No German colonies in Africa nor Oceania

Your map of Africa is really quite nice. But my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia, and here... is France, and we're in the middle — that's my map of Africa.
Otto von Bismarck
Bismarck wanted no overseas colonialism because in his opinion Germany should focus on countering expected French revanchism and possible Russian expansionism.

So the PoD is that Bismarck in 1884 does not authorize the establishment of protectorates in Togoland, Cameroon, SW Africa, E Africa and North New Guinea. Most of these coastal areas will become British in short time, probably.
Perhaps Bismarcks intervenes in London and asks that existing tradings posts
of German companies will be respected, perhaps not even that.

Anyway, the next year, after the Berlin Conference, the scramble for Africa is mostly over. Germany is confined to its European possessions. The companies of Woermann, Lüderitz and Peters are seething, the National Liberal Party is unhappy - so Bismarck will have to throw them some other bone.

What are the long term consequences?
Obviously there will be different naval policy. Germany might still acquire Kiauchow and try to have bigger influence in China. Other roads to expansion will mostly lead to a confrontation with the US, namely over Samoa and the Spanish East Indies. But these quarrels will be soon over, nothing you start building a HSF for.
And what about Heligoland? With no overseas territory to trade in, will Germany ever acquire the island? If not, than an anti-British naval strategy makes even less sense.

Any ideas?
 
IIRC, weren't the colonies established by independent private companies, who shortly discovered they'd bitten off more than they could chew (and thus, appealed to the German government for help)? Wouldn't it be politically impossible for Bismarck to simply refuse to aid them?

That said, if he does do that, I wouldn't completely reject the possibility of confrontation with Britain. If Britain retains Helgoland, then it might make it seem that a battleship fleet is more, not less necessary, for security, since Helgoland could easily be described as a dagger at Germany's throat. With no colonies to provide the impetus for the cruiser alternative, the arguments for the Fleet Faction might be strengthened, lest Germany have nothing but a toy navy.

The other alternative, is, to simply go for the defensive navy option, and come to an accord with Britain. The biggest problem, I think, is that even Bismarck acquiesced to colonies in the end because the prestige hit of not having was simply too great. A small navy with neither a large number of cruisers or battleships might be even less politically possible than no colonies.

That's not to say there weren't many politicians who saw no issues with this policy direction. I recall reading a quote by Phillip zu Eulenberg, who harsh criticized the battleships being constructed as having no purpose except alienating Britain, and sucking up money with which "every German town could have an Army garrison to prevent the evils of social democracy," or something like that. A man like Eulenberg, I can easily see championing such a policy.
 

NothingNow

Banned
IIRC, weren't the colonies established by independent private companies, who shortly discovered they'd bitten off more than they could chew (and thus, appealed to the German government for help)? Wouldn't it be politically impossible for Bismarck to simply refuse to aid them?

That's about what I remember as well.
And colonization was a broadly popular policy. So it's not just something he could throw under the bus with little blow-back.
 
I rather suspect colonisation was made broadly popular. It was something the nationalist media latched on to. A stick to beat Bismarck with, not least. If the question had not been deliberately brought up, I wonder how much it would have mattered.

My question would be ghow this comes about. It is a completely different thing if Germany does not engage in colonialism because its government does not choose to and the people are largely indifferent (the possessions could in effect become privately run concessions, chartered-company style, but they wouild hardly register politically outside the Hanseatic cities, which had run similar trading empire before), or if it doesn't do so because the government sees it as impossible under the circumstances and the people are forced to go along. In the latter case I fear the resentnment of the colonial powers could become quite damaging politically.

