What would German colonial policy be after they win World War I?

The German Empire, like their rivals in Europe, maintained a colonial empire in Africa, with some islands in the Pacific. This resulted in Africa becoming a battleground in the First World War I and after they lost, all colonies were transferred to other powers. In the Septemberprogramm, Chancellor Hollweg made plans to expand the German colonial empire at the expense of French and Belgian colonies.

So what would German colonial policy be like after World War I had they won in 1914 and how would the natives fare?
 
The German Empire, like their rivals in Europe, maintained a colonial empire in Africa, with some islands in the Pacific. This resulted in Africa becoming a battleground in the First World War I and after they lost, all colonies were transferred to other powers. In the Septemberprogramm, Chancellor Hollweg made plans to expand the German colonial empire at the expense of French and Belgian colonies.

So what would German colonial policy be like after World War I had they won in 1914 and how would the natives fare?

The Septemberprogamm was more of a wish list than anything else, being put together far too early to have any meaning by 1917. For example the 10 billion mark indemnity to pay off the German debt was nice in 1914 but by 1918 German debt was something like 156 billion marks which is why Brest Litovsk was so harsh.

I think Germany will gain pretty big colonial concessions, if only as bribes to stave off indemnities, but would have to deal with nationalism in these colonies just like the British and French did IOTL.
 

Deleted member 94680

Depends on how badly beaten the Allies are. If they're ground under heel, expect mittleafrika to come into full bloom with the Congo annexed and chunks of French Central Africa taken, French Cameroon and Nyasaland possibly as well. If the peace is more so-so and it's just a case of the Allies collapsing of exhaustion first, probably just the more valuable areas of colonies joining the German Empire, Katanga for instance. The German Empire was quite poor from a cash-making point of view, so they would want to rectify that in case of victory.

Treatment of natives wise, probably the same as before and in keeping with the rest of Colonial Africa. The Germans (Herero Genocide aside) were no worse than any other nation in Africa and better than the Belgians or the Portuguese. It's not to say they were all sweetness and light, but they weren't Nazi-esque evil either.
 
It depends, as seems popular in reply, whether the war ends earlier or later, whether the peace is more or less punitive. Assuming Germany retains its colonial possessions then I might argue their policy improves assuming they regard the populations as loyal. Given how tenaciously Vorbeck fought with at least tacit support from natives the chance is for the native populations to be seen as loyal enough to be afforded much improved respect. Although the genocide in Southwest Africa is used to argue that Germany was quite blood thirsty, I might argue that from it the consensus in Germany was changing, tidbits point to a shift in attitude away from such policy and a rejection of it. Against the backdrop of wholesale carnage that was the war I can see German administration following what is likely to be a liberalizing of German governance. Now I make no illusions about the Germans becoming the nicest guys on the street but as they showed in China it was possible for them to pursue rationale and forward thinking, to damp down the prevailing racist sentiments Europeans felt entitled to and elevate the locals to a position of partnership. Albeit a difficult path to stay on, Germany might have foreseen how these colonies needed to get much stronger to not only supply Germany but to resist aggression, the impulse to exploit would be countered by the requirement of development. Ideally the Germans experience better how nationalism can also bind peoples through shared culture and strengthen the connections rather than merely "Germanize." And I suspect a not fully defeated Germany is better set to resist the impulses towards xenophobia and paranoia, it will be actively building links to circumvent the Entente who might keep trade barriers high such that Germany is far more diplomatic, and if the Depression still hits Germany might already have a workable trade system divorced from Gold and focused on countries not under tariff barriers, it might later see the colonies as a place to bleed off "surplus" population (i.e. labor) to indulge in Keynsian public sector spending dovetailed to strategic needs. Germany might then develop confidence in making the first moves to set apace decolonialization to open markets and weaken France and Britain, having linked their colonies to Germany by bilateral trade rather than disadvantageous exploitation. All a grand pipe dream perhaps but how interesting to see play out in a fractured multilateral world likely to endure under the premise here.
 
