Hagre, formion and 2 others like this.
  3. Paolo Giusti Kaleckist-leninist

    Nov 21, 2019
    Western Stalingrad
    Here you are.
    Tl,dr: (Neo)Liberal(al)ism is the middle of this graph.

    They know their policies cannot be enforced in a democratic environment: that is why von Mises and Einaudi loved Mussolini and Hayek loved Pinochet. They know the day when they will enforce (neo)liber(al)ism by violence will come.

    Or they are naive enough to belive it will not be necessary.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 27, 2019
    xsampa likes this.
  4. Barry Bull Donor

    Apr 21, 2008
    Hong Kong
    I don't think black market thrives in Scandinavia and other European countries.
    Blorg and Relekka like this.
  5. Modern Imperialism Well-Known Member

    Nov 20, 2018
    Easy avoid ww1 or avoid anything similar for as long as possible. The the 2000th century being more like 1900th for Europeans.

    Before ww1, Europeans are 25 percent of the world population. For retrospect, they are currently near 10 percent in otl now I think. The world wars and many events related to it just wrecked the entire European population as a whole. It also did become less productive and affordable to have kids after the war. Even if birthrates still drop as development increases without wars they are likely much higher birthrates and imperialist government welfare system probably encourages women to have kids especially if economy is good. Economy would be better. West didn’t truly recover economically until 90s.

    Those wars did not help economics in long run. Those are a lot of dead people, resources, and wasted opportunities that could have been invested not in war. Peace is better for economy no matter what. Even if “peacetime” still filled with low level or proxy wars. All that money from world wars is more money used to secure the colonies. Europeans without any world wars, still got a romanticized view of imperialism and will fight to maintain empires still. The homeland is doing well.

    The issue those without world wars reform and progress will be less bipolar and more steady then otl but overall slower at least politically. Like 1900th century, science and cultural progress is still happening. Science might actually progress faster but that does not mean political change is always coming fast enough. Without world wars, European culture will be more chauvinistic and unshaken from the horrors of otl.

    The difference between Europeans in Africa in pre-1914 vs post-1945 is before they would just shoot you for resisting and go about there day. After 1945 not so much.

    Europeans likely have more overpopulation issues in Europe and without world wars destroying everything you do made modernizing stuff somewhat harder. All of “old Europe” will be much more preserved by places like Berlin would look a lot different. European cities did get leveled during ww2.

    This is why I think it’s a flawed logic to say immigration from Europe will decrease as living standards improve. Because a state has a nice welfare system and even a thriving economy does not mean they always like political or social situation at home or lack of change in it. The old guard or Bismarck like people will use welfare to keep people happy while trying to keep political system as conservative as they can possibly get away with.

    The big issue is why go to Africa when you have the US to go too but immigration quotes could still be put in place that eliminates an immigration option for many people.

    Europeans are doing better. Actually much better then otl in almost every way but they likely have another 1848 situation or even French Revolution slowly brewing somewhere like Russia.

    Russian Empire might look like a big boogeymen by 1940s to everyone especially after industrializing but I doubt the Tsar and his top people properly reform. Hell, Tsar might flip flop between being semi to absolute monarch depending on how unstable countries gets. You have illiterate rural and industrial labor now. All those factories and industries don’t mean shit if it’s poorly managed, filled with corruption(nobles), and your population isn’t properly educated. Russia could still have some communist or socialist revolution like 1905 each decade until they finally have a French Revolution scale one ending monarch maybe in 1940s. The Tsar is seen as more of Hitler of this world but much less extreme version of that. But this Russia does provide African colonies with plenty of immigrants.

    The Europeans as time progresses probably do realize they need to be less strict on which Europeans they let move to colonies. They might even eventually let in more Asians just to drop the African percentages down a bit(Asians in Africa are usually more loyal to these empires then at home).

    Africa actually has a lot of opportunities for Europeans. Being undeveloped makes it easier to modernize because unlike Europeans you don’t have to teardown or build around shit. For example, without world wars new highways and train systems would have to destroy or tear down multiple city blocks or residential areas sometimes. Also you have to worry about people bitching about the government or businesses doing renovations in Europe. One benefit of wars was with everything destroyed you can just build up. The stuff that would have been in your way is destroyed or needs to be cleared anyway. Warsaw a very modern city for this exact reason. It looks old in design but much of city is less then 100 years old.

