U.S. Territorial Acquisitions in the Americas & Pacific if the Central Powers Win WWI?

CaliGuy

Banned
Exactly which territories (other than the Danish West Indies, of course) in the Americas and/or in the Pacific would the U.S. acquire if the Central Powers would have won World War I?

For the record, my logic here is this: Britain and/or France might want to sell some of their colonies to the U.S. (which presumably remains neutral in WWI in this TL) after they lose WWI in this TL in order to help deal with their debts. Also, the U.S. might simply militarily seize some important territories/islands in the Western Hemisphere and/or in the Pacific after a German WWI victory in order to prevent Germany from acquiring these territories/islands.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, out of curiosity--which additional territories/islands in the Western Hemisphere and/or in the Pacific would the U.S. actually be willing to buy/purchase in this TL?
 
Assuming the US remains neutral, I'd say it would be no more than the Danish West Indies. The US would invoke the Monroe Doctrine if Germany attempted to gain any Western Hemisphere possessions. I would also expect the US to maintain friendly relations with the Allies and Central Powers after the war.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Assuming the US remains neutral, I'd say it would be no more than the Danish West Indies. The US would invoke the Monroe Doctrine if Germany attempted to gain any Western Hemisphere possessions. I would also expect the US to maintain friendly relations with the Allies and Central Powers after the war.
Couldn't France and/or Britain want to sell some of their Western Hemisphere and/or Pacific possessions to the U.S. if they will lose WWI, though? After all, they will have a lot of debts to pay and France would also have to pay large-scale war reparations to Germany!
 
Couldn't France and/or Britain want to sell some of their Western Hemisphere and/or Pacific possessions to the U.S. if they will lose WWI, though? After all, they will have a lot of debts to pay and France would also have to pay large-scale war reparations to Germany!

I imagine Britain would be fairly fine apart from some potential for unrest within the empire. Germany wouldn't be able to project naval power against them, so any peace with Britain would be more of a status quo peace. Britain wouldn't really be on the hook for reparations. Maybe Germany takes a colony or two in Africa as compensation, but that would be the minimum. France likely takes the brunt of it if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is any indication. France could potentially consider selling some of its possessions in the Western Hemisphere or the Pacific, but they may not as a matter of national prestige. Even a weakened colonial empire is better than no colonial empire.
 
Aside from France selling islands to the USA, it might St. Pierre and Miquelon to Britain. Alternatively, the Entente might try to hand colonies over to Germany specifically to embroil Germany and the USA in future wars...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Aside from France selling islands to the USA, it might St. Pierre and Miquelon to Britain.

Would Britain actually have the money to purchase these two islands from France at the desired price, though?

Alternatively, the Entente might try to hand colonies over to Germany specifically to embroil Germany and the USA in future wars...

The U.S. would never accept that, though! :(
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I imagine Britain would be fairly fine apart from some potential for unrest within the empire. Germany wouldn't be able to project naval power against them, so any peace with Britain would be more of a status quo peace. Britain wouldn't really be on the hook for reparations.

Completely agreed; however, wouldn't Britain still be badly in debt?

Maybe Germany takes a colony or two in Africa as compensation, but that would be the minimum.

You mean maximum, correct?

France likely takes the brunt of it if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is any indication. France could potentially consider selling some of its possessions in the Western Hemisphere or the Pacific, but they may not as a matter of national prestige. Even a weakened colonial empire is better than no colonial empire.

Completely agreed.

Also, though, I've got a question--why exactly didn't the U.S. try purchasing the Dutch possessions in the Americas during World War I like it did with the Danish West Indies?

Any thoughts on this?
 
Also, though, I've got a question--why exactly didn't the U.S. try purchasing the Dutch possessions in the Americas during World War I like it did with the Danish West Indies?

Any thoughts on this?

The Dutch probably weren't selling. The Danish only did have the one island. The Dutch had more extensive possessions in the Caribbean which probably were worth far more to the Dutch. The Dutch also likely had more of a presence on the Islands, since they have a higher general population, including Dutch people on the Islands.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Dutch probably weren't selling. The Danish only did have the one island. The Dutch had more extensive possessions in the Caribbean which probably were worth far more to the Dutch. The Dutch also likely had more of a presence on the Islands, since they have a higher general population, including Dutch people on the Islands.
Actually, the Danish had three main islands and possibly some minor islands as well.
 