If they are smart? They sell off their colonies to whomever is willing take them and focus all their energy into securing their newly won European hegemony.
Too bad this is nearly impossible from a prestige point of view.
 

Deleted member 94680

If they are smart? They sell off their colonies to whomever is willing take them and focus all their energy into securing their newly won European hegemony.
Too bad this is nearly impossible from a prestige point of view.

True, the German Empire (especially in Africa) was essentially the bits of the continent no one else wanted. But, with a Treaty post-WWI (ATL) granting more prosperous areas of Allied Colonies, they could be grafted onto the existing German Colonies to improve revenue. Aim to have them break even at worst, using at least the first decade or so of profits (if any) to improve Colonial infrastructure. Home revenue can then be used to Colonise Eastern Europe.

Spot on about prestige preventing the Germans from getting rid of the whole enterprise. Especially if Wilhelm II is still on the throne, there's no way that the Colonies would be sold off.
 
True, the German Empire (especially in Africa) was essentially the bits of the continent no one else wanted. But, with a Treaty post-WWI (ATL) granting more prosperous areas of Allied Colonies, they could be grafted onto the existing German Colonies to improve revenue. Aim to have them break even at worst, using at least the first decade or so of profits (if any) to improve Colonial infrastructure. Home revenue can then be used to Colonise Eastern Europe.

Spot on about prestige preventing the Germans from getting rid of the whole enterprise. Especially if Wilhelm II is still on the throne, there's no way that the Colonies would be sold off.
I just fear they would be dangerously overstretched if they take too much, just the European gains (depending on when the war ends of course) could prove to be nearly impossible to hold onto.
 

Deleted member 94680

I just fear they would be dangerously overstretched if they take too much, just the European gains (depending on when the war ends of course) could prove to be nearly impossible to hold onto.

Well, as pointed out before, it all depends on the conditions of the German victory. With the Allies defeated in Europe, it's unlikely that an overt threat would come in Africa. Provided the Germans limit themselves to Mittleafrika, they would have a geographically contiguous area to control and a decent rail network would allow the movement of troops to quell disturbances. Local Schutztruppen in each Colony and a Division or two of Regulars in a couple of the better developed areas (Dar-e-Salaam, Elisabethville(?), Duala, etc) should do the job in a non-War scenario.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
German (possible) colonial policies after w WW I win. ...
I would recommend to get some more info about this man : Wilhelm Solf
(I would also recommend trying the german wiki-site (even thoufgh if only with google translate), as it has much more informations.)

He became state secretary for colonial affairs in 1911 after having been one of the most successfull colonial governors, administring Samoa, making it one of the two (german) colonies paying off for Berlin (the other was Togo). One of his 'methods for succsess' was : respecting the indigenes, their culture, their traditions and their own ways to administer themself. Using force, especially deadly force was seen by him only as a sign of incompetence of a govenor and only as a very, very last resort.
He deeply condemned, what happend in Sout-West.

Well before WW I he was already convinced, that 'the old ways' of colonialism woudn't do Germany any good. Though he was often accused of being a "whimp" with this attitude to the indigenes, he clinged to his position during all his time as being colonial state secretary.

He was for sure no proponent of "all men are equal". He put quite some emphazise during his time as a governor and even later on strict racial segregation. But still he respected the indigenes, letting them have it 'their ways' suitable to them.

Unfortunatly the war brought a very quick and complete end to a program of reforms for all of the colonies after he returned from a world tour not only through the german colonies in late 1913.
 

Driftless

Donor
If they are smart? They sell off their colonies to whomever is willing take them and focus all their energy into securing their newly won European hegemony.
Too bad this is nearly impossible from a prestige point of view.

Not only prestige, but in this scenario, with Britain, France, Belgium, and others presumably defeated; who would have the cash, or even useful trading chips? The Russians presumably still have their Revolution underway, and the American's?-Pretty doubtful. Were the Spanish or Italians in any position? Does the Austria-Hungarian Empire exist? Even if it did, the German colonies wouldn't be much use to them, I would think.