    Africa you can really just build up. You can test out new innovations in infrastructure and building more easily. You are building cities often from scratch but with coming innovations that might not be a bad thing. Europeans have more money and industries then otl. Africa has raw resources and plenty of labor to exploit that they don’t have to treat as well as European laborers.

    Propaganda likely depicts Africa as a land of opportunities and plenty to Europeans. To Africa they like depicting how they are “uplifting” them and making them “productive” citizens. Even if openly racist policies fade in some places and race barriers go away decades later the empires will likely depict their actions in Africa as bringing civilization to these people even if they do eventually become seen as equals among whites.

    Colonization of Africa in this situation might mirror Latin America more especially French colonies. The French likely mix more and try to make more Africans identity as French. France racially even in Europe might become more like Brazil. Upper class Africans or blacks usually identify or act more French while lower classes less so especially in Africa itself. I would not be surprised down the line if France assimilated sub Sahara Africans well enough they decide to let these Catholic Francophone Africans flood into Algeria if Muslims still resist like otl. Europeans will play people against each other. Also if they speak, act, and identify as French they are French. Race barriers could fade in long run in favor of national ones. Won’t work everywhere but can in some places.

    French Africa is more European probably but way more racially blur compared to some Europeans. Italy might take assimilation policy too but Libya is almost a give me if they keep it. Libya can easily become majority Italian. It’s probably more Sicilians and southern Italians those. The downside mafia might get hold of that oil once it’s discovered given how corrupt Italy might be. It’s government has usually been filled with corruption since unification so I could see the Italian mafias getting their hands on the oil money once it’s discovered which could cause huge butterflies. Mafia might also try to grow opium there or pay tribes inland too.

    The Horn of Africa could become majority Italian on the coast. Italy also might “redeem” themselves in Ethiopia still like otl but if they took that they probably have a more assimilation and divide and conquer policy inland there.

    Kenya also might just get a lot of Italians too who moved to Italian Somalia and decide British colony nearby looks nicer.

    The Jews also might ask for another settlement option in Africa if things get even worse in Russia with pogroms or they just leave individually(Russian Empire last longer). Some still want Israel but if they can move to Africa and be treated as a “model minority” you might just see many move in there in large numbers. Africans might be much more anti-Semitic those because the Jews likely take part in exploiting them too. Pale Settlement and Poland still might lose much of its Jewish population but because many just want to get hell out of there and move to Africa who empire is starting to have a open door policy with. They don’t die just move somewhere else like they have before(would make some interesting alt literature).

    I think the British might try to copy Americans on immigration without openly saying. Maybe the Brits in empire lobby with some political elements in US to encourage more immigration quotes playing on progressive elements within society somewhat so the Brits could direct more Europeans to their own colonies. Anglo elements in US especially New England do keep up and interact with Brits a good bit. Brits might try to rip off ideas from Americans when it comes to depicting itself as a land of opportunities in media. Brits unlike other empires, just takes whatever Europeans it can get. The only issue is actually other white dominions or ruled colonies not wanting whites or Europeans that aren’t like them(mostly just the Afrikaans but they can be convinced or pressured somewhat).

    Whites and Europeans in British colonies would more often just become Brits in the long run. If s Hungarian and French person marry and settle in South Africa they are either learning English or less likely Afrikaan because that is needed in daily life. Neither of their languages are useful to normal life anymore. Their kids will go to a school they learn one or two of previous listed languages. Afrikaans might add to their numbers too. If they are respected and have similar status to Anglo settlers many whites/Europeans will mix into their numbers which might actually make them more open minded to an extent(they aren’t as inclusive anymore or isolated from others).

    The Brits probably try to assimilate mix race people too or at least make them loyal to the empire.

    Are we including mix race people in this conversation too or just Europeans?

    Germany has a lot of people to throw around. Namibia and inland Tanzania can become majority German. Cameroon is probably given more assimilation policy due to its higher native population. The Germans will actually be very involved to downright overbearing on germanizing it’s African population. Togo might have a noticeable white minority but nothing above 10 or 12 percent in long run. It be more treated like Cameroon.

    Spain can easily turn its few small colonies into Spanish majorities with effort and time. Portugal would be more assimilationist. It always somewhat has but more economic and political renewal with Brazil could lead to more whites in colonies. Brazil and Portugal both encourage immigrants from anywhere in Europe and both work together on trying to bring them in. Brazil starts tying itself more to Europe and Portugal again. This not only strengthens Portugal but Brazil too. If Brazil is well off and friendly with Portugal they might invest in its colonies more if the Portuguese let Brazilian causally come to colonies and set up shop. Maybe Brazil starts industrializing more and this indirectly feeds into strengthening Portugal more. A German or Italian immigrants but now Brazilian citizens can go to Angola to do business rather easily. How far are two places from each other.

