Russian Afrika?

Like the USA all Russia's colonies were on its land frontier hence it had no reason to gain them overseas.
If it had a czar who was inclined that way they could maybe have gotten a city or two somewhere in Africa but it'd be a stretch and not something they would care too much about.

Huh?That is almost surely the wrong way around.
Different Kaiser to the WW1 one.
He was the idiot obsessed with a place in the sun and the like.
 
Huh?That is almost surely the wrong way around.:confused:

Wilhelm II didn't become Kaiser (1888) until after Bismarck acquired the African empire (1884-5). Wilhelm I didn't have any interest in colonies. For that matter, he wasn't even interested in the German Empire in Germany, just Prussia.
 
Too distant. Now, Austrian Africa...

Where's Afrika, by the way?

I would guess English, Spanish, and Portuguese are in the minority, when it comes to spelling Africa with a 'c' rather than a 'k'. Most African languages also spell Africa with a 'k'.
 
Is there any concievable way, without a total conquest of the Arab world, that Russia could have had colonies in Africa? I'm not sure if they attened the Berlin Conference at all, but what if they had?

What would a Russian Afrika be like? How did the Russians treat the natives of the lands they conquered? Would the Russians be as willing to decolonise as everyone else later on in history?

Why would the existence of Russian colonies require the total conquest of the Arab world?

Anyway, it was more than possible for Russia to send out the ships and the men etc. The question is whether or not it had the political will. Russia has a vast hinterland to exploit which I guess is the major reason why they never bothered.

I would assume the Russians would treat the natives quite badly, and that decolonisation would be forced upon them.
 
I would guess English, Spanish, and Portuguese are in the minority, when it comes to spelling Africa with a 'c' rather than a 'k'. Most African languages also spell Africa with a 'k'.
Well, in Cyrillic writing systems (used by majority of the Slavs) there is no letter corresponding to Roman 'c' (which denotes two different consonants, very unconveniently). The Cyrillic 'c' always corresponds to the Roman 's', and there is no way to spell name of the Dark continent except as 'Африка', i.e., Afrika. AFAIK, the Germans don't have much use for their letter 'c' (outside combinations 'ch', 'sch' and 'tsch'), so they spell Africa as 'Afrika', too.
However, English together with the Romance languages encompasses half of the mankind (including India and so on into the Anglosphere), so I don't think that 'Africa'-spellers are in the minority. More probably, 'Afrika'-spellers, such as my folk, are, because one-fourth of the world didn't use alphabet at all, being Chinese or Japanese; thus, 'Afrika'-spellers can number not more than one-fourth themselves.
 
Anyway, it was more than possible for Russia to send out the ships and the men etc. .
And lose their colonies immediately after start of the European war. Russian fleets were concentrated on the European affairs: the Black Sea fleet couldn't even sail into the Mediterranean, and the Baltic fleet depended on the good will of the Danes and the British when it needed to operate beyond the Baltic. Russian African colonies could be viable only with London's assent, and such assent would be given only after end of the Great Game, i.e., no earlier than 1907.

I would assume the Russians would treat the natives quite badly,
Not necessarily. In the 17-18th centuries the Russians systematically hired steppe nomads to fight for the Empire, awarding autonomy and tax-free status to the loyal tribes (and annihilating the unloyal). Large-scale masacres in the Russian Central Asia occurred only in 1916, during the WWI and under impact of the rebellion scare. Likewise, in the Siberia some peoples were recognized by the Tsars as useful allies (to the point of Empress Catherine II sponsoring construction of the Buddhist temple in St. Petersburg, for her Mongolian subjects), while some other peoples were almost exterminated or driven into China.
and that decolonisation would be forced upon them.
In all probability, Russian Empire would lose her overseas colonies (in an unlikely case of her acquiring such colonies at all) after revolution of some sort in Russia proper. Even if the Russian emigrees together with pre-revolutionary colonists would keep the Natives under control, real power would fall into the hands of some powerful Western state supporting the emigrees (the UK, France, or (without WWI) Germany). Consequently, problem of the decolonization would be solved by that state, more than by the Russians.
 
Well, in Cyrillic writing systems (used by majority of the Slavs) there is no letter corresponding to Roman 'c' (which denotes two different consonants, very unconveniently). The Cyrillic 'c' always corresponds to the Roman 's', and there is no way to spell name of the Dark continent except as 'Африка', i.e., Afrika. AFAIK, the Germans don't have much use for their letter 'c' (outside combinations 'ch', 'sch' and 'tsch'), so they spell Africa as 'Afrika', too.
However, English together with the Romance languages encompasses half of the mankind (including India and so on into the Anglosphere), so I don't think that 'Africa'-spellers are in the minority. More probably, 'Afrika'-spellers, such as my folk, are, because one-fourth of the world didn't use alphabet at all, being Chinese or Japanese; thus, 'Afrika'-spellers can number not more than one-fourth themselves.

