Outline for an African Superpower

So basically, this is my idea for how to get an African superpower going. It's jumbled together from all kinds of cliches from the board going on right now, completely unoriginal, but I don't think anyonehas thought to put them together like this. the POD is just before the 20th century, but IO think it's close enoguh to count. Here it goes:

Fashoda incident leads to war. Germany goes to the British camp, whilst Russia sides with the French. Quick and easy Anglo-German victory.
After the war, the victors pretty much repartition Africa. France loses everything south of the Sahara, Belgium loses the Congo to Germany. Portugal's colonies are purchased, with Germany getting Angola and Britain getting Mozambique. Britain and Germany do a colony swap, with Britain getting Namibia and Tanzania, and Germany getting Ivory Coast.
So in short, Germans get Mittelafrika and Britain gets Capetown-to-Cairo. Everyone's happy.
Since the war is far less disastrous, British immigration to its colonies increases, with South Africa, Rhodesia, and greatly-expanded East Africa becoming popular choices. While liberal British rule allows more equal opportunites for native Africans, in reality white colonists control much of the economy, land, and politics of British Africa. Mozambique,Botswana, Namibia are incorporated into South Africa, while Southern Rhodesia votes to join the Union, due to a stronger Anglo-African influence on politics in Cape Town. Northern Rhodesia eventually falls into the fold. East Africa forms the East African Federation after being deemed capable of self-rule. Meanwhile, Germany makes Angola their primary settler colony, with an Apartheid-like colonial government established.
In the late fifties/early sixties, the peace in Europe is finally broken when fascist France and Russia finally start a war for revenge. The German government feels confident because of their nukes that they invented in the forties, however, enemy infiltrators managed to steal the technology for the French/Russians. After only two-years of warfare, Europe is nuclear wasteland, with much of the Northern Hemishere experiencing crop failures and dropping temperatures. The only suitable place for refugees to go to is Africa. Millions upon millions of Europeans flee, with Germans going to Angola, French to Algeria, Italians to Libya, and British to South and East Africa. Since British Africa has been by then brougth more-or-less within modern levels of developement and the standard of living has been increasing for all, meaning a drop in birth rates, racial tensions are luckily avoided. However, German Mittelafrika has fallen into chaos and ethnic violence, German colonists chief among the targets. The East African Federation and Union of south Africa hold a referendum on officially merging into the Federation of Africa. German colonists in Angola ask for annexation in order to save themselves, which is granted. Egypt and Sudan, however, officially break off all ties from the Commonwealth.
Thus the world's newest superpower is born.
What do you think?
 
Try inserting spaces and making paragraphs, it'll be easier to read :)

Really, the best place for making a sub-Saharan African superpower is pre-1900. But Africa's got a lot of nasty problems.
 
Try inserting spaces and making paragraphs, it'll be easier to read :)

Really, the best place for making a sub-Saharan African superpower is pre-1900. But Africa's got a lot of nasty problems.
I'm talking about post-1900, or at least as close as possible.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Oh...come...ON.
Really?:(

Can you...repitch this? With spaces? I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything, but I reread it two or three times and I'm kind of lost.

What are the chances you can boil your whole premise down to about 8 simple sentences?

I want to help because Africa is REALLY underserved in the fiction department, but I can't quite get a handle on what you're pitching.


God...I do sound like a jerk. Sorry.
 
I like it, I see one glaring issue. That United States country. How with a pod of 1898 is it not mentioned ONCE? How? The nation with at that point arguably the largest amount of industry in the world just vanished never to set foot from the North American continent again?
 
So basically, this is my idea for how to get an African superpower going. It's jumbled together from all kinds of cliches from the board going on right now, completely unoriginal, but I don't think anyonehas thought to put them together like this. the POD is just before the 20th century, but IO think it's close enoguh to count. Here it goes:

Fashoda incident leads to war. Germany goes to the British camp, whilst Russia sides with the French. Quick and easy Anglo-German victory.
After the war, the victors pretty much repartition Africa. France loses everything south of the Sahara,


Britain does not need Germany to win this war, and would still be very mindful of the balance of power. The war would be fought with limited objectives, to settle the dispute in question plus some small compensation to drive the point home.

Belgium loses the Congo to Germany.

Belgium does not have the Congo at this point.


Portugal's colonies are purchased,

Is this linked to the war or an additional POD, in reality Portugal held onto her colonies quite late into the 20th century.
 
