Question on expansion potential of US / Liberia in West Africa

The fact that the war was mainly between the dominant global superpowers of Britain and Germany a mere 23 years after the Scramble for Africa with Germany being deprived of its African colonies after it lost the war. The African theatre (read H. C. O'Neill's The War in Africa, 1914-1917, and in the Far East, 1914 and Hew Strachan's The First World War in Africa) of the war just makes it more obvious. You should also read Vladimir Lenin's contemporary interpretation of the war in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

You’re really going to pound home on the whole Marxism thing, aren’t you? Given that Lenin outlasted WW1 by less than a decade, I’d hardly consider his opinions as contemporary on the subject. I’ll admit my biases, of course, and say that I have nothing but scorn for him and his followers.

Again, your evidence so far is:
- WW1 happened 23 years after the Scramble started.
- WW1 included fighting in Africa.
- WW1 was mainly between Britain and Germant

Your evidence is weak, and the third point is not remotely valid. WW1 was mainly between Germany and Austria-Hungary vs France and Russia, if anyone could be said to be the ‘main’ combatants, and I don’t think its a valid argument anyway. Its worth noting, by the way, that WW1 featured the two main competitors in the Scramble for Africa, Britain and France, on the same side (and two smaller colonial empires, Belgim and Portugal, were also among the allies).

I don’t think you’ve done anywhere near the not-so-heavy lifting needed to even present an argument.
 
Last edited:

Maoistic

Banned
You’re really going to pound home on the whole Marxism thing, aren’t you? Given that Lenin outlasted WW1 by less than a decade, I’d hardly consider his opinions as contemporary on the subject. I’ll admit my biases, of course, and say that I have nothing but scorn for him and his followers.

Lenin published Imperialism in 1917.


Again, your evidence so far is:
- WW1 happened 23 years after the Scramble started.
- WW1 included fighting in Africa.

I don’t think you’ve done anywhere near the not-so-heavy lifting needed to even present an argument.

It's not just those two since you conveniently skipped my argument that Germany was deprived of its African colonies. And you haven't addressed any of that yet. You only complain that they aren't evidence or that there's no causal relationship without having said at no point why.
 
Lenin published Imperialism in 1917.




It's not just those two since you conveniently skipped my argument that Germany was deprived of its African colonies. And you haven't addressed any of that yet. You only complain that they aren't evidence or that there's no causal relationship without having said at no point why.

Also, I was reading ‘contemporary’ as ‘contemporary to us’ so my mistake there.

Check the update, where I go into a bit more detail on how flawed your premise is.

Also, how does taking colonies from Germany indicate they were a cause? May as well say that Germany not being a republic was a cause, since the deposition of the Kaiser was also part of Verseilles.
 
Last edited:

Maoistic

Banned
Your evidence is weak, and the third point is not remotely valid. WW1 was mainly between Germany and Austria-Hungary vs France and Russia, if anyone could be said to be the ‘main’ combatants, and I don’t think its a valid argument anyway. Its worth noting, by the way, that WW1 featured the two main competitors in the Scramble for Africa, Britain and France, on the same side (and two smaller colonial empires, Belgim and Portugal, were also among the allies).

It was convenient for Britain to help France so that its colonial empire in Africa and elsewhere didn't fall in the hands of the Germans. Russia was also involved because of colonial rivalry, mainly for the Far East, and also for the Ottoman Empire, a main contender of WWI which you conveniently didn't mention and which, incidentally, controlled the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf of Aden which were key areas for European colonialism in Africa. As for Austria, its declaration of war was the perfect pretext for a combined Austro-German invasion of France in hopes that such a combined army would conquer France or at least weaken it to steal its colonial empire.

Also, how does taking colonies from Germany indicate they were a cause? May as well say that Germany not being a republic was a cause, since the deposition of the Kaiser wad also part of Verseilles.

Versailles said nothing about the Kaiser having to abdicate as far as I know. Wilhelm was deposed by the Socialist Revolution of Rosa Luxembourg, not by Versailles.
 