From reading War Plan Orange and at least some insight into US Naval views pre-war I would imagine the Germany Pacific territory would be desired by the United States. As we know the British supported Japan gaining this as a curb to US strength in the Pacific, but I think at least the islands would be a strong puzzle piece to clear the way between the USA and the Philippines. In fact earlier war planning was very much concerned that it being "neutral", i.e. German, hampered US options to support the Philippines or strike at Japan. Thus if needed the Germans might at minimum offer basing or cede them to USA in exchange for better relations with USA, to get them out of Japanese hands this might be required. I do not believe the USA had any interest in other German territory. As to Entente holdings I am not convinced the USA really wants more dependencies, its possessions are all in good strategic spots and I do not see a far enough strategic vision at this point to go after places that 25 or 50 years in future really look good, for example something like Diego Garcia.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
From reading War Plan Orange and at least some insight into US Naval views pre-war I would imagine the Germany Pacific territory would be desired by the United States. As we know the British supported Japan gaining this as a curb to US strength in the Pacific, but I think at least the islands would be a strong puzzle piece to clear the way between the USA and the Philippines. In fact earlier war planning was very much concerned that it being "neutral", i.e. German, hampered US options to support the Philippines or strike at Japan. Thus if needed the Germans might at minimum offer basing or cede them to USA in exchange for better relations with USA, to get them out of Japanese hands this might be required. I do not believe the USA had any interest in other German territory. As to Entente holdings I am not convinced the USA really wants more dependencies, its possessions are all in good strategic spots and I do not see a far enough strategic vision at this point to go after places that 25 or 50 years in future really look good, for example something like Diego Garcia.
To clarify--you are saying that there were no other strategically important locations in the Caribbean other than, say, the passage between Puerto Rico and the Danish West Indies?
 
To clarify--you are saying that there were no other strategically important locations in the Caribbean other than, say, the passage between Puerto Rico and the Danish West Indies?

Important enough to outright take possession of? I am dubious. The USA had a history of doing as it pleased in this hemisphere, a decade earlier it might see the need for more coaling stations, but in the post-WWI world the fleet is no longer quite so tied to close spaced bases and I suspect no one sees ASW as yet the threat that motivated the bases we saw in Lend-Lease such as Bermuda. Recall that airplanes are still only a future promise. I think if offered the Congress might well balk at yet another drain on the Treasury, both for facilities and to keep up the territory. I have found a lot of grumbling over how much the Philippines truly cost and it is sobering to see how Congress denied the Navy funds to develop Pacific bases. I am not saying that some pieces were not desirable or even advisable but here I suspect the USA has no war experience and thus little to prompt a territory grab to satisfy nebulous strategic visions. Anything that is actually profitable would be your best bet and I am not yet well versed of what the economics of the various colonial holdings really were.
 
Question: Why would Germany not simply force the turnover of enough colonies to create MittelAfrika? Why would they be taking small, densely populated islands in the Caribbean instead of large ones in Africa? (The Congo alone would be quite the war prize for the Germans).

Frankly, the Germans are lucky to get many of the colonies back even in a victorious war; they'd have to trade an island in the Pacific for land to be negotiated. Britain will hold enough cards left in a Central Powers victory that they may not give much. (although, if Italy never defects in this war, Britain is pushed up against the wall, and is far more lenient). Considering Central plans for Africa, it's doubtful that they even bother going for the Caribbean; the restoration of their Pacific colonies will be enough.

Seems like the path of least resistance. Submarines made a big enough impact in the war; the US will know their capabilities, so they're very likely to be against any annexation or puppet state. Oh, and the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary are going to be on shaky legs in all but the quickest of wars.

As for the only real colonies that could be considered...

The British Virgin Islands are the only ones that really stick out, perhaps? That'd at least make the possessions around Puerto Rico homogeneous. But, with Guantanamo Bay and Cuba as a protectorate, there is no need for them to be looking to Jamaica, and the Bahamas aren't an issue. There's no real need for any of the Guyanas, and why would they purchase small sugar islands? It's not the 1850s anymore. And the only point to get Bermuda is as a stepping stone to Europe; they're not wanting that. (The other thing they might would like is Greenland, mind, but that's not really on the table)

In the Pacific, the only thing that crops up is British recognition of the Guano island claims. The Line islands were colonized by the British fairly late (1916/1919), so with a little bit of pressure Britain might agree to recognize US claims. There's nothing else in particular the US would try to claim. (I guess they could try to press their claim to the Marquesas from 1814, but really? Not going to happen).

