PC: United British East Africa

I don't think Germany would get anything in the Congo by way of compensation.

Alright, assuming the Brits still get East Africa, and Leopold bid largely fails, what's the fate of the Congo? I still think Portugal's going to have a tough time with the pink map -- they had been practicing slavery in the colonies not 15 years prior to the Conference, so there's just not enough good will to make up for their weakness. That just leaves France -- does this mean (again, if Leo fails) that they'll be able to walk away with such a big chunk of the continent?

Also, regarding white settlement: you're unlikely to ever get massive white immigration to the territories you've outlined. South Africa - certainly, Rhodesia - to a lesser extent; but between Zambia and Kenya, you have land that's quite inhospitable to European settlement, and that doesn't change until you get to teh Kenyan highlands.

That's not an insurmountable obstacle, by any means - but Tanzania won't ever have the attraction of Canada or the USA, or even the Antipodean colonies to British settlers where the climates are comparatively temparate, and the indigenous populations thin and easily controlled.

Let me ask a question then, open to the board -- what would be the high end of plausible in terms of European and other white immigration to British East Africa, assuming the rail and political terms I described?
 
Alright, assuming the Brits still get East Africa, and Leopold bid largely fails, what's the fate of the Congo? I still think Portugal's going to have a tough time with the pink map -- they had been practicing slavery in the colonies not 15 years prior to the Conference, so there's just not enough good will to make up for their weakness. That just leaves France -- does this mean (again, if Leo fails) that they'll be able to walk away with such a big chunk of the continent?



Let me ask a question then, open to the board -- what would be the high end of plausible in terms of European and other white immigration to British East Africa, assuming the rail and political terms I described?

Extremely, extremely limited. A few thousand people at best. The region is not at all suitable for European settlement, with just a few highland areas habitable by Europeans. It would be far better to encourage immigration to South Africa to try to outnumber the Cape Dutch.

I think in this scenario it would be easy for Britain to gain control over East Africa, by maintaining their policy of working through the Zanzibari empire - but this is not going to ever be a settler colony. Nobody in their right mind would go there over the other options available. There's room for a handful of plantation owners, but for everyone else life will be a horrible struggle compared to what you can find in the Americas or the other settler colonies.

Don't forget that Zanzibar controls Kenya - in fact the whole coast from the border of Mozambique all the way to Mogadishu. As Britain is the paramount power in Zanzibar, there is no motive for upsetting this arrangement - Britain gets control without having to pay for or manage administration. It was only the occupation of Egypt that allowed Germany to upset this.

What is possible, and which to some extent happened, is much more interesting, and that's Indian subcolonialism. You could see a reasonably large community of Indians in East Africa.
 
John said:
Alright, assuming the Brits still get East Africa, and Leopold bid largely fails, what's the fate of the Congo? I still think Portugal's going to have a tough time with the pink map -- they had been practicing slavery in the colonies not 15 years prior to the Conference, so there's just not enough good will to make up for their weakness. That just leaves France -- does this mean (again, if Leo fails) that they'll be able to walk away with such a big chunk of the continent?

France and Portugal partition the Congo between them, after an angry debate over who gets to keep the river. Britain bangs heads together so they come to an agreement which secures free trade in the region as much as possible. France probably emerges the bigger winner of the two, though Portugal *might* just be able to secure Katanga as an extension of her Angolan colonies.

Portugal will have difficulty asserting itself in the Congo region, however: it's difficult terrain, so actual Portuguese occupation will remain severely limited, relative to comparative French occupation of their territories.

Whatever happens, Portugal doesn't get the Pink Map: if Britain have set their sights on a British East Africa, then a British East Africa they shall have. What Portugal might get, however, is a significantly bigger Angola than we have in OTL - one which includes large areas of the modern day DRC, and - in particular - Katanga, with its rich mining resources. It's just a case of sending a few hundred soldiers into the interior and bumping off Msiri, just like the Belgians did in real life.

Abdul said:
What is possible, and which to some extent happened, is much more interesting, and that's Indian subcolonialism. You could see a reasonably large community of Indians in East Africa.

This. Give Indians economic and social opportunities that they wouldn't have had in the subcontinent, and you create a massive, educated and hard working pool of enterpreneurs and labourers who you can successfully settle in areas that Europeans wouldn't want.

Historically, Indians went to Kenya and Uganda and ran the economies there, and a Britain which wants loyal, productive colonies will find India's services invaluable. Particularly if there's an active drive from Westminster to achieve this.

One thing though - what is the exact status of Tanjanika in this timeline? Is it officially 'British', or is it ruled through the Sultan of Zanzibar?
 
How would more Indians in East Africa - i.e. a majority - affect Indian independence later on? Or Indian dominionship? If Westminster wants loyal Indians running East Africa, then is it concievable that they would be more lenient towards India's goals later on?
 
The region is not at all suitable for European settlement, with just a few highland areas habitable by Europeans. It would be far better to encourage immigration to South Africa to try to outnumber the Cape Dutch.