    Without world wars globalization could take off earlier. People are just likely traveling more especially more well off Europeans.

    Many of the Europeans settling in Africa might not even be that poor. It could be middle to upper class people who want to buy cheap land and “get away” from urban life. Little nice proto suburbs could form in Africa for white settlers. I could see the Germans getting good at mass producing houses and infrastructure for white settlers.

    That is the benefit of Africa. Since it’s undeveloped if you have good public planning and funding to do it you could rapidly develop the area. Germany probably getting crowded. Not everyone wants to live in cities or near industrialized centers. Africa they could live in s proto type of suburbs and take trans to work in growing cities. Suburbs actually give good use to normally worthless land. With mechanization of agricultural sector less people are needed there especially when you still have cheap African labor. If the suburbs can have efficient sanitation, piping, transportation, and etc you can place these in a lot of places. For example, you can put these in areas that can’t grow crops or lack raw value. LA is naturally a desert. Given how Germans are, if they can find ways to pipe water to areas of Namibia they do have a lot more areas where they can build settlements at least on coast.

    Air conditioning is going be big here. A lot more people in US starting to move to hotter areas when this was invented. Try to work in some factories in a place like Congo or even Louisiana and Arizona without air conditioning. You might very well die. Maybe a German scientist invents better ventilation and air conditioning in 1920s without ww1.

    European type of housing and building often don’t handle heat well. Well more Northern Europeans do not at least without modern technology. A German house is made to weather places like Bavaria or Prussia not Namibia or jungles of Tanzania. Modern additions to houses do change that those. The Germans in Namibia or Tanzania still likely prefer familiarities and comforts of home but that does require modern innovations in infrastructure and housing but Germans are rather clever. They might be looking into this to help find solution or invention to these issues. A retired Junker might want a nice retirement home off Lake Victoria.

    Tourism could also help feed into development of Africa and more whites settling there. Without world wars, Europeans do have more money and leisure to indulge in. They aren’t dealing with communism and interwar years like otl. Many Europeans will likely go to “find out about themselves”(Rick kids) and many just go for science reasons. A lot of interesting nature and science is still hidden in those jungles. Europeans are likely searching more into that then otl.

    Those hidden or isolated tribes experience outside contact much earlier and more often then they did in otl. If more whites are settling and investing in these places they are likely cutting down much of the thickest jungles and setting up infrastructure. Tanzania and Namibia for example could have its own German like highways or train systems down the line. That does make it a smaller world for the Africans. Now any middle class European can drive causally on these new highways.

    If more whites come in the Native Africans will either have to assimilate somewhat by adopting more western lifestyles or forced to reservations because if some stay stubborn on staying tribal they will be forced to reservations in many colonies. You can’t just have tribe or nomads wondering around anymore. The more colony is developed the less they can ignore this. Some tribes do become like Gypsies if they continue on how they are. Even assimilated Africans might start getting pissed.

    Your trying to drive on highway and African tribe is causally crossing it. Or in rural areas with agriculture sector lands expanding leads to few nomadic tribes moving through these lands. In new suburbs(mostly white) you have tribes moving in groups through these. Europeans and even some of its local African supporters will deal with this once it becomes an issue. They might wait last minute but they will likely do something about this. Some either become like Gypsies and are treated like shit or forced to reservations. Others decide screw it and just somewhat bitterly adopt more western lifestyle.

    The more developed Africa becomes the more tribalism will naturally just die out. If you have a nice modern city many are going to be inclined to just move to it. The Europeans aren’t always forcing them necessarily but pressuring them to do certain things. They can live in cities and these new settlements. They might be cheap labor or second class a lot but at least they have benefits of modern technology and not all colonial regimes are going to be like apartheid South Africa. Some will only torture and kill you if given a reason or if you resist at all. If you are just working and going about your day even most racist dick head European isn’t likely to cause you much trouble.

    It’s somewhat extortion. You either be a “good little African” and get thrown some nice benefits and maybe even eventual equality or you get pushed to reservations or treated like Gypsies. Many are going to take what they can get. European isn’t weaken by world wars and Africans have not seen them at their weakest yet. Africans who fought in world wars did learn about Europeans and they learn that bullshit about them being invisible and above them was a lie.