Last edited:

terence

Banned
African Superpowr

As a resident of Africa for 35 years, let me share some REAL African history and economics that may point the way. It really is best to know something about the dynamics of a potential AH scenario.

The 19th C "Scramble for Africa" was just that. A scramble to 'get-in' before someone else without any real strategic thought of what they wanted to do with the territories.
Outside of Southern Africa, Britain's and Portugal's African possessions had grown out of coastal trading bases. Until 'The Scramble' there was no need to secure the interiors and claim the territory except when supressing unruly tribes or chieftans who interupted trade. Britain specifically didn't want to have to adminster huge territories for little financial reward- viz Gladstone's refusal to send an Army against the Mahdi. Britain also turned down the offer of Msire, king of what is now Katanga, to buy him out instead of being rubbed out, as he was, by King Leopold's henchmen, despite Cecil Rhodes attempt to intervene.
France's expansion was driven by Napoleon IIs grandeur. Before oil, there was no profit in conquering North Africa. The Italian and German expansions had the same motivation. Britain's was basically as the sponsor of Private Corporations. In all cases the colonies supported only tiny European populations, because that is all they could do.

Every time that mass European emigration to Africa has been tried, it has foundered on realities. The 1820 settlers couldn't make a living on the land and immigration petered out when Australia and New Zealand were better options.
Cecil Rhodes plan to dominate Africa from the Cape to Cairo would have depended on a re-play of the domination of India, but there was too little profit in it for immigrants, no ready wealth or established order and he attracted mostly adventurers.
After WW1, Britain actively promoted settlement in East and Central Africa, but again, the Americas and Australasia were more attractive.
In 1922, Rhodesia was given the option of joining the Union of South Africa--a referendum led them to decline, fearing too much Afrikaaner influence.
After WW2, Jan Smuts conceived a plan to transport one million (racially suitable) European displaced persons to "British Africa" per year for ten years. They would have been Germans, Poles, Hungarians and Balts plus plenty of British. (The Beautiful Balts ended up in Australia). The plan was to be run in conjunction with a massive increase in industrialisation. But the Afrikaaner Nationalist parties were opposed and the idea died with Smuts election defeat. The 'massive' industrialisation became a 'mini' industrialisation due to a lack of skilled (white) workers.
Europeans in Africa, you see, have all the petty jealousies of Africans in Africa. If one couldn't get a United South African White Nation in 90 years--it's hard to see how one could get one by chucking in Portugese, Germans and New Settlers, let alone the ludicrous suggestion of Black advancement.
While liberal British rule allows more equal opportunites for native Africans
Not a chance! Influx control, work-preferences, voting restrictions in Southern Africa were all British inventions. It was the practical need to open up the semi-skilled and skilled labour market to 'non-whites' and the big migration to the cities in WW2 that spawned the extreme Apartheid of the Afrikaaner Nationalists in the 1940s. It was also the Westminster Government's desire to increase Black African political participation that caused the break-up of the Central African Federation and the eventual UDI of Rhodesia. Nowhere in Africa--Congo, Algeria, Kenya, Mozambique were Europeans happy about a too-rapid advancement of the native population.
As for a German 'MittelAfrika'--the German record in SWA makes the Congo look like a holiday camp. San hunted for sport, the genocide of the Herero and a determined attempt to wipe out the Nama. Activities in German East Africa were not much better with the methods of putting down the Maji-Maji and the He-He. The Germans acted in Africa the way they would act later in Eastern Europe. With the continual revolts, I wonder how you could attract immigrants to a constant war-zone.
Incidentally, all German African colonies were highly unprofitable and had to subsidised by The Reich-- even diamond and phosphate rich SWA.

OK, an unlikely prospect of a Northern Hemisphere nuclear war and a massive population move to Africa.

Are these people going to be let in?
How are these people going to be fed?
How are these people going to be housed?
How are they going to become economically active?
Where the hell is the water going to come from?

Maybe a responsible government would take in the Brightest and the Best---but (millions?) of starving and destitute people? Have you ever seen a refugee influx?

Now to Superpowers--next post
 

terence

Banned
An African Superpower?

So, all the major European and North American powers have been laid low in a nuclear war and subsequent collapse--that would leave, what? Japan, China, India, Australasia, A South American bloc, perhaps? How would an 'African Superpower' compare?

For any Nation or group of Nations to be classed as a 'Superpower' it would need to comply with the nominal rules of Spykeman and Fox. (Think USA, USSR and The British Empire as at 1945)

1/. Possession of a large, habitable landmass.
2/. A substantial population--200 million plus.
3/. A substantial industrial base with an integrated scientific community.
4/. Economic and financial independence or dominance.
5/. The ability to project military power anywhere on the globe.
6/. The ability to influence events anywhere on the globe through economic, cultural or political power as well as military strength.