So, at best, you might get all of the Line Islands attached to Hawai'i. Maybe you even throw in the British Virgin islands to unite the chain and some minor islets. (Clipperton, etc). But no major ones are going to be sold as the US was not pressing for more territory, especially if there was a large native population that didn't particular desire their rule (See: the Philippines). Maybe a desperate Netherlands sells their American territories (highly doubtful). The territories the US would like are in the hands of the Germans, and are likely to stay this way. These are the easiest objectives to accomplish.

Now, to get really speculative, and far-fetched...

This is, of course, unless the British take the territories and, in a quick bid to deny Germany, sells them to the US. That sounds like the stuff of near-ASB, though, and compounds the issue of the US not needing more densely populated territory with the self-deterministic visions of Wilson. Perhaps have the British grant the US custodianship so that they may properly seek out their own future determination of their status? That sounds like the lead-in to a Cold War-esque world between Germany and its dependencies and Great Britain.

...Maybe have German New Guinea become another protectorate like the Philippines, basically following the same trajectory? Would definitely make for interesting politics... Oh, I can hear the Australian and New Zealand Press right now! "Colonial Troops Fight and Die, only for Britain to Sell the Conquests to the one who Sat the War Out"
 
Question: Why would Germany not simply force the turnover of enough colonies to create MittelAfrika? Why would they be taking small, densely populated islands in the Caribbean instead of large ones in Africa? (The Congo alone would be quite the war prize for the Germans).

Frankly, the Germans are lucky to get many of the colonies back even in a victorious war; they'd have to trade an island in the Pacific for land to be negotiated. Britain will hold enough cards left in a Central Powers victory that they may not give much. (although, if Italy never defects in this war, Britain is pushed up against the wall, and is far more lenient). Considering Central plans for Africa, it's doubtful that they even bother going for the Caribbean; the restoration of their Pacific colonies will be enough.

MittelAfrika is a stronger possibility if only for a two reasons.

1) Neither France nor Belgium would be in a strong bargaining position.
2) Germany hadn't really lost East Africa.

Sure Britain is in a stronger position, but they get part of what they want by having Germany withdraw from Belgium. Britain likely would try to keep North Africa from trading hands simply for security in the Mediterranean. This could have the strange effect of Italy not having to retrocede Libya to the Ottoman Empire. Germany still could extract a heavy price from Italy in the peace treaty, but the Ottomans aren't going to be able to get Libya back and I doubt Britain would allow Germany to take Libya in the treaty. Germany could still take a stronger position in East Africa by demanding French and Italian possessions on the Horn of Africa, but those demands won't sit well with Britain either since they could be a direct threat to the Suez Canal and ultimately India.

As for the only real colonies that could be considered...

The British Virgin Islands are the only ones that really stick out, perhaps? That'd at least make the possessions around Puerto Rico homogeneous. But, with Guantanamo Bay and Cuba as a protectorate, there is no need for them to be looking to Jamaica, and the Bahamas aren't an issue. There's no real need for any of the Guyanas, and why would they purchase small sugar islands? It's not the 1850s anymore. And the only point to get Bermuda is as a stepping stone to Europe; they're not wanting that. (The other thing they might would like is Greenland, mind, but that's not really on the table)

I'd consider Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands to be stronger possibilities.

In the Pacific, the only thing that crops up is British recognition of the Guano island claims. The Line islands were colonized by the British fairly late (1916/1919), so with a little bit of pressure Britain might agree to recognize US claims. There's nothing else in particular the US would try to claim. (I guess they could try to press their claim to the Marquesas from 1814, but really? Not going to happen).

So, at best, you might get all of the Line Islands attached to Hawai'i. Maybe you even throw in the British Virgin islands to unite the chain and some minor islets. (Clipperton, etc). But no major ones are going to be sold as the US was not pressing for more territory, especially if there was a large native population that didn't particular desire their rule (See: the Philippines). Maybe a desperate Netherlands sells their American territories (highly doubtful). The territories the US would like are in the hands of the Germans, and are likely to stay this way. These are the easiest objectives to accomplish.

We're also assuming the Dutch remain neutral here and the only difference is the US remaining neutral, which leads to a CP victory. The Netherlands aren't really hurting and keeping those possessions in Dutch hands is better for Germany, especially if they're going to try to get the Netherlands in their customs union. Granted, that union is economic, but there's also the prestige element as well. As far as the rest goes, I agree with you these are best case scenarios.

Now, to get really speculative, and far-fetched...