It was convenient for Britain to help France so that its colonial empire in Africa and elsewhere didn't fall in the hands of the Germans. Russia was also involved because of colonial rivalry, mainly for the Far East, and also for the Ottoman Empire, a main contender of WWI which you conveniently didn't mention and which, incidentally, controlled the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf of Aden which were key areas for European colonialism in Africa. As for Austria, its declaration of war was the perfect pretext for a combined Austro-German invasion of France in hopes that such a combined army would conquer France or at least weaken it to steal its colonial empire.



Versailles said nothing about the Kaiser having to abdicate as far as I know. Wilhelm was deposed by the Socialist Revolution of Rosa Luxembourg, not by Versailles.

You’re right that founding a Republic was not part of Verseilles, that was just sloppy simplification on my part; Wilson was adamant that Germany abandon monarchy, even if it was not part of the treaty.

You’re consistenly arguing as though I’m not arguing in good faith. I didn’t mention the Ottomans because I was rejecting the premise of portraying WW1 as mainly between Germany and Britain. If it was convenient not to mention them, then you were just as guilty, not to mention that you left out France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Italy... I think the point is made.

Honestly, I don’t have the patience to deal with trying to unravel how Britain was fighting Germany for colonial domination if Africa, when the possible number of colonies they could gain were relatively small, alongside their major colonial competitor in Africa, France, and their major colonial competitor in Asia, Russia. Or how Germany was planning on fighting Russia and France, to try to get through the Royal Navy in order to try to take the African colonies.

Africa was a sideshow to WW1, end of story. The competition helped to raise tension by a non-zero amount, but if Africa was the main driver, then WW1 would have started over Morocco.
 

Maoistic

Banned
You’re consistenly arguing as though I’m not arguing in good faith. I didn’t mention the Ottomans because I was rejecting the premise of portraying WW1 as mainly between Germany and Britain. If it was convenient not to mention them, then you were just as guilty, not to mention that you left out France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Italy... I think the point is made.

The difference is that the Ottomans were a crucial part of WWI, unlike Serbia for instance, with it crumbling after it and most of its territory colonised by Britain, not to mention its strategic importance for Africa thanks to how controlling Syria and the Gulf of Aden ensured a complete control over East Africa. That's why not mentioning the Ottomans is egregious.


Honestly, I don’t have the patience to deal with trying to unravel how Britain was fighting Germany for colonial domination if Africa, when the possible number of colonies they could gain were relatively small, alongside their major colonial competitor in Africa, France, and their major colonial competitor in Asia, Russia. Or how Germany was planning on fighting Russia and France, to try to get through the Royal Navy in order to try to take the African colonies.

Germany was fighting Britain for control of Africa and the world at large (I will remind you that I didn't say the Scramble for Africa was the main or only cause, just an essential cause), not the other way around. The British just used this opportunity as a perfect excuse to colonise the Ottomans for good and destroy Germany as a superpower once and for all.


Africa was a sideshow to WW1, end of story. The competition helped to raise tension by a non-zero amount, but if Africa was the main driver

As a battlefield it wasn. As a cause, it was one of the most important.

but if Africa was the main driver then WW1 would have started over Morocco.

I guess you mean in 1911 when the French conquered Morocco with Libya being conquered by Italy, but that's a mere three years from WWI which actually supports my position about Africa being one of the main causes of WWI.
 
Lenin published Imperialism in 1917.

I don't see why I should believe the word of a Communist from 1917. Of course he's going to want to portray Capitalist nations in the worst light possible, that's his job as a Communist revolutionary,

It was convenient for Britain to help France so that its colonial empire in Africa and elsewhere didn't fall in the hands of the Germans. Russia was also involved because of colonial rivalry, mainly for the Far East, and also for the Ottoman Empire, a main contender of WWI which you conveniently didn't mention and which, incidentally, controlled the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf of Aden which were key areas for European colonialism in Africa. As for Austria, its declaration of war was the perfect pretext for a combined Austro-German invasion of France in hopes that such a combined army would conquer France or at least weaken it to steal its colonial empire.

What the Hell are you on about? Why would Austria, who didn't give a rats ass about Africa outside of maybe the Med basin, go to war for Germany? It makes no logical sense for the empire that wanted a Balkan sphere to pick a fight with over half the world. Help out Germany during diplomatic crises, yes, the Moroccan Crisis showed that. Start a war, in the wrong part of the world at that, over Africa? Most certainly not.

