WI Austria had purchased Rio de Oro from Spain?

IOTL, following the Spanish American War, Spain offered to sell Rio de Oro [part of Spanish Sahara] to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While the transaction was successfully negotiated, Hungary blocked the deal. What if Hungary hadn't? How might an Austrian Colony in Africa look, perhaps they employ their strategy of incorporating locals as they did in Tianjin.

Furthermore, if we later assume a central powers victory [for the purposes of further exploring this concept] Might Austria demand parts of French West Africa?
 
Probably not a ton honestly. Western Sahara is kind of a terrible place with no water or agriculture. The primary industries are fishing and phosphorus mining but even today the whole territory only has 500k people and supporting the territory is a huge economic drain on Morocco. I doubt Austria would be able to attract more than a few thousand settlers in the mining industry and maybe a few military installations.

Depending on how attached they were to the territory the biggest impact would possibly be pushing Austria more toward an alliance with France and Britain. Should hostilities break out either of those nations could take the territory without breaking a sweat as Austria has no way of reinforcing through the Strait of Gibraltar even if the Central Powers are winning on land.

If the Central Powers win I do agree that Austria would probably want to take a more profitable French region. Possibly something in West Africa but I think they'd be more attracted to North Africa since it would be easier defended. Depending on how big they win, maybe Tunisia.
 
Last edited:
Depending on how attached they were to the territory the biggest impact would possibly be pushing Austria more toward an alliance with France and Britain. Should hostilities break out either of those nations could take the territory without breaking a sweat as Austria has no way of reinforcing through the Strait of Gibraltar even if the Central Powers are winning on land.

Would one little colony be enough for Austria to side with Britain and France however? The OTL cause of the WW1 was a dispute between Austria and Russia - I have trouble seeing them on the same side in a conflict. I suppose there could be a different catalyst

Germany vs Russia, Austria, Britain, and France would be terrible for Germany.


On the other hand, Germany OTL very much wanted a West African naval station and Rio de Oro could work for that purpose. Austria would suddenly have some degree over leverage over Germany as well.
 
Would one little colony be enough for Austria to side with Britain and France however? The OTL cause of the WW1 was a dispute between Austria and Russia - I have trouble seeing them on the same side in a conflict. I suppose there could be a different catalyst

Germany vs Russia, Austria, Britain, and France would be terrible for Germany.
The only reason that Russia split from Germany was because they had designs on the Slavic territory held by the Hapsburgs. If the Austrians are cozying up to the British and Fresh and away from the Germans, the Russians are going to look for friends to fight against the Austrians. Germany provides just that opportunity, meaning WWI would consist of Germany, Russia and Turkey vs. AH, France and England. Italy will probably side with the Germans since they'll be able to take Austria's Adriatic coast. Considering Austria is surrounded on all sides it'll get shellacked pretty quick, and this war could actually go much better for Germany.

That said, I rather doubt that Western Sahara will push AH into the arms of the Entente. Instead I think either the British or (more likely) the French will occupy it.
 

althisfan

Banned
How would the Moroccan Crisis (1 and 2) play out with an Austrian naval base so close by? (Villa Cisneros) Could we see more concessions to Germany? An earlier WWI combined with one of the Balkan Wars in the 1910s?
 
I think the real consequence would be that Austro-Hungary now definitely needs a port to have a direct connection to their colony. Therefore the biggest winner of the deal would be Trieste, which would now have to be built up as A/H's main import station for Saharan goods.

And yes, Austria will now have an extra reason to mingle in the Balkan states: They want use of the ports on the Adria.
 

althisfan

Banned
I think the real consequence would be that Austro-Hungary now definitely needs a port to have a direct connection to their colony. Therefore the biggest winner of the deal would be Trieste, which would now have to be built up as A/H's main import station for Saharan goods.

And yes, Austria will now have an extra reason to mingle in the Balkan states: They want use of the ports on the Adria.
Austria had most of the east coast of the Adriatic already, everything that is today Croatia. Austrian shipping in fact was 4th in usage of the Suez Canal, and ahead of Italian shipping. So Trieste was already well established in its ability but you are right this will benefit them even more, and this will escalate Slovene migration to Trieste and lower the percentage of Italians. We would see it harder for Italy in the aftermath of WWI make a convincing claim that Trieste and region are "Italian"; which would result in just one more loss for an Italy that was on the winning side.
 
Might it become, officially or unofficially, a dumping ground for restive ethnicities within the empire? Not en masse, but maybe a few thousand here and there.
 
The only reason that Russia split from Germany was because they had designs on the Slavic territory held by the Hapsburgs. If the Austrians are cozying up to the British and Fresh and away from the Germans, the Russians are going to look for friends to fight against the Austrians. Germany provides just that opportunity, meaning WWI would consist of Germany, Russia and Turkey vs. AH, France and England. Italy will probably side with the Germans since they'll be able to take Austria's Adriatic coast. Considering Austria is surrounded on all sides it'll get shellacked pretty quick, and this war could actually go much better for Germany.

That said, I rather doubt that Western Sahara will push AH into the arms of the Entente. Instead I think either the British or (more likely) the French will occupy it.

I can't see the Ottomans and Russians being on the same side in this period. Britain-France-Austria-Ottomans vs Germany-Russia is more likely.
 