Points 3, 4, 5 and 6 explain why India and China have not been 'Superpowers' (although they may be one day.) 1, 2 and 4 show why Britain dropped out of the club from 1948. Points 2, and 5 put Canada out. You can work out why WW2 Japan and Germany were also outside of the league.

An African Superpower
1/. OK, the whole of Africa provides plenty of landmass--but habitable?
One of the reasons that there was no huge transfer of European population in the 19th C to Africa as there was to the Americas and to Australia is that with a handful of exceptions the place was rough on Europeans and the land unsuitable for the type of agriculture to support large populations.
Even with late 20th century techniques, fertilisers, insecticides, GM foods, etc. African agriculture only just suceeds in areas where it is well managed. Soil is thin (no loess), yields are low and droughts or floods arrive with monotonous regularity. Before air-conditioned hotels and 4X4s most of Africa was and is hell to live in, that is why only Southern Africa, the White Highlands of Kenya and the Mediterranean strip ever had anything but a tiny European population.

2/. A substantial population
There are about 800 million inhabitants of Africa today, in the 1960s it was about 400 million. Some 30 million live a lifestyle that could be compared favourably with the poorest European country and 12 million of those live in Southern Africa and 6 million are White, coloured and Asian. Not all populations are equal. There are probably 60 to 70 million 'economically active' people South of the Sahara--the population of the UK plus Ireland.

3/. A substantial economic base with an integrated scientific community.

Driven any Burundian cars lately? Look at the queue of Africans for the Nobel Prizes for physics, chemistry etc.
There was absolutely no incentive for the colonies and dominions to industrialise before WW2. It seems stupid, doesn't it, to ship iron ore and coal all the way from Africa to steel mills in Japan, Germany, Britain and then buy back finished steel products. Crazy to send unprocessed copper ore and alumina 6000 miles and then buy back copper wire, but that is what happened and still, largely happens as the cost of setting up local benefication is too cash and time consuming.
South Africa built up a pretty good scientific and industrial base from the 1960s, but relied totally on foreign co-operation--and its owhere near the Israeli development that took place over the same period with fewer advantages.

4/. Economic financial independence or dominance.
60% of the World's gold was mined in the Vaal Triangle for 80 years--but the price was set daily at Lord Rothschild's house.
99% of the world's diamonds are mined and or sold through De Beers, but the diamond markets are in Hatton Garden, Amsterdam, Tel Aviv and new York.
Africa's commodities are bought and sold on the Chicago, New york, London, Paris and Singapore Bourses--not the JSE, Nairobi or Lagos exchanges. The Rand COULD be the world's only precious-metal backed currency--but it isn't and it's confetti. It took Britain 200 years to surpass Spain and France as the centre of World Wealth. It took the US another 250 to surpass Britain--these things happen slowly.

5/. Projection of military power
Required, a blue water navy with bases to support it.
An aircraft industry
A military and industrial compex

Where are these coming from?

6/. Well if all the other points could be fulfilled, influence would come, couldn't it?
 
Terence, thank you for sharing the valuable insight. So... what is the most recent POD available ofr an African superpower?
 

terence

Banned
African Superpower POD

Terence, thank you for sharing the valuable insight. So... what is the most recent POD available ofr an African superpower?

Let me give at some thought (as if I hadn't already)--I think we have to a lot furer back than Fashoda. I will revert.
 
Let me give at some thought (as if I hadn't already)--I think we have to a lot furer back than Fashoda. I will revert.

I second this my bru....
As a Rhodie, I've learned all to well the cluster that was British Africa. In order to remove the Colonialists (which, I imagin you'd like to) you're gonna have to remove:

1. Puppet States/ revolutionaries funded by major powers
2.Private Corporations with paramilitary forces (BSAC, for instance)
3.Pride and refusal to surrender the land at first.
4.Lack of cultural or statural identity caused by Colonial destruction of oral traditions.
5. MANY powers who want the resources of Africa.
6.Horrible administration of those resources (there's a reason that Zimbabwe, Africa's breadbasket, isn't doing well).

