Scramble for Africa w no Belgian or German acquisitions, Alsace-Lorraine with France

I came across a map of Africa from 1870 and was honestly surprised by how little of it was taken by Europe. Contrast it with 1910! Anyway, what do you think Africa would look like with the following assumptions/PODs:

  • The Netherlands is partitioned along these lines following the Belgian Revolution: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=107721 (ie no Belgium, Flanders stays with the Netherlands, the Great Powers guarantee Dutch neutrality, Wallonia goes to France).
  • Alsace-Lorraine stays French. With the added industrialization (Walllonia was one of the most industrialized place on earth by WW1), France avoids catastrophe during the Franco-Prussian War. Germany still defeats France and unites, but France keeps AL and doesn't pay as much in reparations.
  • Germany does not claim anything in Afrika. It concentrates more on the informal empire in East Europe and only builds a fleet large enough to protect its commercial interests, rather than something to take on the RN (because it's treated with less suspicion by Britain, among other reasons).
So does Africa get carved up by 1910 with just different colors? Or are there a lot more gray areas than in OTL? My thoughts are still slightly inchoate, but I'll post my thoughts later.

Africa-in-1870-634x686.jpg
 
Not sure I understand your point on Alsace-Lorraine - it was only taken by the Germans as a prize in 1871. France owned it before then

I do think that a united Netherlands would keep its W African colonies, and maybe in doing so might influence Denmark to do so too

Germany - well, its a difficult one. If its not pushing to colonise in its economic sphere, then it is going to be either supporting friendly powers there or supporting independent powers there. A German-backed independent Zanzibar? Could be interesting!

Best regards
Grey Wolf
 
So does Africa get carved up by 1910 with just different colors? Or are there a lot more gray areas than in OTL? My thoughts are still slightly inchoate, but I'll post my thoughts later.

Africa is definitely still carved up. The competition for colonies was intense and without Germany or Belgium someone else is going to step in and take those areas. Maybe one of the big players like France or Britain or maybe someone new who was sidelined in OTL. With Germany more involved in Eastern Europe perhaps Russia or Sweden try their luck in Africa, or Italy isn't stuck with Ethiopia.

Overall though I think 1910 Africa is going to look very similar to OTL.
 
Africa is definitely still carved up. The competition for colonies was intense and without Germany or Belgium someone else is going to step in and take those areas. Maybe one of the big players like France or Britain or maybe someone new who was sidelined in OTL. With Germany more involved in Eastern Europe perhaps Russia or Sweden try their luck in Africa, or Italy isn't stuck with Ethiopia.

Overall though I think 1910 Africa is going to look very similar to OTL.

I don't know - there ARE viable native states such as Zanzibar, maybe even Oman's Southern holdings in Kenya. The Treaty between Britain and Germany mention a load of sultans in these areas, and if Germany is NOT willing to colonise but at the same time not willing to cede her rights, you might see something like a Trucial States of East Africa

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Not sure I understand your point on Alsace-Lorraine - it was only taken by the Germans as a prize in 1871. France owned it before then

My point here is that France doesn't feel compelled to annex huge parts of Africa to compensate for the loss of AL. I've certainly read that this was a factor, although I don't know how much impact it had on French efforts.
 
You'd think they would have used a different color to distinguish between the Dutch outpost at Elmina and the independent Boer states in South Africa.

Didn't Denmark have some trading posts in Africa pre-Congress of Berlin?
 
Africa is definitely still carved up. The competition for colonies was intense and without Germany or Belgium someone else is going to step in and take those areas. Maybe one of the big players like France or Britain or maybe someone new who was sidelined in OTL. With Germany more involved in Eastern Europe perhaps Russia or Sweden try their luck in Africa, or Italy isn't stuck with Ethiopia.

Overall though I think 1910 Africa is going to look very similar to OTL.

I think south and east Africa look similar to OTL. Britain gets its Cape to Cairo route, still takes the Boer States, and still rampages through East Africa. I was thinking Portugal and France split the Congo (or maybe it all goes to Portugal), so maybe Portugal doesn't even press the Rose Map issue.

I was thinking the Netherlands would still ditch its Gold Coast holdings and concentrate on (and take all of) Borneo and Papua. The East Indies are a lot more profitable than West Africa. Without slaving, West Africa isn't very attractive until oil becomes a commodity.

You're all probably right that France would still go all out and take all the worthless desert it can find. Maybe Germany would push for less overt imperialism, although given the racial concepts in Germany at the time, it would be hard to justify. Italy will still be as incompetent as ever. As for the other players, I don't think they get their acts together.
 
I was thinking the Netherlands would still ditch its Gold Coast holdings and concentrate on (and take all of) Borneo and Papua. The East Indies are a lot more profitable than West Africa. Without slaving, West Africa isn't very attractive until oil becomes a commodity.

Something I just discovered but apparently the Dutch used their Gold Coast holdings to get recruits to serve in the East Indies, thereby resulting in the "Black Dutch" of Indonesia. Maybe if the Dutch kept Ghana they would continue to use Ghanians there.
 
Something I just discovered but apparently the Dutch used their Gold Coast holdings to get recruits to serve in the East Indies, thereby resulting in the "Black Dutch" of Indonesia. Maybe if the Dutch kept Ghana they would continue to use Ghanians there.

