If they do I can imagine plenty of Germans having ''nativists'' feelings they did not have to starve, likely have a bit more cash than the average German currently but well Germany could also do with a lot more young men so the elite would definitely shut it down.Does anyone think that with the anti german climate on the US we could see the first and second genarations of german migrants coming back?
I honestly doubt this, simply due to the accounts I've read about and heard about German immigrants and how they assimilated into America quite quickly, with some going as far as to ban their children from even learning German. Its certainly possible for individuals, but improbable for any significant movement to do so.Does anyone think that with the anti german climate on the US we could see the first and second genarations of german migrants coming back?
Does that mean that even more Italians would go to Argentina and Brazil ITTL?That all being said, the Italian chaos will definitely not help American public perception that Italians only bring chaos, anarchy, crime, and worst of all, Papism. Could definitely see a Republican play to Protestant nativism helping to animate the isolationist backlash to Wilson failing and getting Americans killed for bupkis.
Maybe Germany should try beating Britain thenSo tired of Britain being able to get away with this crap. :grumps:
Excellently written chapter,
1812?I think America is going to an Anglophobic period since Britain basically dragged America into a war that got thousands of good soldiers killed for America's first military LOSS in it's history. I could see a re-examination of the British propaganda against the German Empire due to the British monopoly of the Transatlantic cable and America becoming less hostile towards the Germans. But overall I think America is going into a deeper period of isolationism than it did in RL.
Congratulations on being such a good writer!The mind boggles sometimes with this timeline that I can get 75 likes on a post in less than 24 hours. Cheers all, glad you enjoyed!
.. about "profitability" of esp. the german colonies ... let me "recycle" some of my posts from not so long ago :That was the basic idea, though It did not work very...well, except for Togoland and Samoa.
The thing to understand id that very few of the european colonies were actually profitable.
Perhaps you might also want to rethink your alleged exclusiveness in that regard of 'breakeven' of Togo as 'Ostafrika' was also wiggling around breakeven in 1909/1910/1911. During the same timeframe even Kamerun wasn't too far from this point regarding the stately balance of finance of the colony. In general, almost all german colonies showed a steady minimizing of said deficit (aside Kiautschou as there some 'special effects' came into play like serving as a 'showcase' and being in the build-up as a mayor naval base).
...
However, what these balances of the - as stressed - stately accounts miss are the profits made by trade. ... not by stately agencies but private enterprises.
View attachment 761064
The seconde page I want to provide from above mentioned 1915 issue shows hoe the trade balances developed. Similarily 'well' IMHO as the cost/revenue relations above. From a deficit of ~1:2.23 in 1907 it sunk to 1:1.2 in 1912. ... short of breakeven given the shortness of only 5 years.The pacific possessions even showed in 1912 a modest surplus of 1,2:1.
But these numbers suffer from the same 'flaw' as the trade balances of the former colonies today - what we call "Third World".
The exports name only the amount payed for the goods in the country/colony. ... 'dumping' prices as today. What these statistic don't show - or showed back prior to the Great War - are the enormous profit made within the metropole - or todays 'developed' contries as the consumers - by selling these goods esp. after being refined/processed/turned into manufactured goods.
Therefore I would render it well possible that the economy of the German Realm in toto (in the sense of national economy than simple buisness administration as obviously most around here look at the numbers shown) had begun to swing some decent 'profit' esp. given the shortness of time they had to develop their colonies.
👍This Is the main inherent strenght of Germany when compared to Britain: while the UK was very powerful, their power depended on their coloniale Empire. Once the empire, or to more precise, once India escapes their grasp, Britain as a world power Is gone for good, and even with no WW2, the chance that the British can keep the huge population of a whole subcontinent subdued Forever are rather...slim
... for that part also a 👍So tired of Britain being able to get away with this crap. :grumps:
...