Horse-trade some of the existing German colonies for other more strategically useful locations? What might that look like?
 
Are we still considering that the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires collapsed? Perhaps instead of money or colonies for Germany, we see Germany rather that money get funneled towards a "Marshall Plan"-esque for those empires and a guarentee of their borders and German domination of them. As for colonies- Britain and France had given territorial concessions (now in Libya and the Azou Strip in Chad) to Italy in return for joining allies, Italy could be "punished" the worst because initially Italy was a Central Power instead of the Ottomans, and Britain & France could see that dismantling Italian colonies as more acceptable than losing their own. Especially since realistically the Entente CAN'T have lost the overseas aspect of the war, they will have conquered Germany's colonies, just returning them at all is worth a lot in concessions.

Belgium, technically not an Entente member, would probably be left to negotiate on its own. Belgium sympathizers, even to this day, believe the Netherlands was too sympathetic to Germany and collaborated in a manner that the Swiss would later do in WWII, we could see some Belgian territory go to the Dutch.

Dont forget there were "minor" associated states with the Central Powers such as- Jabal Emirates, in a German victory there will be no Saudi Arabia because the Saud family will remain in exile in Kuwait. The Sultanate of Darfur might become recognized as independent, as it was a German ally in WWI, the Dervish state in Somalia similarly could win independence, Somalia could turn into a German protectorate, again to screw Italy.

The main point of the treaty when it comes to colonies- Germany ends up screwing Italy more than either France or Britain- it's easier to do than arguing over trying to get class A territory from Britain and France, and both sides can agree quickly. We've seen similar screws in history at the Peace table.
 
Well, as pointed out before, it all depends on the conditions of the German victory. With the Allies defeated in Europe, it's unlikely that an overt threat would come in Africa. Provided the Germans limit themselves to Mittleafrika, they would have a geographically contiguous area to control and a decent rail network would allow the movement of troops to quell disturbances. Local Schutztruppen in each Colony and a Division or two of Regulars in a couple of the better developed areas (Dar-e-Salaam, Elisabethville(?), Duala, etc) should do the job in a non-War scenario.
This is true, with an early victory France is out of commission and Russia will likely only loose Poland and Lithuania and given Lithuania's mistrust of Poland they should be easy to play off one another. Honestly Lithuania should prove very loyal as long as the german empire doesn't do anything to spoil the relationship.
So yes you are right as long as the war ends early the germans would have little trouble holding down large Colonial gains.
 
Not only prestige, but in this scenario, with Britain, France, Belgium, and others presumably defeated; who would have the cash, or even useful trading chips? The Russians presumably still have their Revolution underway, and the American's?-Pretty doubtful. Were the Spanish or Italians in any position? Does the Austria-Hungarian Empire exist? Even if it did, the German colonies wouldn't be much use to them, I would think.

Horse-trade some of the existing German colonies for other more strategically useful locations? What might that look like?
Who knows maybe Japan if they aren't broke, more than anything I was just trying to get across that Europe should be their main focus, it also should have been, who needs a Colonial empire when the Colonial emperors are your whipping boys?
 
Well, as pointed out before, it all depends on the conditions of the German victory. With the Allies defeated in Europe, it's unlikely that an overt threat would come in Africa. Provided the Germans limit themselves to Mittleafrika, they would have a geographically contiguous area to control and a decent rail network would allow the movement of troops to quell disturbances. Local Schutztruppen in each Colony and a Division or two of Regulars in a couple of the better developed areas (Dar-e-Salaam, Elisabethville(?), Duala, etc) should do the job in a non-War scenario.
There simply aren't enough German forces in Africa, and getting them from Europe isn't going to happen. Wandwavium never defeats Brittania on the High Seas (and in AH.com it seems nothing else ever does either...) You would have to first have the Dervishi, Darfur, and South African rebellions all succeed (unlikely for South Africa). The German colonies are going to be seized. Look at how relatively easily most French colonies in WWII were occupied by Free French from the Vichy, unlikely in WWI that French nationalists will say "we're losing in Europe let's give up in Africa"
 