Most likely, they didnt want to use 'too many' Indonesians since they could revolt and all that stuff. If Goldcoast remains Dutch it is a logical and easy place to get recruits from. Meanwhile you could also see Javans keeping peace and order over in Dutch Goldcoast. I imagine Ghana could end up similair to Suriname: Dutch speaking black people with a large Javan minority.
 
Personally I believe the Dutch will still sell their Gold coast colonies to Britain; they only cost money and with Indonesia the Dutch didn't need prestige colonies (like the Belgians, Italians and Germans OTL). I think the Dutch will mainly focus on Indonesia, like OTL, but with Flanders as part odf the Netherlands I think it is possible all of Borneo ends up Dutch. It is possible the Netherlands keeps their goldcoast colonies though, there was opposition to the sale OTL, but as I said I don't think they'll keep it.

Anyway without the Belgians (or at least their king) Congo will probably end up Portuguese. I believe France will still attempt to colonise a large part of Africa, like OTL. They lost a large part of their colonies in the 19th century and they still are one of the major powers of Europe, so they want some colonies to show it. They probably will get something similar to OTL, although they might swallow up the western German colonies, like Togo and Cameroun. The British/South-Africans will probably go for Namibia, although it is possible the North ends up Portuguese, assuming they aren't overstretched if they also colonise the Congo. If the British still want their Cape to Cairo raiload they will colonize Tanganyika. I believe that most of the colonies will mainly focus on the coastal areas.

I wonder if adding these colonies to France, Portugal and Britian might overstretch these powers, especialy Portugal. If that is the case the colonization attempts will focus mainly on the coastal area, while the centre of Africa might still remain uncolonized, even if it is officialy claimed by European countries.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Maybe the improved position of the Dutch will lead them to buying the claim to Delagoa Bay from the Portguese. That way they can be the Boers connection to the rest of the world. Couldn't this also cause Dutch/Flemish to make up a lot more of the Uitlander population? I doubt the Dutch will be able (or want) to really take possession of the Boer republics but they can act like their big brother.
 
I do think that a united Netherlands would keep its W African colonies, and maybe in doing so might influence Denmark to do so too

The Dutch did'nt have colonies in West Africa, they had a handful of small forts/trading posts along the Gold Coast, the Dutch could use them as a base for expanding and colonizing the area, but IMO you'd need and earlier PoD as Britain and France were already interested in the area.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
Honestly, I'm not sure there's even a Scramble if you avoid the Franco-Prussian War/avoid A-L being taken by the Germans. The entire scramble was kicked off by France suddenly and rapidly taking territory in Africa, which was more-than-partially motivated in order to regain lost prestige from the FPW. Vassals, protectorates, proxies?, all these things you'd surely have, yes of course. The resources Africa, especially rubber, were very valuable to the industrialized and industrializing West. But direct ownership, colonies? Not very likely at all. Who cares which nation is ruler over this particular stretch of sand in the Sahara - nobody certainly had for thousands of years until the Scramble.
 
Who cares which nation is ruler over this particular stretch of sand in the Sahara - nobody certainly had for thousands of years until the Scramble.

Quite a few people, actually, parts of the Sahara were fought over many times by the native African states, especially Morocco, the Malian Empire (for whom modern Mali is named) and various tribal confederations.
 
Last edited:

dead_wolf

Banned
Quite a few people, actually, parts of the Sahara were fought over many times by the native African states, especially Morocco, the Malian Empire (for whome modern Mali is named) and various tribal confederations.

Alright, gross hyperbole on my part, but the point still remains. The salt mines in the Sahara are hardly going to be worth the effort for the European imperialists to make such a drive for, and the Trans-Saharan Trade had been on the decline since at least the 16th century.

There's very little that Africa actually offered the imperialist powers outside of the Congo's rubber - many of the African colonies were a major drain on the respective metropoles budget for decades afaik.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
Balance of trade, new markets, resource extraction, etc., even the 'civilizing mission' could be accomplished through intermediaries, and had been for centuries of European presence on the continent. It was only following in 1870s and the Franco-German rivalry that the European colonization in Africa suddenly became about conquering and directly administrating territory.
 
Honestly, I'm not sure there's even a Scramble if you avoid the Franco-Prussian War/avoid A-L being taken by the Germans. The entire scramble was kicked off by France suddenly and rapidly taking territory in Africa, which was more-than-partially motivated in order to regain lost prestige from the FPW. Vassals, protectorates, proxies?, all these things you'd surely have, yes of course. The resources Africa, especially rubber, were very valuable to the industrialized and industrializing West. But direct ownership, colonies? Not very likely at all. Who cares which nation is ruler over this particular stretch of sand in the Sahara - nobody certainly had for thousands of years until the Scramble.

This was my initial thinking. But France already lost an empire, so there's still the need to regain prestige. Plus they always have to keep up with the British. Once Britain goes Cape to Cairo, I'm thinking public opinion in France would demand that they grab and annex as much worthless desert as possible, regardless of costs.
 
This was my initial thinking. But France already lost an empire, so there's still the need to regain prestige.

Exactly. the only colonial possession France has are a couple of French Carribean islands, French Guyana, some African outposts and some Indian outposts. If you compare that to the minor country of the Netherlands they have a couple of Dutch Carribean islands, Dutch Guyana, some African outposts and some Indian outposts* and Indonesia. I think that France even with a less humiliating Franco-Prussian war would still want some colonies. Even if there is no scramble, I think it is likely France will expand their African colonial outposts.



*ok, they were sold to the British in 1824, but still.
 
Top