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

Deleted member 94680

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.

Take it up with the OP, not me - it was his POD, not mine.

A German victory in WWI (however it's achieved) where Germany wins in Europe, but loses in Africa (as, pre-WWI POD aside, is a certainty) would surely result in Germany regaining its colonies. The Allies would have the same incentive that Germany had to sign Versailles even though they found it unpalatable - a resumption of hostilities from a losing position. They don't get anything in return - they lost the War. It's not unconditional surrender to return what the winners had at the start of the War, it's a status quo ante bellum and it's pretty much the starting position for most peace treaties. Germany wins and takes her own Colonies back - that's a given. This thread is about what else there would be after that.
 
A German victory in WWI (however it's achieved) where Germany wins in Europe, but loses in Africa (as, pre-WWI POD aside, is a certainty) would surely result in Germany regaining its colonies. The Allies would have the same incentive that Germany had to sign Versailles even though they found it unpalatable - a resumption of hostilities from a losing position. They don't get anything in return - they lost the War. It's not unconditional surrender to return what the winners had at the start of the War, it's a status quo ante bellum and it's pretty much the starting position for most peace treaties. Germany wins and takes her own Colonies back - that's a given.

I agree and think that by 1917 German politicians would have been willing to forego annexation in Europe in exchange for colonies and an agreement for German access to world markets.
 
Take it up with the OP, not me - it was his POD, not mine.

A German victory in WWI (however it's achieved) where Germany wins in Europe, but loses in Africa (as, pre-WWI POD aside, is a certainty) would surely result in Germany regaining its colonies. The Allies would have the same incentive that Germany had to sign Versailles even though they found it unpalatable - a resumption of hostilities from a losing position. They don't get anything in return - they lost the War. It's not unconditional surrender to return what the winners had at the start of the War, it's a status quo ante bellum and it's pretty much the starting position for most peace treaties. Germany wins and takes her own Colonies back - that's a given. This thread is about what else there would be after that.
An awful lot of timelines include the South Africans keeping South West Africa, and the Japanese taking Pacific colonies.

That is an issue which must be addressed. Now I think the Germans would assign a high priority on retaking South West Africa at minimum given that it was, to my knowledge, their best option for a proper settler colony - but I am interested in hearing the views of others.
 
I suspect that the Japanese conquests stay Japanese--what leverage does Germany have to get them back? Germany certainly can't project sufficient power to take them back by force. Japan has 2 Kwachi-class near-dreadnoughts (one of the magazine explosion isn't butterflied), 2 Fuso's, 2 Ise's, 4 Kongo's, 2 Nagato's in the works, and more soon to be laid down, meaning the guns and reduction gearing are already being worked on. Germany can't afford to project that much power unless the Entente is CRUSHED at an ASB level--or the USA gets embroiled with Japan.
So--what's the status in the Pacific?
 
Germany had been sympathetic to the Boer Republics during the Boer War. Following a restoration of Southwest Africa, Germany would work on either trying to detach South Africa from the British orbit to the German (as an ally, not a colony) or else to restore the Boer Republics, which would be natural German allies. Wouldn't be surprised if Germany took Belgian Congo, French Congo and Angola for itself to make an impressive, contiguous southern empire.
 
I suspect that the Japanese conquests stay Japanese--what leverage does Germany have to get them back? Germany certainly can't project sufficient power to take them back by force. Japan has 2 Kwachi-class near-dreadnoughts (one of the magazine explosion isn't butterflied), 2 Fuso's, 2 Ise's, 4 Kongo's, 2 Nagato's in the works, and more soon to be laid down, meaning the guns and reduction gearing are already being worked on. Germany can't afford to project that much power unless the Entente is CRUSHED at an ASB level--or the USA gets embroiled with Japan.
So--what's the status in the Pacific?
Japan can also not afford bad relations with the new leader of Eurasia and Africa, at the very least they'll "buy" the German Pacific possessions, wouldnt want the Germans to start modernizing and arming up the Chinese as a bulwark against Japan.
 

Deleted member 94680

Japan can also not afford bad relations with the new leader of Eurasia and Africa, at the very least they'll "buy" the German Pacific possessions, wouldnt want the Germans to start modernizing and arming up the Chinese as a bulwark against Japan.

Well, pre-WWII the Germans were pro-Chinese and it was quite the volte-face in German foreign relations when they signed the agreement with the Japanese. So there's every chance in this TL a more powerful Germany would have China as their ally in the region opposed to Japan. I like the idea of Japan 'buying' the Pacific Colonies though, a gain for Germany and saves face whilst allowing Japan to grow their influence in the Pacific. And as pointed out, regaining them militarily would be quite the slog for the Germans.
 
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?

