What were Germany's war goals in WWI really?

That's covered by the "colonial acquisitions" to be considered later (ie, once German hegemony over continental Europe has been accepted). Germany will particularly want the return of Kenya and Uganda, which the Kaiser had ineptly given up in extreme haste in exchange for Heligoland - and which Britain wasn't really that attached to except as part of a dreamed-of railway from Cairo to the Cape (which clearly isn't going to happen if Britain doesn't own Tanzania).

Actually, Germany gave up Zanzibar to get Heligoland in 1890 in the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty.

The division of mainland East Africa was decided back in 1884-85, at the Berlin Conference and after - and that was done under the aegis of Bismarck, not Wilhelm II, who was not even the Crown Prince yet. Germany never had any real presence or stake in Uganda or Kenya.

If they could get the Congo, that would make them more than happy in Africa.
 
I would imagine that there was a combination of half-hoping Britain would not join the war, and the fact that Germany couldn't (nor didn't really envision) getting anything big out of Britain anyhow.

That's not to say that no consequences were intended. The entire point of the war aims was to break the British hegemony over Europe and the world.

There was plenty of Anglophobia to go around in Berlin in 1914 - but that wouldn't have kept them from focusing on the kitchen fire they had on their hands.

Having achieved continental supremacy - and having no real means to smash British control of the Channel and the North Sea - I think it's hard to see how Wilhelm wouldn't have been happy to get a status quo ante peace from Britain.

One interesting bit of trivia: Not only the imperial government, but also some German states harbored ambitions for territorial expansion, and sometimes these were even more ambitious than anything Wilhelm had in mind. King Ludwig III of Bavaria, for example, claimed Alsace-Lorraine and a portion of Belgium at the beginning of the war on August 14, 1914. He later expanded his goals seeking to recreate the medieval state of Burgundy. This “new Bavarian Burgundy,” would stretch from the mouth of the Rhine River in Holland, through Belgium linking with Alsace-Lorraine and portions of France. His motivation was to better enable Bavaria to counter-balance Prussia in postwar Germany.
 
Actually, Germany gave up Zanzibar to get Heligoland in 1890 in the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty. The division of mainland East Africa was decided back in 1884-85, at the Berlin Conference and after - and that was done under the aegis of Bismarck, not Wilhelm II, who was not even the Crown Prince yet. Germany never had any real presence or stake in Uganda or Kenya.

If you read further down that article, you'll see it mentions Germany gave up Wituland and "parts of East Africa vital for the British to build a railway to Lake Victoria". Wituland was the northern half of what we now call Kenya, and the "parts vital" is what we now call Uganda. Germany and Britain had been disputing ownership of these territories and the Berlin Conference had ostensibly put them in the "British Sphere of Influence", but in terms of boots on the ground (northern) Kenya and Uganda were German in 1890.

And the thing is, German didn't expect to lose those territories and Britain didn't expect to get them in that treaty. The treaty was supposed to exchange German claims over Zanzibar for Heligoland - that was it, hence the name. The negotiations had proceded on those lines until, almost at the last moment, Salisbury suddenly asked for Germany to hand over Kenya and Uganda (or rather, Wituland and the interior) as well. The German ambassador had no clue why - but he eventually learnt that the Kaiser had let slip to the British ambassador in Berlin that he was desperate to have Heligoland in time for a summer ceremony that he had already planned and sent out the invitations for.

Crucially, though, before the war Britain had offered to give Kenya and Uganda back to Germany in exchange for German SW Africa (and the countries would then support each other in seizing Portugal's colonies).

If they could get the Congo, that would make them more than happy in Africa.

The Congo doesn't give them their "German India in Africa".
 
If you read further down that article, you'll see it mentions Germany gave up Wituland and "parts of East Africa vital for the British to build a railway to Lake Victoria". Wituland was the northern half of what we now call Kenya, and the "parts vital" is what we now call Uganda. Germany and Britain had been disputing ownership of these territories and the Berlin Conference had ostensibly put them in the "British Sphere of Influence", but in terms of boots on the ground (northern) Kenya and Uganda were German in 1890.

And the thing is, German didn't expect to lose those territories and Britain didn't expect to get them in that treaty. The treaty was supposed to exchange German claims over Zanzibar for Heligoland - that was it, hence the name. The negotiations had proceded on those lines until, almost at the last moment, Salisbury suddenly asked for Germany to hand over Kenya and Uganda (or rather, Wituland and the interior) as well. The German ambassador had no clue why - but he eventually learnt that the Kaiser had let slip to the British ambassador in Berlin that he was desperate to have Heligoland in time for a summer ceremony that he had already planned and sent out the invitations for.

Well, fair enough - that's a strong interpretation of what happened -but German presence in Witu was almost nonexistent, and further inland, really theoretical. These were areas that Germany would have a much harder time establishing a presence in than Britain. In short, they were likely to end up in the British sphere of control anyway.

What does Wilhelm really give up at that point, anyway?

Crucially, though, before the war Britain had offered to give Kenya and Uganda back to Germany in exchange for German SW Africa (and the countries would then support each other in seizing Portugal's colonies).

When did that happen?

I've not heard that before.

The Congo doesn't give them their "German India in Africa".

Well - *nothing* in Africa would give Germany an equivalent to India - not even close.

But the Congo would give Germany a connected set of colonies reaching from Nigeria to the Indian Ocean - truly a "Mittelafrika." Even if it was mostly jungle and savannah.

In any event, in a German victory in 1914-15, the most it could reasonably hope for was to gain the Belgian Congo and keep most of its African colonies. And even that could (and would) be sacrificed if it could buy Berlin what it wanted in Europe.
 
I agree on the last sentence. Anything in Europe was mroe important than colonial presence in Africa, which was a drain on the finances anyway.

I think the Bismarck thinking pertaining to colonies must have shown even in the 1910's. The colony-movement had to be pacified, but Heligoland was important, more than tons of African soil.

Ivan
 
Top