Spain sells African Colonies to America

Lusitania

Donor
If America somehow did acquire Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea, what does it do with them?

Ignore them for 50 years and grant independence? Mostly ignore them until Tropical Disease can be removed, water can be easily desalinated, oil is discovered, and wildlife reserves make things pretty, and then we begin seeing Americanization?

Picturing America with those would be interesting.

But the US cannot ignore them. The US policy starting in the 1930s was that all colonial powers had to grant their colonies independence just like they decided to do with Philippines. They cannot take that position and have a colony themselves.

Plus the US not going to spend $$$$$ to support any colony in Africa. If Spain said we not wAnt them the Americans would grant them independence just like Liberia. No colonies none. Plus US not pay a 1$ for them. No Congress would approve it.

You are talking about the USA not European country.
 
But that would make no military strategic sense. The Philippines were valuable to the us since the us wanted to make the Pacific its Ocean. There was no ability to project power with those two backwater territory. I sorry but no one would even suggest that compromise.
You're assuming it's a military issue when it's really an ideological one. The Anti-Imperialists came very close to defeating the treaty, even with the new colonies the Philippines remain their main problem with the treaty. The addition of African colonies is just enough to sway some undecided voters, but once the treaty is defeated, McKinley will have a very hard time convincing people who already voted against it that the US should annex the Philippines.
 

Lusitania

Donor
You're assuming it's a military issue when it's really an ideological one. The Anti-Imperialists came very close to defeating the treaty, even with the new colonies the Philippines remain their main problem with the treaty. The addition of African colonies is just enough to sway some undecided voters, but once the treaty is defeated, McKinley will have a very hard time convincing people who already voted against it that the US should annex the Philippines.

But you just underlined the main point. Getting the African Spanish colonies makes the American prospect of accepting the treaty as almost impossible. While some person may think it’s great for American prestige the vast majority of society and American government officials would rail against it and America would not even take Cuba and Philippines.

Plus the premise of the thread is that US buy the colonies. Why would the US spend money on Africa. Simply the negative review of Liberian would of meant all Americans would of run for the hills at mention of an American colony.
 
Personally I think it would be more interesting to see an earlier and stronger Spanish attempt to develop both Spanish Sahara and Spanish Guinea. If for no other reason than to attempt to avoid the horrors that visited both areas after the Spanish vacated.

I wonder when oil would have been discovered in Guinea if not for Macias Nguema.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Personally I think it would be more interesting to see an earlier and stronger Spanish attempt to develop both Spanish Sahara and Spanish Guinea. If for no other reason than to attempt to avoid the horrors that visited both areas after the Spanish vacated.

I wonder when oil would have been discovered in Guinea if not for Macias Nguema.

Spain had no interest in developing these regions plus did not have the ability for long period of time. The development of resources in Africa was not for the feign of heart since disease and environmental conditions made it more difficult. Spanish Sahara has no economic value and only reason Spanish wanted it was because it was adjacent to canaries.

Equatorial Guinea and Fernando Po has been given to Spain by Portugal in 1770s to obtain peace in southern Brazil. It was just a hold over during Scramble for Africa. While Spanish Morocco was given to Spain to unite their enclaves.

Spain under Franco had no desire or interest in Africa.

Also oil price needs to be at certain level and technology exist before companies start looking for oil and gas in new places.
 
Last edited:
Spain had no interest in developing these regions plus did not have the ability for long period of time. The development of resources in Africa was not for the feign of heart since disease and environmental conditions made it more difficult. Spanish Sahara has no economic value and only reason Spanish wanted it was because it was adjacent to canaries.

Equatorial Guinea and Fernando Po has been given to Spain by Portugal in 1770s to obtain peace in southern Brazil. It was just a hold over during Scramble for Africa. While Spanish Morocco was given to Spain to unite their enclaves.

Spain under Franco had no desire or interest in Africa.

Also oil needs to be at certain level and technology exist before companies start looking for oil and gas in new places.

Not an entirely new place, the first commercial oil discovery in the Niger delta in Nigeria was in 1956. And Franco became pretty interested in Spanish Sahara when the Bu Craa phosphate deposits were discovered. All it takes is a little motivation. And maybe an earlier "Spanish miracle" in the economy.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Not an entirely new place, the first commercial oil discovery in the Niger delta in Nigeria was in 1956. And Franco became pretty interested in Spanish Sahara when the Bu Craa phosphate deposits were discovered. All it takes is a little motivation. And maybe an earlier "Spanish miracle" in the economy.

Yes the oil was discovered in the Nigeria delta but Spanish Guinea oil is found under the sea. Cost factor to extract oil from sea is much higher than on land or marshy areas depending on depth of water. Case point Brazil oil would not be profitable or able to be extracted in the 1960s or 1970s.

As for extraction of resources from Aftica Spain had a very bad history. The Spanish Morocco had iron ore and other resources that were for most part ignored by the Spanish.

If Franco and his cronies had taken interest in developing their country and the colonies Spain would of been much richer but it did not and by time economic development came it was too late.
 
Hmmm.... the US takes the African colonies from Spain, maybe paying some token amount. The stated policy is to prepare these 'nations' including PI & PR for independence. some sooner, some later. In return for its generosity the US has a mutual defense treaty & some naval bases where needed.

Fast forward four decades

Now its 1939 & the Spanish Sahara is included in the US Nuetrality exclusion Zone. The RN does not need to patrol the area 1940-41 as the USN is. To understand the possible butterflies take a close look at where the German submarines liked to operate in the South Atlantic. Several locations were preferred, one being the waters near Spanish Sahara. As things heat up into 1941 the US can be paving all sorts of airfields in the Saharan republic, and training up a US Army corps or two just across the border with Morroco. Just in case its necessary to preserve US interests there. This has implications for the French government, and for any GYMNAST or TORCH style operations.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Hmmm.... the US takes the African colonies from Spain, maybe paying some token amount. The stated policy is to prepare these 'nations' including PI & PR for independence. some sooner, some later. In return for its generosity the US has a mutual defense treaty & some naval bases where needed.

Fast forward four decades

Now its 1939 & the Spanish Sahara is included in the US Nuetrality exclusion Zone. The RN does not need to patrol the area 1940-41 as the USN is. To understand the possible butterflies take a close look at where the German submarines liked to operate in the South Atlantic. Several locations were preferred, one being the waters near Spanish Sahara. As things heat up into 1941 the US can be paving all sorts of airfields in the Saharan republic, and training up a US Army corps or two just across the border with Morroco. Just in case its necessary to preserve US interests there. This has implications for the French government, and for any GYMNAST or TORCH style operations.
For this to happen as part of the treaty approval process we need a different USA which was much more interventionist and imperialistic which by that time would of probably meant it would be controlling more of Central America snd Carribean. With more Latinos and blacks under its rule what would American policy towards them be?

While I see the strategic value of capturing Carribean snd Central America plus pacific Spanish territory I still not see the African territory unless the US felt threatened by other countries. Also a US that had annexed parts of Carribean and Central America would not be taking over African colonies to grant them independence. So we cannot have a imperialistic US getting African colonies to grant them independence
 
Last edited:
US imperialsm was driven by a loose collection of businessmen. They had Marine and Army regiments knocking about the Carribean, PI, and China for over three decades. Keeping Latin America Safe for United Fruit, summed it up. They were not concerned with specifics of the control, as long as they were guaranteed exploitation. In the case of the Spanish Sahara it would just require a business group, or individual to think the Sahara is a investment opportunity. For the naval minded among the powerful it is another iteration of the US Navy's West African Station.
 
Top