Looking at the map and trying to put a peace agreement together that would make sense for the "big boys" in this scenario, I can see this happening;

Let's first make the assumption that the peace is negotiated in the summer of 1916 after almost 2 years of war.
  • The Western borders would be put back to status quo ante bellum
  • The Eastern borders would cede Poland, Lithuania, plus to Germany. (Don't know where the logical line would be)
  • The Austria Hungary Empire and the Ottoman Empire would remain status quo ante bellum
  • Germany would agree to a Quasi Washington Naval Treaty type agreement to their Navy only being 50% as large as the United Kingdom. (what ever % as I'm not stuck on any number in particular. It would be an assurance to GB that Germany would not challenge GB Naval superiority)
This would get us to the starting point of Colony "adjustment". Here are my suggestions as to what would be acceptable;
  • Libia would be turned over to Germany from the Italians
  • The Belgium Congo would be turned over to Germany
  • Angola would be ceded to Germany from Portugal
  • French Guinea would be turned over to Germany (this is the territory directly South of German Cameroon)
  • Somali Land and Eritrea would be turned over to Germany from Italy
  • the Senegal area containing the Port of Dakar would be ceded to Germany from France
The port of Dakar would give the Germans a strategic Naval base along the logistics path to Southern Africa. The Germans would maintain their possessions in New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and the Caroline Islands. The Marianas, the Marshalls and Samoa are free to be sold, traded or swapped to whomever.

  1. Great Britain would come out of this good from a territory standpoint. Her biggest issue will be the economic rise of Germany.
  2. France would lose little in terms of colonies (Dakar would hurt some). She would be hurt by the devastation in Northern France that she would now have to pay to rebuild herself
  3. Italy and Belgium would lose their colonies and be lost on the world stage
  4. Portugal loses Angola simply because they aren't big enough to keep it. It would be interesting to see if the other powers (GB specifically) would try to even things out for Portugal.
Anyways my thoughts on this.

Good Topic!
 
This would get us to the starting point of Colony "adjustment". Here are my suggestions as to what would be acceptable;
  • Libia would be turned over to Germany from the Italians
  • The Belgium Congo would be turned over to Germany
  • Angola would be ceded to Germany from Portugal
  • French Guinea would be turned over to Germany (this is the territory directly South of German Cameroon)
  • Somali Land and Eritrea would be turned over to Germany from Italy
  • the Senegal area containing the Port of Dakar would be ceded to Germany from France

IOTL most of those weren't on the German list, the Congo was and the Germans had a pre-war agreement with the British to share the Portuguese colonies and I don't think any Italian colonies were on any list. French equatorial Africa and Nigeria were on the list.
 
IOTL most of those weren't on the German list, the Congo was and the Germans had a pre-war agreement with the British to share the Portuguese colonies and I don't think any Italian colonies were on any list. French equatorial Africa and Nigeria were on the list.
What is this about the Portuguese colonies?

Was this related to the 1880s claims?
 
IOTL most of those weren't on the German list, the Congo was and the Germans had a pre-war agreement with the British to share the Portuguese colonies and I don't think any Italian colonies were on any list. French equatorial Africa and Nigeria were on the list.

Germany won't get Nigeria unless they can challenge the Royal Navy, which, given the 1916 date given there, they can't.

People underestimate Britain's desire to maintain their empire in full.

--

I don't want to deliberately echo points already made in the thread, but I strongly suspect that any immediate peace between Britain and Germany will contain two things; status quo ante bellum with regards to colonies (and probably a couple of swapsies since the British, South Africans, and French will be in control of all of German Africa early on in the war), and a return of Belgium's territorial integrity (yes, including the Congo).

The thing is, the British would probably be willing to make concessions in exchange for what they want, and they would absolutely have the ability to dictate some terms to the Germans even if the Entente loses. For example, they might keep Tanganyika in exchange for turning a blind eye to German meddling in the Congo (since forming a Cape to Cairo railroad was still an imperial goal during WWI).

For Germany to realistically grab colonies from France, what you'll need is a separate peace with Britain. That way the Germans can extort whatever they please out of France and only have to leave Belgium and Britain alone.

There's no way in hell they'll be getting anything in the Pacific back. The Japanese might be convinced to pay a token sum for the islands they seized, but none of these colonies were especially important to Germany anyway. As Hitler viewed Russia as Germany's India, the WWI Germans saw the same vision in Africa.
 
