Recolonization of Latin America

How would that work? 19th century early 20th century S. America is not my strongsuit but I don't recall those nations being anything but props of American Corporations, usually selling bananas or coffee. Argentina was the pastureland for the Great Britain and was thus protected from German adventures; not to mention southern Argentina in the Patagonia is quite dry, the area around Buenos Aires where the Germans settled was nice but this is also the area G.B. has the most interest in. In any situation We consider we have to remove American influence from the Continent, in order to get that dominion type area.

One more thing David S Popoe, I don't consider myself delusional or delirious I feel quite sane and quite hydrated. Both the scenarios he listed remove America from the scene which is an absolute requirement for this to happen. No America removes the need for Britain to enforce the Monroe doctrine because they will go get theirs as well and no America allows Germany to wage unrestricted Sub warefare which will turn the tide especially if they win the battle of Jutland and are able to get food in. So I think his scenarios are the most likely I just think Germany has better places to spend its money and that German SE AFrica is a good candidate for Dominion status. The thing is The Germans never tried to do much with their colonies, I don't think they had more than 50K settlers and not more than 10K support personnel total in their colonies. I want to say that Cameroon had like 50 people running the country. The whole thing was an exercise in ego and if they wanted a dominion they would have put more effort in.
 
Both the scenarios he listed remove America from the scene which is an absolute requirement for this to happen. No America removes the need for Britain to enforce the Monroe doctrine because they will go get theirs as well and no America allows Germany to wage unrestricted Sub warefare which will turn the tide especially if they win the battle of Jutland and are able to get food in.
Except that it wasn't just the Americans keeping the British enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, they only supported it because it was in their national self interest. As people have already said the UK invested large sums of money into the area, received highly beneficial trade deals, and up until the years just before the Great War dominated the region economically - practically all the benefits of colonialism but without the costs or having to run the place yourself. If you remove the US who IIRC was becoming their biggest competitor and after the war overtook them in investing and commerce in South America then you've pretty much strengthened their desire to keep the status quo regarding the Monroe Doctrine I would have thought as they already had a dominating position under the current arrangements.
 
Except that it wasn't just the Americans keeping the British enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, they only supported it because it was in their national self interest. As people have already said the UK invested large sums of money into the area, received highly beneficial trade deals, and up until the years just before the Great War dominated the region economically - practically all the benefits of colonialism but without the costs or having to run the place yourself. If you remove the US who IIRC was becoming their biggest competitor and after the war overtook them in investing and commerce in South America then you've pretty much strengthened their desire to keep the status quo regarding the Monroe Doctrine I would have thought as they already had a dominating position under the current arrangements.

If they don't enforce it while America is to weak to enforce it than they have to deal with other European nations interference. In the US and on the rest of continent (Canada) so as you said enforcement is in their best interests. If America is removed than they can afford to take the best bits for themselves.
 
When you look at the reasons for Colonialism the whole idea is irrational. We invest lots of money, men and material in something that doesn't pay for itself even in the good years? Colonialism is an exercise in ego and thats all. THe only rational argument ever made for Colonialism was not to do it and that was by Bismarck. He actively encourage French Africa because he knew it would take their minds and their money off of the Germany he was consolidating.

I guess we agree to disagree. As for getting the Germans into Colonies in S. America than your stated Scenarios a few posts back are as good as any.

Actually some colonies were very profitable, didn't take excessive security, and produced things the home country couldn't, the problem is by the time the Germans turned up these regions (the smaller Caribbean islands, East Indies and specific resource areas in India and Africa) were all gone. In fact they were pretty much all occupied by 1780, much less 1880.
 
How would that work? 19th century early 20th century S. America is not my strongsuit but I don't recall those nations being anything but props of American Corporations, usually selling bananas or coffee. Argentina was the pastureland for the Great Britain and was thus protected from German adventures; not to mention southern Argentina in the Patagonia is quite dry, the area around Buenos Aires where the Germans settled was nice but this is also the area G.B. has the most interest in.

Well, it's indeed difficult to see how the German plans should have worked out. I think they may have hoped that German immigrants could do the job. Even though Britain dominated Argentina and had a great interst in it, they wouldn't limit immigration - at least not initially. With Germans making up more and more of the population, the influence of Germany would rise naturally - or so they hoped, I think. I rather doubt that the Southern American countries would have accepted such a gradual overtaking by German immigrants - no matter what Britain or the US would do or say. And outright conquest is out of reach for Germany.

In any situation We consider we have to remove American influence from the Continent, in order to get that dominion type area.

Actually, you'd have to remove also British influence from the continent AND influence of the local, established elites.
 
No, you can't have European recolonization of America. Besides the Monroe Doctrine, most of Latin America was "semi-colonial" already, i.e. their economies were largely foreign-controlled and they were geared to primary resource production for European benefit.

For example, as Nugax said, Britain got all the benefits of a colony from Argentina without the burden of having to administer and defend it. There is absolutely no motivation to recolonize it formally.

What you could see, in the case of a major debt default, is the establishment of formal foreign financial control, as in the case of Egypt prior to the British invasion.
 
The US never really went for colonization in a big way; we preferred to take thinly populated areas, settle them, and make them into states. Latin America doesn't really fit the bill. And actually, if you want Latin America to fall prey to European colonization, it's the attitude of the British that counts, not the USA... it was the RN who really put the teeth into the Monroe Doctrine and prevented any further colonization of the Americas. So, to get to the POD here, you have to change British attitudes on the subject...
True, but the Philippines is a prime example that they did do it on occasion
 
Top