In Arabic script it's written with a q.
 
Is there any concievable way, without a total conquest of the Arab world, that Russia could have had colonies in Africa? I'm not sure if they attened the Berlin Conference at all, but what if they had?

What would a Russian Afrika be like? How did the Russians treat the natives of the lands they conquered? Would the Russians be as willing to decolonise as everyone else later on in history?

This scenario is possible, what really would change is our timeline since any expansion or venture in Africa would result in a smaller Russia in modern times. The reason why Russia is the largest cousntry today is because its expansion was eastwards without getting involved in the colonization of Africa as the rest of European countries.
 
Also, Russia had absolutely no interest whatsoever in African colonies. It had no trade there, and its attentions were focused on Asiatic expansion. Africa would be indefensible, even if the Straits could be gained.

Well, with the exception of this little incident.

Quite a few little hiccups this could have caused in history. Rozhtezhvensky decides that he can recoal in Russian Djibouti, doesn't go all the way around Africa enroute to Tsushima? White Russian or Red Russian enclave in 1919? If it remains Soviet, for some reason, it would have interesting side-effects vis-a-vis Ethiopia's position both in an anti-Ethiopia (support for communist rebels) or pro-Ethiopia (funneling arms to anti-Italian rebels) situation, and would certainly mix things up in 1940 and 1941.
 
Last edited:
Ethipoia maybe? With the orthodox church and all. But conquering the Middle East? Do you have any idea how much trouble the Arabs are going to give the Russians for occupying Mecca?
 
Well, in Cyrillic writing systems (used by majority of the Slavs) there is no letter corresponding to Roman 'c' (which denotes two different consonants, very unconveniently).
Only in the Germanic and Romance languages (and it's rather uncommon in the non-English Germanic languages, except in the combinations ch and sch). In the Celtic languages 'c' is always hard like in Classical Latin, while in the Roman-alphabet Slavonic languages it is pronounced "ts".
 
And lose their colonies immediately after start of the European war. Russian fleets were concentrated on the European affairs: the Black Sea fleet couldn't even sail into the Mediterranean, and the Baltic fleet depended on the good will of the Danes and the British when it needed to operate beyond the Baltic.

Well I suppose that in a timeline in which the Russians developed more of a colonial bent they would similarly expand the fleet, however as Britain is pretty much the ruler of the seas throughout this period then being able able to keep the sea lanes free in war time is perhaps a little unrealistic. Some earlier diplomatic solution might have to be sought.

Russian African colonies could be viable only with London's assent, and such assent would be given only after end of the Great Game, i.e., no earlier than 1907.

1907 is far too late, Africa has pretty much been carved up by then. I suppose you have Liberia, Ethiopia not sure if there is anything else.
 
Wilhelm II didn't become Kaiser (1888) until after Bismarck acquired the African empire (1884-5). Wilhelm I didn't have any interest in colonies. For that matter, he wasn't even interested in the German Empire in Germany, just Prussia.
But as a matter of policy, Bismark couldn't care less about the colonies. His primary interest was a strong German (Prussian) state, and any real empire building was detrimental to that cause, as it focused german resources away from europe. That's one of the reasons that Bismark didn't pay much attention to french exploits in africa at the time: in his view, a France engaged in colonial wars was a france destracted from dangerous revaunchist ideas. Berlin happened on Bismark's watch, but the actual process of creating and consolidating a colonial empire was Wilhelm's work.
 
How did the Russians treat the natives of the lands they conquered? Would the Russians be as willing to decolonise as everyone else later on in history?

ok, mate, the Russians were pretty damn bad in colonising Central Asia since their expansion into Turkestan from the 1830s onwards. As for relinquishing colonial control, heck, even after the USSR's dissolution in 1991, the Russian Federation has arguably maintained some neo-colonial control esp over these Central Asian republics. I find it ironic that during the decolonisation of the 1950s, 60s & 70s, the Soviets were claiming to be the liberators for all the coloured ppls in Africa & Asia fightin to throw off the yoke of Western European imperialism, while their record with their own Central Asian Muslim subjects was pretty much just as bad...

As for the main qn, how bout if somehow say the Russians were able to back to the time of Peter the Great to establish stronger ties with Africa, thru the influence of Abram Petrovich Gannibal ? Say, if under Peter, Russia developed a greater interest in acquiring African holdings from where his good friend Gannibal had come from ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal
 
There were some suggestions (including I think made by the USSR) at the end of WW2 that the USSR would get some Italian colonies - Eritrea and/or Italian Somalia
 
Top