Looking at the map and trying to put a peace agreement together that would make sense for the "big boys" in this scenario, I can see this happening;

Let's first make the assumption that the peace is negotiated in the summer of 1916 after almost 2 years of war.
  • The Western borders would be put back to status quo ante bellum
  • The Eastern borders would cede Poland, Lithuania, plus to Germany. (Don't know where the logical line would be)
  • The Austria Hungary Empire and the Ottoman Empire would remain status quo ante bellum
  • Germany would agree to a Quasi Washington Naval Treaty type agreement to their Navy only being 50% as large as the United Kingdom. (what ever % as I'm not stuck on any number in particular. It would be an assurance to GB that Germany would not challenge GB Naval superiority)
This would get us to the starting point of Colony "adjustment". Here are my suggestions as to what would be acceptable;
  • Libia would be turned over to Germany from the Italians
  • The Belgium Congo would be turned over to Germany
  • Angola would be ceded to Germany from Portugal
  • French Guinea would be turned over to Germany (this is the territory directly South of German Cameroon)
  • Somali Land and Eritrea would be turned over to Germany from Italy
  • the Senegal area containing the Port of Dakar would be ceded to Germany from France
The port of Dakar would give the Germans a strategic Naval base along the logistics path to Southern Africa. The Germans would maintain their possessions in New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and the Caroline Islands. The Marianas, the Marshalls and Samoa are free to be sold, traded or swapped to whomever.

  1. Great Britain would come out of this good from a territory standpoint. Her biggest issue will be the economic rise of Germany.
  2. France would lose little in terms of colonies (Dakar would hurt some). She would be hurt by the devastation in Northern France that she would now have to pay to rebuild herself
  3. Italy and Belgium would lose their colonies and be lost on the world stage
  4. Portugal loses Angola simply because they aren't big enough to keep it. It would be interesting to see if the other powers (GB specifically) would try to even things out for Portugal.
Anyways my thoughts on this.

Good Topic!

For a peace negotiated in the summer of 1916 the bolded territorial concessions by Italy to Germany seem unlikely - they were still formally at peace at that point in OTL, with the Italians not declaring war on Germany until 28th August 1916.
 

Did you know that replying to one person with the exact same statement and link as another makes you seem arrogant?

Frankly the fact that you wrote a timeline doesn't mean anything, and expecting me to read the whole damn thing just to argue a minor point with you is ludicrous.

People overestimate their ability to do so after a loss.

People overestimate Britain's ability to lose in WWI.

Edit: In fact, another comment on your tone; this site has long since been a bastion of friendly discussion and amicable disagreement, but lately more and more posters such as yourself adopt this weird air of superiority and snark that just isn't conductive to a positive environment. I have no power here, but I feel justified in telling you to cut it out. If you disagree with someone, then do so politely, rather than turning your bloody nose up and talking down to them.
 
In fact, another comment on your tone; this site has long since been a bastion of friendly discussion and amicable disagreement, but lately more and more posters such as yourself adopt this weird air of superiority and snark that just isn't conductive to a positive environment. I have no power here, but I feel justified in telling you to cut it out. If you disagree with someone, then do so politely, rather than turning your bloody nose up and talking down to them.

Sorry for being an arsehole, I forgot I said the same thing the other day.

People overestimate Britain's ability to lose in WWI.

People dismiss the idea that Britain might lose WW1 and give up colonies as if it's Operation Sealion levels of ludicrous. However while Sealion has been picked over in minute detail Britain losing WW1 most certainly has not, its a wide open field of enquiry with any number of plausible outcomes. I am fully aware that this cuts against the consensus on this board, just like my belief that Germany was right to go West in 1914 cuts against the consensus of the board, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong and the argument can be dismissed out of hand. If you're all over how Britain cannot be defeated then that's great, lets hear it.
 

Deleted member 94680

I generally think the "Britain cannot lose in WWI" argument hinges on the RN. It's highly unlikely (although possible - not even ASB - with their terrible anti-flash measures) that the RN is crippled at an alt-Jutland to point where a land-defeated Britain would be unable to affect world affairs. In a world without air transport, control of the seas would allow Britain to still have a say at the table.

The idea of Britain, defeated on the field in France, retreating into "Empire preservation mode" and abandoning France to Germany's mercy has merit. Although in this situation, I don't think the Congo would be seen as sacrosanct - Belgium herself, definitely - and the French African possessions would certainly be 'fair game'.
 
So if we have a 1914 victory as follows:

PODs:
Austrians remain on defensive positions in Galacia
Francois follows order and Germans avoid battle of Gumbinnen
Meaning: No early withdraw of corps to eastern front is needed.
Germans: Win battle of Marne. Hold on to Amiens and Rheims, encircle Verdun and secure Pas De Calais by end of October, German close enough to Paris to subject city to bombardment.
Austrians are in much better position than OTL
Germans win some sort of Tannenburg like battle in East Prussia.
Ottoman empire enters war as in OTL
Battle of Tanga occurs in German East Africa as in OTL
Battle of Coronel happens as in OTL
Germans offer November 15th Armistice Terms: Basically fighting to end at current lines (plus resumption of trade and return of POWs), A promise that final peace treaty will involve no permanent loss of European territory for France/Britain/Russia.
December 1st: Allies accept these terms. (because Allied position semi unfavorable, with Germany holding most productive regions of France and obviously capable of fighting two front war, Turkey entering and Germany capable of fighting in her colonies. ATL Germany must be smarter than typical leadership to offer generous terms.)