    To oppress people and conquered them you do have to do more then just take over the place. You do have to try and crush their spirit and hopes. Europeans did emasculate, humiliated, and went out of their way to destroy any sense of hope or ideas about resistance. Many of these African cultures were often chauvinist and prideful themselves. Nothing is more disheartening to people like this then showing them up with a demonstration of raw power. They just walked into your village executed all men. Sent your kids to their schools to be “educated” and “civilized”. They even often treat your women as mistress. While at the same time talking about how great they are. Now they are even building their own cities and settlements in your lands and ones that even outclass your own. All you see in daily life is their increasing presence in society while the ways of your father slowly dies and fade. The people who retain “tradition” lives like shit while ones who swallow their pride start moving up and doing better again even if it’s still under European boot. Many Africans simply see no other option or way but to play by European rules. That does not mean many aren’t resentful or don’t downright hate them. They just see no other options by to play by their rules.
  6. Coley Well-Known Member

    May 23, 2016
    Sorry,meant communist utopias
  7. Modern Imperialism Well-Known Member

    Nov 20, 2018
    It can be argued social democracy does make social mobility more stagnant for trade off of more security. Companies from Sweden come to US because they don’t get taxed as much and aren’t expected to “give back”.

    The problem with social democracy is it does have similar issues to socialist in regard of the flight of wealth. If I am a wealthy person, inventor, doctor, or business owner why hell would I want to live in a social democracy when I have a country like US where I can make a lot more money and pay much less taxes and deal with less regulations.

    The same thing goes for a Christian democracy too who can be very similar to social democracy regarding welfare state.

    Class is much more stagnant in Europe due to this. People can go from poor to rich to poor to broke again much easier in a truly capitalist system.
  8. 49ersFootball Well-Known Member

    May 14, 2019
    San Antonio, TX.
    I'm assuming this would impact South Africa in a big way ?
    xsampa likes this.
  9. kreepysam Well-Known Member

    Oct 23, 2014
    Assuming you're talking about sub-Saharan Africa, my take is that would have been possible, but the POD would probably need to be in the 19th Century.

    I've read a lot of other threads on the prospects of settler colonies in Africa in the past, and the conclusion I've come to is that several ingredients are required for feasibility.

    1. Large source of potential settlers
    This is the most important factor - a nation in Europe that has a large population, undergoing strong population growth or demographic transition through industrialisation, equating to a sizeable population surplus which net overseas emigration partly relieves the home government of the pressures of managing. There are only a few viable candidates for this imo
    • Great Britain/Ireland - the obvious candidate, between 1600 and 1950 something like 20 million people emigrated from the British Isles (Ferguson). The main problem, touched on by others, is that their emigration is already divided between the other settler colonies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (also brain drain to USA, but this is an issue for all the European powers). This leaves little left over for less appealing or developed prospects in Africa. My own opinion is they may have been able to get Southern Rhodesia to South African levels or more if they had redirected settlers from Northern Rhodesia and Kenya from late 19thC, but it would still have ended badly once majority rule loomed and the Europeans didn't want to relinquish power
    • France - large ethnically homogeneous population but slow growth in the 19th Century resulting in minimal surplus labour looking for places to go. There is also a line of thought, at least on this board, that the French culturally or economically or for whatever reason were less inclined to migration than the British. Lastly, they are attempting essentially a form of settlement project in Algeria, so they don't have enough left over to sponsor sub-Saharan colonies.
    • Italy - large and rapidly growing population that historically produced enormous outflow in the 19thC, but political unification didn't come until the 1860s. After that, there was an eventual focus on a project in Libya as a model colony. There is also a question of whether they would have the financial or economic resources available for levels of investment that could ultimately succeed in creating a non-resource extracting settler colony that was suitable to European standards of living by the 20th Century, amongst other investment priorities at home.
    • Russia - huge and growing population. Key problems are the amounts of land yet to be opened up for intensive settlement in Siberia that are closer, and Russia's limited access to sea lanes required for supply and protection. Also a limited economic and financial base for such an expensive undertaking and would've had to be underwritten by financiers in London or Paris
    • Germany - large population undergoing rapid growth and high rates of economic and capital growth. The downsides are the political situation that delayed unification until 1870, the reasonably prosperous circumstances at home dampening immigration (except to the USA), and a government that once unified, focused narrowly on European interests (Bismarck's disinterest in colonies is well known). But with a suitable POD, I'd say Germany was the leading candidate for waves of emigration that could've produced what we'd regard as a settler society in Africa.
    2. National Priority/Will