Deleted member 94680

There simply aren't enough German forces in Africa, and getting them from Europe isn't going to happen. Wandwavium never defeats Brittania on the High Seas (and in AH.com it seems nothing else ever does either...) You would have to first have the Dervishi, Darfur, and South African rebellions all succeed (unlikely for South Africa). The German colonies are going to be seized. Look at how relatively easily most French colonies in WWII were occupied by Free French from the Vichy, unlikely in WWI that French nationalists will say "we're losing in Europe let's give up in Africa"

Getting them from Europe for what? The Germans have won the war, the French are going to be sorting their own house out before revanching their way across Africa.

This is about German policy after they've won WWI, not any attempt to stop them losing. They've defeated the French and the British (the methodology isn't important for this discussion), treaties have been signed and there's been a Colonial realignment. They don't need to defeat Britannia on the High Seas, defeating them on land in Europe is enough. Once a war has ended, peace resumes. Britain would have the means to interfere with Germany's Colonial trade, but at peace they wouldn't want to.

Those rebellions might well happen, but it's in a peace time setting. Germany will be able to divert troops or raise new levies to deal the risings as appropriate.
 

Driftless

Donor
Depending on the nature of German victory, what might be of greater interest: an economic purpose colony, or strategic bases? If it's the latter, then trade outs for various islands across the globe might work, though I'm not sure the British would be keen on anything along the India route (Somaliland?); or the American's for islands in the Caribbean
 
Wandwavium never defeats Brittania on the High Seas (and in AH.com it seems nothing else ever does either...)

That depends on who is waving the wand. After Jutland the Germans made a real fight of it down in the Channel causing the British to put in a real effort to supress it, but by then their economic strength was such that the British could force a stalemate in the Channel that was advantageous to them.
 
Getting them from Europe for what? The Germans have won the war, the French are going to be sorting their own house out before revanching their way across Africa.

This is about German policy after they've won WWI, not any attempt to stop them losing. They've defeated the French and the British (the methodology isn't important for this discussion), treaties have been signed and there's been a Colonial realignment. They don't need to defeat Britannia on the High Seas, defeating them on land in Europe is enough. Once a war has ended, peace resumes. Britain would have the means to interfere with Germany's Colonial trade, but at peace they wouldn't want to.

Those rebellions might well happen, but it's in a peace time setting. Germany will be able to divert troops or raise new levies to deal the risings as appropriate.
No, no, no; you can't handwave a victory, you have to say HOW they won, when, and in what condition. Winning in Europe doesn't give you colonies! If Britain and France conquered Germany's African colonies but lost the war in Europe what is their incentive to give them back plus more? What do they get in return? You seem to be in the unconditional surrender mindset of the mid-late 20th century, peace is not normally that way.
 
No, no, no; you can't handwave a victory, you have to say HOW they won, when, and in what condition. Winning in Europe doesn't give you colonies! If Britain and France conquered Germany's African colonies but lost the war in Europe what is their incentive to give them back plus more? What do they get in return? You seem to be in the unconditional surrender mindset of the mid-late 20th century, peace is not normally that way.

Here's something I prepared earlier.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/dagger-held-at-the-throat-of-england.405040/

In terms of peace treaties Hindy and Ludy aren't in charge as the war ends, Bethmann Hollweg is still the Chancellor and in the final year of his tenure he was very concerned about postwar economics and thought major annexations were not the best way to go. In that case getting colonies rather than chunks of France and Belgium will be the aim.
 
No, no, no; you can't handwave a victory, you have to say HOW they won, when, and in what condition. Winning in Europe doesn't give you colonies! If Britain and France conquered Germany's African colonies but lost the war in Europe what is their incentive to give them back plus more? What do they get in return? You seem to be in the unconditional surrender mindset of the mid-late 20th century, peace is not normally that way.
It can get them colonies though, maybe not from Britain but definitely from occupied countries as any one of them is going to be willing to trade Colonial soil for their own.
 
Top