Final peace means: Germany regains her lost colonies (Japan gives colonies back, Germany can afford to threaten to send her fleet across the world, its a luxury fleet anyway, Tirpitz drools at the thought, plus threat of Russia looms for Japan).
Plus gains:
Volta Delta added to Togo from Ghana
Togo extended North to Niger
Walvis bay added to Southwest Africa. (plus Orange river navigation rights settled)
Zanzibar and Pemba island added to East Africa.
Secret clause about future split of Portuguese and Belgian colonies between French, British and Germans within 5 years.

In Europe:
Russia agrees to stay out of affairs in Serbia and Turkey but no territorial losses, encouraged to look eastward.
France agrees to 18 month occupation of Briery basin but no permanent territorial losses.
Belgrade under Austrian occupation for two years.
Germany agrees to keep naval strength 50% of British.

The terms add reasonable, manageable and valuable additions to German colonies without giving Britain too much to worry about in terms of threatening new naval bases and terms that Russia and France could deal with. Plus option to expand dramatically at expense of Belgians and Portuguese.

Germany colonies would continue to develop with gradual liberalization but plenty of racism (but no need for Genocide although revolts would be suppressed in the usual ruthless manner), decent economic investment, however natives will be removed from areas where Euro settlement is favorable etc (Refrigeration and air conditioning and Malaria drugs will make Euro settlement possible in more places). Airship transport to colonies could begin within a few years. Ultimately without further world wars, Germans and others are going to be less willing to disentangle themselves from these colonies unless costs get high. Even if they do give them up eventually there will be more Rhodesia like situations with larger Euro settled areas.
 
I generally think the "Britain cannot lose in WWI" argument hinges on the RN. It's highly unlikely (although possible - not even ASB - with their terrible anti-flash measures) that the RN is crippled at an alt-Jutland to point where a land-defeated Britain would be unable to affect world affairs. In a world without air transport, control of the seas would allow Britain to still have a say at the table.

Yes, it hinges on the RN and how defeating them in a climactic battle, or even whittling them down in a couple of smaller battles is highly unlikely. However that isn't the only way to skin a cat and advances on land can transform the naval balance and stretch the RN to breaking point simply by gaining control of the Pas de Calais coast. Admital Bacon spelled out the danger clearly in his book about the Dover Patrol and while this like all memoirs is somewhat self serving the practical logic of the danger he described it hard to refute. The strategy of klienkrieg was only half-arsed until Scheer took over command and started using the HSF to harass the RN and transferring destroyer flotilla to Flanders so the MKF could harass them too.

The idea of Britain, defeated on the field in France, retreating into "Empire preservation mode" and abandoning France to Germany's mercy has merit. Although in this situation, I don't think the Congo would be seen as sacrosanct - Belgium herself, definitely - and the French African possessions would certainly be 'fair game'.

The thing about the BEF and French being defeated in the field is that it puts the Uboats and the rest into ports like Le Harve and Cherbourg. As early as October 1914 Korvettenkapitän Karl Bartenbach, who later commanded the Flanders Uboat flotilla, undertook a study of the ports Germany might capture and rated Le Harve and Cherbourg highly promising particularly for commerce war against Britain. Britain will be hard pressed to preserve herself let alone the Empire once Germany gets hold of these ports after a collapse on land, I can easily see Britain selling everybody up the river to get Germany out of Cherbourg.
 
The thing about the BEF and French being defeated in the field is that it puts the Uboats and the rest into ports like Le Harve and Cherbourg. As early as October 1914 Korvettenkapitän Karl Bartenbach, who later commanded the Flanders Uboat flotilla, undertook a study of the ports Germany might capture and rated Le Harve and Cherbourg highly promising particularly for commerce war against Britain. Britain will be hard pressed to preserve herself let alone the Empire once Germany gets hold of these ports after a collapse on land, I can easily see Britain selling everybody up the river to get Germany out of Cherbourg.

It seems logical that since the German came close to defeating Britain in 1917, with better basing that they could win in an ATL where they controlled French ports. I am not so sure though

It seems like the British would just abandon the Channel for shipping and soon be forced soon just like OTL to put merchants into convoys (as soon as the losses hurt they will do it OTL or ATL). But since convoys work (especially in 1914-1918, where there isn't much radio signalling and little air recon to defeat convoys), that submarine warfare couldn't force Britain to the table, especially if the Germans insist on ridiculous terms.

Of course conversely with French Atlantic ports under their control, the Germans could resume limited trade (or just trade with neutral Spain) so the British Blockade wouldn't be effective.

Seems like such a war could go on for years.
 
Top