    Why go somewhere with no roads, houses, trains, electricity, hospitals, schools, jobs, theatres, police or army to prevent native raids, etc when you could go live in the Lower East Side where all of this actually exists? The answer is you wouldn't - so all of this needs establishing in a colony, and you wouldn't be able to leave all of it to the market to sort out. This factor is important because, unless there is actually a concerted belief and effort in the need for sustaining such a project, the option of the USA will seem too appealing in contrast especially early on.

    There would be minimum needs and expectations that settlers would have for a colony through its early years and probably well into its adolescence - things like subsidised migration, immigrant hotels, land grants, cheap loans, railways, a heavy garrison presence and a low risk of ambush or lawlessness, clean drinking water, and so on. This would certainly be expensive and not necessarily a positive ROI by most conventional metrics as the focus in such a colony wouldn't be in exploiting native labour for resource extraction and quick profits, but on making a settler community appear attractive to Europeans.

    So somehow, you need the government and elites to agree that a colony is a worthwhile national project. There are many possibilities; it could be the monarch's vanity project, a strategic desire to curtail US industrial growth by depriving them of a source of migration, 19thC notions of nationalism branching out, etc. But once there is a need, it paves the way for sinking funds major funds into the colony that might not be seen again.

    This is key for Germany. OTL they didnt really give a shit about their colonies, and the budget was tiny. OTOH, the Kaiser's battleship programme was an enormously expensive exercise that was deemed in the national interest. All they have to do is think that settlement is as important as the naval arms race, and the money required for all of this will be there...

    3. Climate and Geography

    Remember that game of Victoria 2 when you annexed Panama as the USA to build the canal, and within 5 years the place was majority American? In real life holding a place 5 minutes from the equator and investing lots of money wont lead to an immigration boom! European settlement on a large scale is only really possible in areas with reasonable climate and comparative lack of endemic disease. In order, the best places in Africa are as follows:
    • South Africa - developed a large white population for a reason. The north and west Cape has a Mediterranean climate, and the Oranje and Gauteng are largely temperate and dry. North of Johannesburg it tends to get a little hot but still not too humid and definitely workable. Eastern Cape and Natal are a little bit humid outside of winter, but still workable as their winters are mild and pleasant. Malaria is essentially absent as is tsetse fly. If there was an ideal place in S-S Africa for a colony, this is it.
    • Zimbabwe/S. Rhodesia- a lot of potential. While some of the northern and western areas get a touch too hot, large parts have mild and pleasant springlike climates with relatively low humidity - similar to south eastern and central Queensland in drier season. Tsetse is largely absent and although malaria is endemic, I'm not sure if this is a climate issue or a vector control issue given the state of Zimbabwe's government in the last couple of decades. Either way, the European population grew to around 300,000 OTL
    • Namibia - large parts are blisteringly hot in the summer and even in winter the temperatures typically stay in a temperate band. However, it is very dry with little rainfall or humidity (to the extent that it could actually causes water issues for a large enough colony) and clear skies. Windhoek and the major coastal towns are conducive to settlement mainly due to the warmth being manageable and little to no malaria or tsetse. The main issue is that its far too arid for large scale agricultural development
    • Angola - not as promising as suggested in some previous threads, imo but still OK - the elevated plateau starting about 50KMs from the coastline between the Namib Desert and the Cuanza River are the best bits with relatively mild and low humidity climate, but very uneven relief and topography means there are lots of pockets of scorching valleys, etc. The coastline is honestly not so appealing to 19th Century settlers as it's quite humid and hot most of the year - I'd say Namibe/Mocamedes is fairly pleasant by today's standards and could work in 19thC, but Luanda has a similar profile to Honolulu minus the nice beaches, which will be a struggle before a/c is invented.
    • Mozambique - Southern Mozambique isn't terrible- Maputo is basically a less hot and less stuffy version of Luanda - overall not too different to Durban. In the central west, it rises to the mountain chain that forms the border with Zimbabwe where some of the coolest parts of subsaharan Africa are. Everything North of Beira is basically too hot and humid for Europeans, although the white beaches and clear water probably make it an underdeveloped tourist destination OTL - could probably end up like Cancun or something in proximity to a large white colony.
    • Zambia - parts of the Northeast, Copperbelt, and the ridge along where Lusaka is are probably acceptable to Europeans but getting a little too hot and humid for too much of the year, imo. Main drawback is how far into the African hinterland it is, when combined with less attractive climate I'd say it would at best be a frontier province attached to somewhere more agreeable like Rhodesia.
    • Botswana - could be higher up here but essentially its Namibia 2.0 - warm to hot year round, scarce rainfall that would limit cropping and even livestock. But endemic illness is largely absent. Could be majority European due to low native population. Would probably need to be connected to another one of these areas for sea access, in so doing it would be more like an 'outback' province with a white majority but also large native presence like the NT
    • Malawi - mentioned in past threads and the climate is a winner, with high elevation leading to springlike temperatures year round, but apparently was densely populated with natives even in the 19th Century, and it's inland. So, probably not the basis for a strong colony.
    • Kenya - highlands are quite pleasant but outside of that its scorching hot year round due to equatorial proximity. There could never be a large white colony here, imo. Malaria and other diseases are endemic