This is, of course, unless the British take the territories and, in a quick bid to deny Germany, sells them to the US. That sounds like the stuff of near-ASB, though, and compounds the issue of the US not needing more densely populated territory with the self-deterministic visions of Wilson. Perhaps have the British grant the US custodianship so that they may properly seek out their own future determination of their status? That sounds like the lead-in to a Cold War-esque world between Germany and its dependencies and Great Britain.

...Maybe have German New Guinea become another protectorate like the Philippines, basically following the same trajectory? Would definitely make for interesting politics... Oh, I can hear the Australian and New Zealand Press right now! "Colonial Troops Fight and Die, only for Britain to Sell the Conquests to the one who Sat the War Out"

That's exceptionally far-fetched when you consider the British would still be negotiating from a position of strength. Britain is just quitting the war because it has no allies left on the continent. Continuing the war despite that would have not only been bad for the British Colonial Empire, but potentially bad for the United Kingdom at home. Just because Germany wouldn't be able to directly assault Britain doesn't mean Britain wouldn't have its own unrest over staying in the war.
 
Okay so lets say USA gets the British Virgin island and Bermuda in 1919. Would this help make PR and the VI's its own state and what about Bermuda?
 
MittelAfrika is a stronger possibility if only for a two reasons.

1) Neither France nor Belgium would be in a strong bargaining position.
2) Germany hadn't really lost East Africa.

Sure Britain is in a stronger position, but they get part of what they want by having Germany withdraw from Belgium. Britain likely would try to keep North Africa from trading hands simply for security in the Mediterranean. This could have the strange effect of Italy not having to retrocede Libya to the Ottoman Empire. Germany still could extract a heavy price from Italy in the peace treaty, but the Ottomans aren't going to be able to get Libya back and I doubt Britain would allow Germany to take Libya in the treaty. Germany could still take a stronger position in East Africa by demanding French and Italian possessions on the Horn of Africa, but those demands won't sit well with Britain either since they could be a direct threat to the Suez Canal and ultimately India.

Sounds agreeable here. In the end, if the Germans want to link up their overseas colonies into a contiguous stretch (or, at least, Kamerun and OstAfrika), then that seems like the easiest thing to do. A few border adjustments in Europe (perhaps Luxembourg gets Arlon and some additional territories from Belgium before joining the German Empire, a few small border changes around Alsace-Lorraine).

Germany had effectively lost East Africa at that point, considering that Lettow-Vorbeck's army suffered attrition that couldn't be avoided, and had many fewer reinforcements than British/French colonial troops. There's no way that Germany could effectively retake them. So, yes, I agree with you on them being in the position of strength here.

I'd consider Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands to be stronger possibilities.

Fair enough; I have my reasons against Bermuda, but it does serve a purpose.

We're also assuming the Dutch remain neutral here and the only difference is the US remaining neutral, which leads to a CP victory. The Netherlands aren't really hurting and keeping those possessions in Dutch hands is better for Germany, especially if they're going to try to get the Netherlands in their customs union. Granted, that union is economic, but there's also the prestige element as well. As far as the rest goes, I agree with you these are best case scenarios.

In neutral Netherlands case, you are completely correct. (If the Germans start basing in the Caribbean, things might get messy)

That's exceptionally far-fetched when you consider the British would still be negotiating from a position of strength. Britain is just quitting the war because it has no allies left on the continent. Continuing the war despite that would have not only been bad for the British Colonial Empire, but potentially bad for the United Kingdom at home. Just because Germany wouldn't be able to directly assault Britain doesn't mean Britain wouldn't have its own unrest over staying in the war.

Extremely far-fetched. It might have been better put it as the troll option.

"Germany's negotiating position demands the return of all colonies first and foremost!"

"Oh, sure, old chap! Here you are, all these nice pieces of clay."

"But... You have forgotten German Pacific Protectorates and Samoa!"

"Nonsense, old bean. We simply returned all former German colonies under our possession!"

"But what of German Pacific Possessions. You must have forgotten."

"Bollocks, chap. We really don't have them. Say, you might want to go ask the Americans. They agreed to give us a lien on our debt for a few spots of clay. Bullets and beans don't pay for themselves, ey wat?"

Terrible accents and ridiculous situations aside...


No. Doesn't change anything about Puerto Rico. To make it a state, best to never have Spanish become an official language back in the nineties. English language comprehension has gone down on the island since then (partly aided by flight of the younger population from the island). This PoD shouldn't affect that.

VI joining Puerto Rico

Doubtful. The Virgin Islands (well, not the Spanish ones, at least) did grow a distinct character and have a separate economy. Unless combined early on (pre 1960s), it sounds more likely that they would continue as a separate entity out of inertia. The Virgin Islands also had their economy diverge from Puerto Rico and GDP per capita rose much faster after the 1960s. If combined after that point, there would be the chance of resentment brewing on both sides.