But if it works reasonably smoothly (there will be political fighting, but it doesn't have to be a big issue), this could result in a continentally oriented Germany. It would need to find some way to 'resolve' its perceived population crisis (it didn't exist, but everybody thought it did). Sucks (even more) to be Polish? But the naval policy would be different, and it is likely Germany would more vigorously advocate open door policies elsewhere. IMagine the wounded pride in Berlin, staunch defender of free trade, when the evil protectionist British try to hinder German exports to their colonies and informal protectorates...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
But if it works reasonably smoothly (there will be political fighting, but it doesn't have to be a big issue), this could result in a continentally oriented Germany. It would need to find some way to 'resolve' its perceived population crisis (it didn't exist, but everybody thought it did). Sucks (even more) to be Polish? But the naval policy would be different, and it is likely Germany would more vigorously advocate open door policies elsewhere. IMagine the wounded pride in Berlin, staunch defender of free trade, when the evil protectionist British try to hinder German exports to their colonies and informal protectorates...

It sounds like in many ways, the USA is the natural ally here. Both will be working together for an Open China policy. If the USA allows Germany to freely trade in Latin America, Germany's interest align with the USA. And in the Tsarist days, the USA had very good relations with Russia. Perhaps we see an informal partnership of USA, Germany and Russia. After all, Germany could choose to side with Russia over Austria.
 
AFAICT, even today historians are at odds about Bismarck's motivations in 1884. The "domestic policy" school says that the main reason was the German public's fascination with colonies. Bismarck had to consider the Reichstag elections of October 28th 1884; acquiring some protectorates would probably strengthen the pro-Bismarck National Liberals. They actually gained 2.9 % compared to 1881 and 4 seats.
The "foreign policy" school on the other hand states that the animosity between Bismarck and the anglophile Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm was as strong and ever and since the death of Emperor Wilelm I. was foreseeable, Bismarck tried to make the colonial question a stumbling block for too pro-British policies. The same time, by siding with France in colonial matters, he hoped to turn their attention towards Africa and away from Alsace-Lorraine.

Without doubt, the establishment of formal imerial German protectorates over the areas German trading houses were interested in had far-reaching consequences. But if the first thesis is correct and it was done as a short-term measure to boost the NLPs electoral success, that is somehow depressing.

I agree that finding a way to change Bismarck's ming in spring of 1884 sounds difficult.
 

katchen

Banned
Bismarck's problem in hindsight was that he had neglected to offer firm guidance to both German trading firms and the German public in the years leading up to 1884. As a result, he was forced into a crisis in which he had to accept a number of pieces of real estate that were white elephants of only symbolic value just so that his party could say to the German public, "Yes, we now have colonies".
As the United States and the UK proved, protectorates need not be declared as such to exist. From 1870 on, German trading companies were indeed champing at the bit to be establishing trading ventures elsewhere in the world besides Europe. And Germans were emigrating to other places in the world. Yet the German government ignored the interests of both.
A proactive foreign policy on the part of Bismarck from the 1870s on might have involved taking into account the fact that a) large numbers of Germans are immigrating to Brazil and b) a German trading company is interested in South-West Africa and c) gold has been discovered in the South Africa Republic. Guaranteed loans for German trading companies building railroads in Brazil (never mind the fact that Brazil still has slavery--they're on the path to abolition--and more controversially, from Walvis Bay to Johannesburg perhaps in return for naval bases at Rio de Janeiro and Walvis Bay would expand German interests INDIRECTLY and without the expense of administering a bunch of territories that are too hot for Germans to move to anyway.
Then if Bismarck is STILL feeling pressure from the Reichstag to get a colony for Germany, make an approach to the United States to purchase Alaska from the United States. The ruling Republican majority in Congress is STILL feeling buyer's remorse about purchasing Alaska from Russia in the first place, still thinks Alaska is a complete boondoggle and is still refusing to appropriate any funds to organize or administer Alaska as a territory. The US is likely to be willing to sell off Alaska in 1880-1884 (the Chester Arthur Administration, James G. Blaine, Secretary of State). But there are a few forts in Alaska and knowlesge is creeping out that there is a fair amount of farmable land in Alaska in certain places, not necessarily the obvious places. So because Alaska is colder rather than warmer once acquired from the United States, there is an excellent chance that Alaska, which after all has a climate roughly equivalent to Sweden, will catch on for German settlement.
 
Top