    4. Critical Mass

    The importance of compounding growth means that in order to ensure a white community exists by the 20th Century with equal demographic footing to natives (which would prevent an exodus during decolonisation or shift to responsible government as the 20th century brings more enlightened notions of racial equality), a large number of whites would already need to be there by the end of the 19th.

    Otherwise, if the community fails to grow sufficiently large relative to the native population, then in time the fears of uprising and guerrilla movements would probably force a disintegration and flight as observed in Algeria, Angola, Rhodesia, and to a lesser extent South Africa. Once the community grows large enough, the push factors (population surplus, government investment in sponsoring passage, investing in infrastructure, etc) will be overtaken by self-perpetuating pull factors (growth of private-sector money-making opportunities).

    The more appealing the natural factor endowments, the faster the startup phase will be accelerated into the self-sustaining growth phase in a positive feedback loop (more on this in a moment).

    5. Other helpful things
    • Medicine - earlier large scale cultivation of the bark which quinine comes from or earlier synthesis would help assuage fears of malaria. This is possible by mid nineteenth century, and the knowledge or quinine is there, it just requires willpower of government to do it and subsidise the distriubtion in a public health program for settlers
    • AC - John Gorrie invented a crude air conditioner in the 1840s for his patients, so with some luck this might be commercialised earlier than when industrial refrigeration took off for transport of beef in the 1880s. If the concept is being applied to consumer usage from the beginning, then perhaps a/c in public venues like theatres and dance halls and civic buildings might parlay into retail units before the 20th century. This would help greatly speed up settlement as uncomfortable summer days could be mitigated with climate control. My guess is large, refrigerator size units for households would probably be doable by the mid-19th century technology, the trickiest part probably would be the machine tools needed for the pistons of the compressor unit, but they were mass producing cylinders for revolvers by this point so probably could be done. These early a/c would be inefficient and power hungry as all get-out and noisy too, but anyway...
    • between these two, most of the objections of settlers around climate and public health could be addressed.
    So what does all this mean? IMO the best chance for your AHC is with an earlier unified Germany taking possession of one or more of the areas described above from the mid 19th Century (e.g. an 1848 POD). Now, what might that look like?

    Well, if we take Australia as an example of what an African settler colony might be capable of accepting, as there are many climate similarities, the amount of annual assisted migration in the 19th century was as follows:
    • 1831–1860 18,268
    • 1861–1900 10,087
    The key here is that Australia had a gold rush between 1851 and 1861, where the net migration was approximately 60,000 people p/a. But at least we can see, that a developing colony in this time period and far from Europe can attract a floor of 10k per year after about 50 years of settlement.

    Therefore, I'm going to assume that similar growth rates for a German colony that includes, at a minimum, the areas along the Orange and north of the Vaal to include the Witwatersrand reefs.

    Below is how I calculated the yearly immigration rate and natural population increase in simple terms.

    1850: 1000 total (founding)
    1850-1860: +5000 p/a, 1.25% natural increase
    1860-1870: +50000 p/a, 1.25% natural increase (gold rush)
    1870-1880: +12500 p/a, 1.25% natural increase
    1880-1890: +15000 p/a, 1.35% natural increase
    1890-1900 +17500 p/a, 1.45% natural increase
    1900-1910: +20000 p/a, 1.55% natural increase (roughly equivalent to Australia)
    1910-1915 +25000 p/a, 1.55% natural increase
    1915-1925: +30000 p/a, 1.65% natural increase
    1925-1940: +40000 p/a, 1.45% natural increase

    After that, +10K and -.1% natural increase each decade to simulate declining TFR and faster means of travel.