It must be pointed out that German East Africa and German Southwest Africa didn't produce much in terms of resources, apart from diamonds in the Sperrgebiet... about "profitability" of esp. the german colonies ... let me "recycle" some of my posts from not so long ago :
... and of some longer time ago :
As long as we don't know what 'profits' were made with colonial goods in the 'metropoles' such statements about profitability are IMHO rather ... not well sourcedWell, I have to admit I don't have much knowledge/source on the economical situation and statistics of the colonies and similar territories of the non-german powers at that time but for the german colonies I've looked up some source :
In 1913/1914 following colonies/"Schuttzgebiete" had a negative balance sheet for the empireNamibia, German South-WestKamerunTanzania, German East AfricaKiautschouNew-Guinea, Kaiser-Wilhelm LandMicronesia
Means : these received more money from Berlin, than Berlin received from them. though their absolute amount was esp. for the last two rather negligable.Most of these 'cost' for Berlin came from investment goods :railway equipmentminig equipmentcommunication equipmentand the costs for their installationas there were mayor development operations going on esp. in Kiautschou (development of the naval base there), Kamerun and East Africa (mayor infrastructure development => railways).
Interestingly these mayor regions of ongoing development were the colonies with a negative trade-balance as well :Kiautschou, East Africa and Kamerun
while all other colonies had a positive trade balance after 2-3 decades of german administration. The trade 'neagtives' of the other colonies were also 'dwindling' over the last 5-10 years before the Great War and would most likely be even smaller if the 'public' investments of the state might be de-accounted for.
So, alltogether ... the german colonies were well on their way to become a considerable plus in economics as well (and possibly even more important) a plus in global political weight
Source for 'short' :
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/kai...tische-angaben-zu-den-deutschen-kolonien.html
Somewhat more 'time-consuming :
https://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/toc/?PPN=PPN514401303
(the statistical alamnacs of the German Realm/ Deutschen Reiches)
However ... regarding other than german colonies I would be pleased if someone could show me the way to similar statistics of i.e. french, italian, british, US-american colonies. ... and maybe dominions and similar 'relabeled' regions of dependancy.
👍
... for that part also a 👍
We don't view that as a loss, at least not in America's history books. ITTL WW1 is an undeniable loss.1812?
The Zimmerman telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare was hardly 'British propaganda'. There were legitimate American grievances with Germany, that aren't going to immediately vanish just because the war is over. In fact, I'm willing to bet US fear of Germany removes their main objection to continued co-operation with Britain: Freedom of the seas and Britain giving up the right to blockade.I think America is going to an Anglophobic period since Britain basically dragged America into a war that got thousands of good soldiers killed for America's first military LOSS in it's history.
This is getting massively ahead of things IMO. Germany is in a worse position than Britain as it currently stands. In the long term probably not but it really depends on where this timeline goes - Many of the Brest-Litovsk territories will require a large expensive garrison both to maintain Berlin's reach, and ward off any Russian salami tactics. Whether the Germans get back what they put in remains to be seen.while the UK was very powerful, their power depended on their coloniale Empire. Once the empire, or to more precise, once India escapes their grasp, Britain as a world power Is gone for good
This to me implies Britain was ruling with force above everything. Force was usually an absolute last resort. Indian collaboration with the empire was absolutely essential. Rowlatt Act was the Viceroy's quid pro quo for agreeing to Montagu reforms, perhaps with a British defeat in Europe, he removes this objection, and so doesn't galvanise Indian opposition as much (probably not realistically)?The high noon of nationalism in much of the empire is 1919-1920. If Britain can survive this, the situation will ease as it did IOTL. I'm going to hope we avoid Amritsar ITTL as British leaders are probably going to be more conciliatory (not that they ordered the massacre anyway). Gandhi may not be arrested which set off the agitation that led to it. Though there is the distinct possibility there are more Dyer type's that resort to violence on their own initiative if they get more twitchy. It will be interesting to see where the timeline goes.he chance that the British can keep the huge population of a whole subcontinent subdued Forever are rather...slim
Is it though? Seems like a similar end result to me.We don't view that as a loss, at least not in America's history books. ITTL WW1 is an undeniable loss.