In other words, we need to go farther back than the 1800's. I don't know much outside of my family's native Zimbabwe, but here's a couple of strong options:

1.One of the older Shona Kingdoms (Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa Kingdom) establishes a more powerful trade position in the 1200's through 1400's. They develop with the aid of European, Muslim, or Asian guns, maybe have a nice shot at destiny by the 1600's.
2.Rozwi Empire- Have them successfully repel the Portuguese and begin to make guns and such. Give them a bit of breathing room, and you could have a Meiji-restoration-ish period of ascension there. This would need to be between 1600 and 1700, as they were in sharp decline by 1800.

I hope this helps my friend! As a native African (albeit a white one) living far from home, I would love to see some more African timelines!
 

terence

Banned
Let me give at some thought (as if I hadn't already)--I think we have to a lot furer back than Fashoda. I will revert.

I've given it some thought.
WI Britain had not taken Canada from the French and WI there was no successful American revolution (a popular timeline I think). Then maybe there is a smallish Anglo nation on the Eastern seaboard of America that later achieves peaceful independence but is unable to expand Westwards, although it, maybe, confederates with the W. Indies, Bermuda and The Bahamas. It becomes a successful state but hasn't the unlimited free land to attract the immigrants that it did in OTL. British emigration and investment then goes into Southern Africa with much earlier discovery and exploitation of gold and minerals. (Maybe the big ironmakers set up in Natal due to cheap labour and the whole South East Coast can rival the Caribbean for sugar).
By the time you get to the 20th Century the former British colonies (FBC) are a medium-weight power it's neighbour to the North is a Franco-Meti nation with a lower level of development. To the west are a whole range of Native American statelets and confederacies that supply the FBC with cheap labour and export markets. But they squabble amongst themselves and with the Spanish speaking mestizo countries to the far west. (One could come up with lots of little and big wars)
In Southern Africa, however a huge White immigration with 18th and 19th Century birth rates, a little judicial genocide and domination of the European-Asian sea route has created a serious industrial power. It's de facto control of the World's gold supply alows it to dominate the World's financial markets from the middle of the 19th Century and possession of so many of the world's strategic minerals make it the high-tech powerhouse of the 20th C. It is possible too, that this superstate obtains the oil in Cabina or discovers the gas and oilfields off Mosselbay a century earlier.
I am not sure how one solves the problem of food supply and disease yet without arbitrarily changing the climate. The water supply can be solved by early use of exising resources, (Vaal and Orange schemes) and tapping the Zambezi and even great lakes which will be done in the next 20 years.
So your POD starts on the heights of Abraham. Over to you
 
I don't think a whit ruled south africa is entirely necessary to make an african super power.

I don't know much about 20th century african politics. But consider the fact that Mobuto embezzeled 5 billion dollars from his own country. Now imagine if that money had been kept in the Congo's economy. WI the congo had been able to act mor like south korea or taiwan after decolonization?

Africa has huge mineral, agricultural, and labor wealth. If more honest government had been in charge if not a super power but maybe a few tiger (or lion) economies could exist.
 
I've been trying to work with a POD where French decolonization is slower then OTL and French Equatorial Africa or a successor manages to somehow consolidate power into a centralized government despite France's attempts to keep it divided. Then it basically goes on a wanking spree.

The problem with this is the idea of a united central Africa seems to have had the support of 00.01% of the population due to nationalism. But public opinion could easily change with a few years... right?
 
I've been trying to work with a POD where French decolonization is slower then OTL and French Equatorial Africa or a successor manages to somehow consolidate power into a centralized government despite France's attempts to keep it divided. Then it basically goes on a wanking spree.

The problem with this is the idea of a united central Africa seems to have had the support of 00.01% of the population due to nationalism. But public opinion could easily change with a few years... right?

What kind of nationalism are you talking about?
 
...reversing the way the Rome v Punic wars turned out might be interesting (have Hannibal march on Rome more, earlier)?

The A/C issue's mostly there because we European cultural descendants are too embarrassed to be seen in the just breechclouts you need to deal well with the weather in much of Africa. But that's just a symbol, really - it's also diet and disease.
 
What kind of nationalism are you talking about?

I guess the best way to describe it would be, everyone in the state of Iowa believes that their state is better then the other 49 states and therefore should be an independent nation.
 
Sorry for the infamous double post but.

...reversing the way the Rome v Punic wars turned out might be interesting (have Hannibal march on Rome more, earlier)?

1. Then the Celts would urbanize (like they doing in OTL before Rome showed up) and form their own empire that could have probably replaced the Romans.

2. This would result in no changes in technological development for ether continent since Carthage was based in the Mediterranean and wasn't interested in exploring the Sub Sahara.

3. This is WAY before 1900.
 
Top