    Overall, it seems like these figures are sustainable in the context of Germany's massive and growing population, so long as investment and the goldfields are factors which are present.


    By the end of the 20th century, such a colony growing along this trajectory would have a population of 13.5 million Europeans. For simplicity I'm assuming Germany has no demographic disasters which could slow down migration such as world wars, pandemics, etc.

    Now, compare against the native populations of some of these places I mentioned in the mid nineteenth and early 20th centuries.


    Therefore, if a German colony comprised SAR, Nambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana, for instance, it might reach a rough crossover point in terms of Europeans equalling the native population by about 1915.

    Note that these are probably quite unreliable figures but the best I can find. I'm also not sure how the Mfecane plays into the population of the mid-19th C, as in many of these areas there was widespread devastation and depopulation.

    Of course needless to say, at the very least, any ATL like this would involve a great deal of disruption and displacement to native peoples even under a best case such as peaceful negotiation with tribal leaders. At worst, from a humanitarian point of view there would be conflict between colonial governments and organised tribes who resist displacement, along with deliberate and forceful policies of control where the writ of colonial authority runs (which I am not advocating).

    The exact manner in which this happens is impossible to predict, but probably some form of divide and rule would eventuate rather than simply a maniacal slaughter. It would be impossible to control such a colony without native collaboration and mutual benefits, so one or more tribes is likely to end up as a privileged status role probably to do with keeping all the other tribes in line. Others are likely to do worse and be marginalised.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2019
  10. Warthog a product of cultural adsorption

    Nov 20, 2008
    A great beer
  11. Modern Imperialism Well-Known Member

    Nov 20, 2018
    Is percentage more important then raw numbers? Native African population probably does not experience its post decolonization population booms like otl.

    Also, if they let in more Asians and other European ethnic minorities within their own empire that could marginalized and make Africans minorities in there own lands in many more areas.

    Couldn’t Germany deport Poles from Prussia to place like Namibia or lake Victoria area? Kill two birds with one stone. More germanization at home and more Europeans in Africa.

    British let more Irish, Chinese, and Indians come to the colonies?
  12. kreepysam Well-Known Member

    Oct 23, 2014
    With regards to the Polish, I think voluntary migration would be possible. The Prussian Settlement Commission was never very successful. With sponsored emigration to an up and coming place with vast untapped mineral wealth, they might be more able to entice Poles to sell up in eastern Germany to the benefit of German resettlement. Lack of good faith would be the main sticking point - Germany would probably trust the Poles about as far as they could throw them, and might not want to risk separatism in their crown jewel colony. And due to anti-Polish sentiment at the time, it's possible many Germans would resent letting the Poles into 'their' colony. The Poles may also decide they dont want to end up in the same position as in Europe i.e. being a marginalised group among a larger, disdainful group of Germans.
    Modern Imperialism likes this.
  13. Modern Imperialism Well-Known Member

    Nov 20, 2018
    Everyone seems focused on trying to get this before ww1. My idea involves them avoiding ww1 or pushing it up as late into century as possible.

    With Germany large and unhindered population they could easily become majorities in some of its colonies by 30s and 40s.

    Also, don’t forget they could continue having more and more increased economic ties with Austria-Hungary or even absorb German parts down the line. They could out reach to Germans in Austria or if they took Czech lands that’s more minorities that can be sent to colonies. There will be a lot more Germans without world wars and over large area then otl.

    The might send some Poles and Czechs there but Germany also has plenty of Germans to send too.

    Algeria did start as somewhat of prison colony. The German law system might target minorities so more get send there on top of volunteer immigration to help make place more European but they also have a steady enough inflow of Germans to avoid it becoming too polish. The place still intended to become majority German and if the Poles are scattered enough some might mix with Germans there. Maybe make it more incentive for Polish women to go there in hopes un even ratio would encourage them to marry Germans in colonies more often then Poles?
  14. kreepysam Well-Known Member

    Oct 23, 2014
    A later influx is interesting, it would be curious to consider if in the absence of the world wars and the UN as we know them majority rule would develop near-ubiquitous acceptance as in OTL. The trajectory of human rights without the upheaval of global war could be pivotal in the destiny of colonies where a large % of the population is still native.