The difference is that the Ottomans were a crucial part of WWI, unlike Serbia for instance, with it crumbling after it and most of its territory colonised by Britain, not to mention its strategic importance for Africa thanks to how controlling Syria and the Gulf of Aden ensured a complete control over East Africa. That's why not mentioning the Ottomans is egregious.

Then why didn't you bring them up?
Also, Serbia not being the cause of war? I'm sorry, but what? I must have misunderstood the part where Serbia complied with Austrian demands and Russia didn't mobilize, resulting in a peaceful resolution of the July Crisis, because I thought the exact opposite happened.

Germany was fighting Britain for control of Africa and the world at large (I will remind you that I didn't say the Scramble for Africa was the main or only cause, just an essential cause), not the other way around. The British just used this opportunity as a perfect excuse to colonise the Ottomans for good and destroy Germany as a superpower once and for all.

Then why did the war start over the Balkans between two nations who had little to no interest in Africa? Better yet, why were the German forces in Africa overwhelmingly local volunteers rather than German regulars if the goal of the war was to conquer Africa? It doesn't make much sense to give up the goal of what you're fighting over.


As a battlefield it wasn. As a cause, it was one of the most important.

If Africa was the main cause of the war, why didn't the Austro-German conspiracy strike in 1911? Then they could avoid any Balkan distractions.

I guess you mean in 1911 when the French conquered Morocco with Libya being conquered by Italy, but that's a mere three years from WWI which actually supports my position about Africa being one of the main causes of WWI.

I'm just gonna repeat the question of why Germany and Austria didn't start a war over Africa if Africa was their goal.
 

Maoistic

Banned
I don't see why I should believe the word of a Communist from 1917. Of course he's going to want to portray Capitalist nations in the worst light possible, that's his job as a Communist revolutionary,

That's fine as long as you give valid arguments to say why Lenin was wrong.


What the Hell are you on about? Why would Austria, who didn't give a rats ass about Africa outside of maybe the Med basin, go to war for Germany? It makes no logical sense for the empire that wanted a Balkan sphere to pick a fight with over half the world. Help out Germany during diplomatic crises, yes, the Moroccan Crisis showed that. Start a war, in the wrong part of the world at that, over Africa? Most certainly not.

Wrong, I didn't say Austria went to war for Germany, I said that Germany used Austria's declaration of war as an excuse to invade France, or at least drag it, and Britain, into a war.


Then why didn't you bring them up?
Also, Serbia not being the cause of war? I'm sorry, but what? I must have misunderstood the part where Serbia complied with Austrian demands and Russia didn't mobilize, resulting in a peaceful resolution of the July Crisis, because I thought the exact opposite happened.

Again with the strawmen. I didn't say Serbia wasn't a cause of war, I said't wasn't a crucial part of WWI. And I only brought the Ottomans when Dominus stated that the war was mainly between Austro-Hungary and Germany against France and Russia which is not true as it disregards the Ottomans completely.



Then why did the war start over the Balkans between two nations who had little to no interest in Africa? Better yet, why were the German forces in Africa overwhelmingly local volunteers rather than German regulars if the goal of the war was to conquer Africa? It doesn't make much sense to give up the goal of what you're fighting over.

Using mainly Africans to fight in Africa is the logical choice, simple as that. And yes, Austria-Hungary was just interested in the Balkans, but it turns out that obtaining control over them was crucial for controlling Africa, and the world at large, because it gave access to the African Suez Canal, one of the pivots of the British and French colonial empires. This is why Germany used Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia, because it would give it access to North Africa and particularly the Suez Canal, that way dragging Britain and France into a war to defend said canal, giving Germany an opportunity to conquer their colonies.


If Africa was the main cause of the war, why didn't the Austro-German conspiracy strike in 1911? Then they could avoid any Balkan distractions.