That, and English is already a largely-spoken language in the Virgin Islands. That alone will be a reason for it to be kept separate throughout most of the 20th century.


East Guam.
 
Sounds agreeable here. In the end, if the Germans want to link up their overseas colonies into a contiguous stretch (or, at least, Kamerun and OstAfrika), then that seems like the easiest thing to do. A few border adjustments in Europe (perhaps Luxembourg gets Arlon and some additional territories from Belgium before joining the German Empire, a few small border changes around Alsace-Lorraine).

Germany had effectively lost East Africa at that point, considering that Lettow-Vorbeck's army suffered attrition that couldn't be avoided, and had many fewer reinforcements than British/French colonial troops. There's no way that Germany could effectively retake them. So, yes, I agree with you on them being in the position of strength here.

Germany could bully France in a treaty much easier than Britain in this scenario. This is a given. Togoland and Kamerun are very likely to be returned. South-West Africa is likely written off. Strangely enough, Britain might offer to return South-West Africa to Germany just to keep East Africa out of their hands. Or Britain can give neither back. South-West Africa is a direct threat to South Africa. East Africa allows Britain to build a Cape-to-Cairo railway, but also helps keep Germany from having naval bases in the Indian Ocean. I imagine negotiations would be pretty painful overall. My best guess for Africa and Europe would be something like this.

1) Germany is able to retain Togoland, Kamerun, and Ostafrika. Germany agrees to cede South-West Africa to Britain.
2) Germany gains the Belgian Congo. Germany also gains control of Belgian Luxembourg (which is attached to the newly annexed Grand Duchy of Luxembourg). Germany agrees not to occupy the rest of Belgium post-war. Perhaps some compensation could be thrown in as a way of saying, "Sorry we violated your neutrality and took some of your territory."
3) Germany institutes some minor border adjustments for Alsace-Lorraine, which brings the entirety of the former Moselle and Haut-Rhin departments into the German Empire. This is aimed to bring Belfort into the Empire (depriving France of an important industrial center) as well as adding some additional border security with France. The arrangement with France also lays claim to French Equatorial Africa, making Mittelafrika a reality for Germany. Demands for for compensation in North Africa are mostly blocked by the British, who don't want a German presence in the Mediterranean. This could potentially put French West Africa into play during negotiations, but this one is tough to judge. French Somaliland, however, is put on the chopping block and handed to Germany.
4) Italy gets hit hard in the peace negotiations since, in the minds of Germany and Austria-Hungary, they betrayed the Central Powers. Though they retain Libya, they are forced to abide by the Treaty of Ouchy and return the Dodecanese Islands to the Ottoman Empire. Italy is also forced to cede Eritrea and Italian Somaliland to Germany. In addition, Italy is hit with heavy reparations.

Of course, that is a bit much for this scenario, so I won't really talk about much else here.

Fair enough; I have my reasons against Bermuda, but it does serve a purpose.

It likely wouldn't be seen as all that valuable to the US either.

In neutral Netherlands case, you are completely correct. (If the Germans start basing in the Caribbean, things might get messy)

It's very likely the Germans don't bother basing in the Caribbean, but deriving some economic benefit via the customs union suits them just fine.
 
No. Doesn't change anything about Puerto Rico. To make it a state, best to never have Spanish become an official language back in the nineties. English language comprehension has gone down on the island since then (partly aided by flight of the younger population from the island). This PoD shouldn't affect that.



Doubtful. The Virgin Islands (well, not the Spanish ones, at least) did grow a distinct character and have a separate economy. Unless combined early on (pre 1960s), it sounds more likely that they would continue as a separate entity out of inertia. The Virgin Islands also had their economy diverge from Puerto Rico and GDP per capita rose much faster after the 1960s. If combined after that point, there would be the chance of resentment brewing on both sides.

That, and English is already a largely-spoken language in the Virgin Islands. That alone will be a reason for it to be kept separate throughout most of the 20th century.



East Guam.


I kinda feel Bermuda would have a bigger stance being I can see it turning into a playground of those who can afford it in the fifties if not earlier be relative close to the mainland. plus there population is going be more white then the others which plays into a bit in the dark ages of american civil rights.

as for the VI's population wise interestingly looks like adding the British VI would be not that big of a population gain.

I still feel its a shame that PR is not a state being they would be the 29th most populated state
 
Top