The main change would be that Austria and Hungary could not wash their hands and say: "We had nothing to do with it." and point to the west when the evils of colonization come up.
 

althisfan

Banned
The main change would be that Austria and Hungary could not wash their hands and say: "We had nothing to do with it." and point to the west when the evils of colonization come up.
When did Austria and Hungary ever do that? Never. A-H was involved in the Congress of Berlin even though they didn't grab colonies, they helped make the rules therefore they were complicit and "co-conspirators" to borrow a legal term. A-H never claimed they had nothing to do with it. In fact Austria tried their hand at colonies, Nicobar Island, Mozambique, and North Borneo for example, and the SMS Novara whose purpose was supposedly exploration, science, and circumnavigation in fact was to look for possibility of colonies. Just because they failed most of the time doesn't mean they thought they were innocent. In fact they had their concession in Tianjin just like the other major European powers that sent troops in the Boxer Rebellion, in fact their territory was larger than the Italian zone.
 
When did Austria and Hungary ever do that? Never. A-H was involved in the Congress of Berlin even though they didn't grab colonies, they helped make the rules therefore they were complicit and "co-conspirators" to borrow a legal term. A-H never claimed they had nothing to do with it. In fact Austria tried their hand at colonies, Nicobar Island, Mozambique, and North Borneo for example, and the SMS Novara whose purpose was supposedly exploration, science, and circumnavigation in fact was to look for possibility of colonies. Just because they failed most of the time doesn't mean they thought they were innocent. In fact they had their concession in Tianjin just like the other major European powers that sent troops in the Boxer Rebellion, in fact their territory was larger than the Italian zone.

I know of those. However it matters greatly if they succeeded. Im a hungarian and dont feel any responsibility for colonization - and one of the main reason is the simple fact that we didnt have any colonies. And that matters. I dont know how things stand in Austria but in Hungary I think the wast majority would agree with me. Having had a colony - even a small and poor one - would change that.

And Austria-Hungary ceased to exist well before having colonies went from fashionable to a mark of shame. If it did last long enough I expect that many of its citizens would declare that the whole matter was one of the most evil in human history. Its great we werent really involved.
 

althisfan

Banned
I know of those. However it matters greatly if they succeeded. Im a hungarian and dont feel any responsibility for colonization - and one of the main reason is the simple fact that we didnt have any colonies. And that matters. I dont know how things stand in Austria but in Hungary I think the wast majority would agree with me. Having had a colony - even a small and poor one - would change that.

And Austria-Hungary ceased to exist well before having colonies went from fashionable to a mark of shame. If it did last long enough I expect that many of its citizens would declare that the whole matter was one of the most evil in human history. Its great we werent really involved.
Slovakia and Transylvania were Hungarian colonies. Hungarians (and Poles) almost wiped out Slovakians from the face of the Earth, if it wasn't for WWI and the dissolution of the Empire then another 100 years or maybe only 60, and Slovaks would be a smaller minority than the Sorbs. Please don't come to AH.com with this nationalistic "my people didn't do any of this European genocide stuff". I see this from so many nations out there, EVERY nationality or ethnic group is guilty of something in the last 500 years. Fact. And don't forget your nation was complicit and willingly joined as a member of the Axis in WWII.
 
I think the real consequence would be that Austro-Hungary now definitely needs a port to have a direct connection to their colony. Therefore the biggest winner of the deal would be Trieste, which would now have to be built up as A/H's main import station for Saharan goods.

And yes, Austria will now have an extra reason to mingle in the Balkan states: They want use of the ports on the Adria.

What Saharan goods? The only things produced there are small phosphate reserves and fish. Certainly nothing worth upgrading a seaport over.
 
Slovakia and Transylvania were Hungarian colonies. Hungarians (and Poles) almost wiped out Slovakians from the face of the Earth, if it wasn't for WWI and the dissolution of the Empire then another 100 years or maybe only 60, and Slovaks would be a smaller minority than the Sorbs. Please don't come to AH.com with this nationalistic "my people didn't do any of this European genocide stuff". I see this from so many nations out there, EVERY nationality or ethnic group is guilty of something in the last 500 years. Fact. And don't forget your nation was complicit and willingly joined as a member of the Axis in WWII.

Slovakia and Transylvania were colonies? And pray were do you get that bullsh*t from? Any sources? And how come the poles about - because im not aware of any instance of history where Poland ruled any significant part of todays Slovakia (they have rented seven small towns in Szepes I think that lasted for centuries however it ended before nationalism was born and I wouldnt call the territory significant). And im not aware of any genocidal plans from either against the slovakians.

Also Slovakia as an administrative unit didnt exist so it would be hard to descirbe it as a colony. Whats more all of the territories mentioned by you had representatives in the hungarian pairlaiment in the same basis as all the rest of the country and were seen as integral part of the kingdom - for about a millenia, long before modern colonization was born.

I wont deny for a moment that the hungarian leadership mistreated the slovaks and other national minorities. They also had done a lot of things we could judge them for. However colonizing was not one of them and this thread is about just that.

Like it or not colonization is really not a matter of which all of Europe is guilty of. To list just a few: finns, poles, ukrainians, serbs, slovaks, slovens, romanians, czech etc. Everyone has their own skeletons in their closets and thank you but they are enough for us without taking guilt for those we have nothing to do with.

And im a nationalist in the sense that I love Hungary and am proud to be a hungarian - even if it had and still has a lot of faults and am perfectly disgusted with our current leadership. However when arguing in AH I put that aside and try to argue on the basis of facts and written sources and keep as open a mind as im capable of. And I wont be ashamed of not feeling guilty for something my country didnt do.
 
Top