The third strawman in a row. I didn't say that Africa was the main cause of the war, only one of the main causes. And Austria didn't care about the French conquering Morocco, Germany did and wanted to stop the French from expanding as soon as possible. It just didn't declare war or do anything at that moment because it knew that France wasn't violating anything by invading Morocco. The Serbian murder of Ferdinand, however, was indeed a violation of established alliances and thus the perfect excuse to drag France into a war and stop its expansion.



I'm just gonna repeat the question of why Germany and Austria didn't start a war over Africa if Africa was their goal.

See above.
 
Again with the strawmen. I didn't say Serbia wasn't a cause of war, I said't wasn't a crucial part of WWI. And I only brought the Ottomans when Dominus stated that the war was mainly between Austro-Hungary and Germany against France and Russia which is not true as it disregards the Ottomans completely.

You can't object, in good faith, to me not mentioning the Ottomans, when the post you were attacking specifically stated that it wasn't a valid argument in the first place.

Remember the law of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
 
I think we’ve gotten a little off track here. Here’s a possibility for a bigger Liberia: some manner of “back to Africa” scheme in the US, either deportation of freedmen to avoid dealing with racial tension or a larger voluntary migration by African-Americans trying to escape discrimination at home. If this happens during or shortly after the Reconstruction period, the US will have a larger foothold in Africa before the Scramble kicks off and maybe more of a vested interest in maintaining territory there.
 
I think we’ve gotten a little off track here. Here’s a possibility for a bigger Liberia: some manner of “back to Africa” scheme in the US, either deportation of freedmen to avoid dealing with racial tension or a larger voluntary migration by African-Americans trying to escape discrimination at home. If this happens during or shortly after the Reconstruction period, the US will have a larger foothold in Africa before the Scramble kicks off and maybe more of a vested interest in maintaining territory there.

How feasible would it be for this ALT Liberia to roughly share borders with Senegal and Ghana at minimum? That is assuming British interests in West Africa such as Sierra Leone and Ghana remain largely unaffected in this scenario though it is not necessarily a requirement.

Or was there potential for ATL Liberia to expand much further so it ends up sharing borders with Mauritania, Nigeria and Niger at its absolute maximum?
 

Maoistic

Banned
Or was there potential for ATL Liberia to expand much further so it ends up sharing borders with Mauritania, Nigeria and Niger at its absolute maximum?
The US would have to neglect its Pacific expansionism, and most likely its Caribbean expansionism as well. And like I've been saying above, such expansionism would have led to blows with Europe, in this case France and possibly Great Britain as well. They wouldn't have ceded so much territory.
 
The US would have to neglect its Pacific expansionism, and most likely its Caribbean expansionism as well. And like I've been saying above, such expansionism would have led to blows with Europe, in this case France and possibly Great Britain as well. They wouldn't have ceded so much territory.
It’s not a matter of “ceding” territory if it’s a fait accompli before they start staking claims. But I see your point about distracting from expansionism elsewhere. Maybe if Liberia finds a few wealthy backers and runs itself like a non-murderous version of the Congo Free State?
 
That's fine as long as you give valid arguments to say why Lenin was wrong.

I'm not going to believe him because it's essentially propaganda. If the Germans had a report from WWI blaming the entire fiasco on the British and French wanting to enslave the German race, I also wouldn't believe it. It's the same reason I don't believe the Allied story that the war was to protect democracy and get rid of a vile regime. So no, I'm not going to accept Lenin's word on why WWI started.

[Wrong, I didn't say Austria went to war for Germany, I said that Germany used Austria's declaration of war as an excuse to invade France, or at least drag it, and Britain, into a war.

As for Austria, its declaration of war was the perfect pretext for a combined Austro-German invasion of France in hopes that such a combined army would conquer France or at least weaken it to steal its colonial empire.

That seems like you're saying that Austria was more concerned with German interests (which weren't interested in starting a European war over Africa, see Second Morocco Crisis again) than their own. It also ignores that the Germans tried to keep France out of the war before they invaded. It also ignores that there were barely any Austrian troops on the Western Front, so they obviously didn't care that much about it. For a war about taking French colonies, they sure didn't put a lot of effort into it, what with Austria caring more about its own backyard and the Germans abandoning Africa as lost.