I'd still think, at least, TTL would see the same level of white immigration to Rhodesia, if not more* .

What is possible, and which to some extent happened, is much more interesting, and that's Indian subcolonialism. You could see a reasonably large community of Indians in East Africa.

This is most certainly interesting :D -- maybe here we get a consolidated Rhodesia (to become something else with the fall of white supremacy) and an East African province (Mogadishu to Tanzania, stretching west to the lakes) with a Zanzibar nation filled with Indian settlers.

*Northern and Southern, likely to include the Zumbo Zambia blot in Mozambique OTL and the slice of the Congo slipping into Zambia
 
Emperor of New Zealand said:
How would more Indians in East Africa - i.e. a majority - affect Indian independence later on? Or Indian dominionship? If Westminster wants loyal Indians running East Africa, then is it concievable that they would be more lenient towards India's goals later on?

Maybe an earlier recognition that Indians are perfectly capable of governing themselves, and that the government of India has to change if the subcontinent is going to stay within the Empire?

Even more interesting is the long-term possibility that, following referenda, the Indian-majority colonies choose an association of some description with the motherland rather than rule from London or independence. Kenya and Tanzania integral parts of India, anyone? :D
 
Ah, but I'm not talking about Indian majority colonies -- but substantial minorities with high status; keeping E Africa as part of India is problematic then to say the least...

Which brings me to another point -- what sounds like high end plausible numbers for the Indian and White populations? By today, OTL, there would be about 5 million* White Former-Rhodesians and South Africans, meaning what, 2 million in 1920 is reasonable? As to Indian immigrants -- likely to be mostly in the "Zanzibar Province" TTL, does 4 million seem plausible?

*I think the includes the diaspora as well
 
Ah, but I'm not talking about Indian majority colonies -- but substantial minorities with high status; keeping E Africa as part of India is problematic then to say the least...

Which brings me to another point -- what sounds like high end plausible numbers for the Indian and White populations? By today, OTL, there would be about 5 million* White Former-Rhodesians and South Africans, meaning what, 2 million in 1920 is reasonable? As to Indian immigrants -- likely to be mostly in the "Zanzibar Province" TTL, does 4 million seem plausible?

*I think the includes the diaspora as well

You really need to address what happened to Zanzibar for this to be answered. Zanzibar controlled the whole coast from the border of Mozambique all the way to Mogadishu with varying levels of control over the interior deep into what became the Congo Free State. You can't just convert it into a "province" as it's more or less a British protectorate.

As for White settlement, Rhodesia is nothing live East Africa. The former's climate and environment is way more favorable to Europeans - the latter is incredibly hot and disease-ridden. It's just not feasible to have such a massive level of European settlement. 2M is greater than South Africa's White population in 1920, and that's after several centuries of immigration. I think the most you'll see in East Africa is more like 20,000, not counting troops and administrators.
 
Sorry, I really should use more precise terms -- I was saying "East Africa" to refer to the combined territory in Africa controlled by the British along the eastern "half", from Cape Colony* north to the lakes and Mogadishu (at least -- possibly up to Egypt, though it would be more "sphere of influence" than "colony). I referred to the "Zanzibar Province" (which, OTL, includes Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda etc) to distinguish it from the southern parts of this large continental chunk (South Africa, Zimbabwae, Botswana, Zambia, etc) more hospitable to white settlement.

The idea is, the former would make up for this lack, TTL, with heavier Indian immigration, though if it can't be made a "province" officially, they'd still have to be sufficiently under British thumbs to let them dictate immigration policies. Does that seem plausible?

EDIT: Had said "Cape Cod" -- gah :eek:...
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I really should use more precise terms -- I was saying "East Africa" to refer to the combined territory in Africa controlled by the British along the eastern "half", from Cape Cod north to the lakes and Mogadishu (at least -- possibly up to Egypt, though it would be more "sphere of influence" than "colony). I referred to the "Zanzibar Province" (which, OTL, includes Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda etc) to distinguish it from the southern parts of this large continental chunk (South Africa, Zimbabwae, Botswana, Zambia, etc) more hospitable to white settlement.

The idea is, the former would make up for this lack, TTL, with heavier Indian immigration, though if it can't be made a "province" officially, they'd still have to be sufficiently under British thumbs to let them dictate immigration policies. Does that seem plausible?

Cape Cod? You mean Cape Colony, I suppose. So you're saying 2M for the entire British Empire in Africa from the Cape to Uganda? In that case 2M is reasonable. I thought you meant in just OTL Kenya and Tanzania.
 
Cape Cod? You mean Cape Colony, I suppose.

Oops -- uh, yes :eek:

So you're saying 2M for the entire British Empire in Africa from the Cape to Uganda? In that case 2M is reasonable. I thought you meant in just OTL Kenya and Tanzania.

More or less, yeah -- with the whites almost all in the south, and of the 4 million Indians, about 90% being in OTL Kenya and Tanzania. And in both cases, of course, at least 75% are "Black African" (with mixed races also making a substantial minority).
 
Top