    I've always felt humanitarianism was trending upwards even before WW1 with increased international treaties and organisations along with Liberalism and Socialism as movements. But if WW1 is delayed and imperialism takes much longer to go out of vogue, then large scale European migration would probably be possible and even likely until well into the mid 20th Century.
  15. Modern Imperialism Well-Known Member

    Nov 20, 2018
    I think you would see less extremes and radical ideologies take over without world wars but I think century before might be a good comparison for how 2000th century goes. The 2000th century would mimic the 1900th century much more.

    Concert of Europe never ends and system created by Napoleonic Wars is still somewhat intact. You see conservative world that reforms political and cultural slower while technology and everything else does not. I see more 1848 type of situations happening but on a much larger and wider scale. Maybe even successful revolution or a French scale revolution in places like Russia or that lack behind.

    Europeans might try to repackage imperialism somewhat as more “humanitarian” or “civilizing” or “peacekeepers” work.

    Europeans love to compare and model themselves after Rome. I think they still tone down on racist shit but cultural superiority complex much less so. World Wars did discredit or taboo many right wing elements. Europeans excuse for continued colonialism could be that Africans need “guidance” or “not ready” to rule themselves completely yet. The Brits did make hints towards this mindset. Some even directly stated Europeans were once “uncivilized savages” until Rome and lesser extent Christianity “civilized” them. That could be how narratives change more we get into the century. Less racism more aggressive and condescending assimilation methods while some probably still commit war crimes against people who resist.

    I think modern Russian might be good comparison on how countries and empires would police world later in century. They still shoot your ass for resisting and without hesitation but they aren’t going to do stuff as extreme as apartheid South Africa, Nazis, or USSR. They executed and deal with resistance swiftly and bluntly but go back to business as normal after. They would likely make examples out of resistance and partisans. They probably often label them as terrorist or illegal/criminals elements.

    Europe did have a “born again” movement after ww2. They won’t be as passive and nice as otl. They will also still be major powers if not superpowers. I still think nukes could be created due to countries trying to get military edges over each other but once nuke is discovered that could lead to more stagnated international borders. If all empires have nukes they are going to stick to proxy wars and more indirect means of conflict. Mutual Mass Destruction would be even more clear and prevalent in a pod like this but that does mean a lot more time to colonize Africa with rapidly growing European economy and population. Africa demographics could be completely different and have new cultures or ethnic groups form.
  16. Frank Hart Be Who You Want To Be

    Jul 12, 2017
    Hong Kong
    I honestly don't see how a mass European immigration to Africa could severely displace the local population unless the area was sparsely populated to begin with.

    That said, an Axis Italy could still possibly make Libya almost fully Italian/European, given a 1930s PoD. Suppose they do not attempt at colonizing the Ethiopian Highlands (i.e. The western half of then-Abyssinia) but instead focus their resources on Libya.

    By encouraging more people to immigrate to Libya, Mussolini could also reduce the minority population by encouraging Italianized Slovenes and Germans to move to the Libya. If Italy could do so then it is possible that by 1943 Libya could see ~70 percent Italian/Slovene/German.

    Now if the Allies don't repatriate the Europeans from Libya, they could just chop the south to the French/British and leave the north (e.g. Tripoli, Misurata, Benghazi) Italian. Fourth Shore (with territorial reduction) achieved.
  17. Paolo Giusti Kaleckist-leninist

    Nov 21, 2019
    Western Stalingrad
    No way Mussolini lets Slavs and Tyroleans "pollute" his Fourth Shore.
  18. Frank Hart Be Who You Want To Be

    Jul 12, 2017
    Hong Kong
    Alternatively just the Italians. Besides, removing people from their homelands could also weaken their regional identity (generally this seems to be the case, though East Asians are the exception).

    Also, Mussolini is no Hitler. Regarding European minorities, from what I could tell he inclines to assimilation rather than extermination.
  19. Paolo Giusti Kaleckist-leninist

    Nov 21, 2019
    Western Stalingrad
    [laught from a foiba]
    No, really, Mussolini was not better than Hitler, he simply chose better his victims, usually the ones few remember.
  20. Frank Hart Be Who You Want To Be

    Jul 12, 2017
    Hong Kong
    Alright, I was wrong, but if Mussolini played his cards right, Libya could still see a 60+% European population.