Again with the strawmen. I didn't say Serbia wasn't a cause of war, I said't wasn't a crucial part of WWI. And I only brought the Ottomans when Dominus stated that the war was mainly between Austro-Hungary and Germany against France and Russia which is not true as it disregards the Ottomans completely.

You cannot say that Serbia wasn't a crucial part of WWI. It started the damn thing, the Allies sent loads of troops to protect it (that they got stuck in Greece is a different matter), and the Austrians were willing to go to war over them. To ignore the critical role Serbia played in the war is to completely reject reality in exchange for some ideological fantasy land.

Using mainly Africans to fight in Africa is the logical choice, simple as that.

Then why did the Allies insist on sending in non-African troops as the main part of their forces? It took until the last year of the at, when the situation in Europe came to a head. That the Germans did not put significant European forces in Africa shows that they did not plan on making it the focus of the war. If German war goals were actually about taking Africa, they would have built it up and deployed significant forces there rather than going "Let the British take it and try to be as big of an annoyance as possible."

, Austria-Hungary was just interested in the Balkans, but it turns out that obtaining control over them was crucial for controlling Africa, and the world at large, because it gave access to the African Suez Canal, one of the pivots of the British and French colonial empires.

Is that why the British had no footholds in the Balkans? Their closest was Greece, who was neutral thanks to pro-German and pro-Allied efforts, and their closest territory was Cyprus, which is most definitely not the Balkans. Is that also why they pissed off their best shot at Balkan influence, the Ottoman Empire, by not sending them two warships at the start of the war? Because destroying your influence in a region that is supposedly key to controlling one of the most important economic routes in the world does not sound smart.

why Germany used Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia, because it would give it access to North Africa and particularly the Suez Canal, that way dragging Britain and France into a war to defend said canal, giving Germany an opportunity to conquer their colonies.

How does the Balkans give access to North Africa? The only way that'd happen for sure would be if the Germans were able to get naval superiority in the Med, something that just would not happen. Remember that the Ottoman entrance into the war was neither assured or expected. The Germans merely took advantage of British fuckups and rogue Ottoman servicemen attacking Russia to drag them in. Even including the Ottomans, it leaves Bulgaria, a nation that didn't enter on the CP's side until 1915, and Greece in the way. All in all, attacking the Balkans to get at North Africa makes no sense. If anything, it should have been a German-Italian operation to use Libya rather than going over 1000 miles from German or Austrian borders, where supplies would have to come from. It also doesn't explain why the Germans never sent significant troops to the Ottomans if taking Suez was so critical to its plan to conquer Africa.

The third strawman in a row. I didn't say that Africa was the main cause of the war, only one of the main causes.

Yes, you did. You stated that Serbia, the cause of the war, was less important than Africa. If that's not allocating the bulk of responsibility to Africa, then I don't know what is. you're also contradicting your own statements that Africa was so important that the whole of Europe would join an anti-American alliance, which you conveniently scaled back to merely "anti-American sentiment", if they tried to expand in Africa. If Europe viewed Africa as important enough to become hostile to an enormous market, then surely any reason to go to war over Africa would be more important than a petty European dispute.

And Austria didn't care about the French conquering Morocco,

Then why did you describe WWI as an excuse for the Austro-German alliance to invade the French to "steal their colonial empire"? If Austria didn't care about French expansion in Africa, why would they care about Germany wanting more African territory?

Germany did and wanted to stop the French from expanding as soon as possible. It just didn't declare war or do anything at that moment because it knew that France wasn't violating anything by invading Morocco.

But surely German greed would be more important than international treaties? After all, didn't they start a general European war over Africa, and in a part of the world that hadn't cared about Africa for several hundred years?

The Serbian murder of Ferdinand, however, was indeed a violation of established alliances and thus the perfect excuse to drag France into a war and stop its expansion.

Then why did Germany offer France terms to keep them out of the war? Why did they view Russia as the more important target if they wanted to get at France? Why didn't Italy join the war if they could have gotten such supposedly important colonies out of it? But perhaps most damningly to your case, why did the Kaiser go on vacation and give every implication that he did not think war would break out? That certainly doesn't strike me as the actions of a man who is chomping at the bit to fight France.
 
Top