WI British East Africa, No German Tanzania

What if, during the Berlin Conference of 1884, Germany didn't make any claims to Eastern Africa, and OTL Tanzania was "given" over to British influence? So basically everything from South Africa up to Egypt is British or under British influence (w/ exceptions of Portuguese Mozambique, Italian Somalia, and independent Ethiopia). How does this change history?

To start, does Zanzibar now continue to hold itself together, albeit as a British client *state*? Is the Cape to Cairo railway now a feasible project? And depending on how this and other short term changes play out, how does Eastern Africa as a whole now evolve differently? For example, if noted railway makes the region as a whole more accessible, could British East Africa as a whole see more immigration, white or asian, and/or more development (or "development", if its still focused on extracting national resources)? Could a larger contiguous colony or colonial sphere lead to a more cohesive national identity or set there of when decolonization arrives? What other large scale changes could we be looking at here?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I'm curious on this myself; if Britain contiguously controlled African territory from the Cape to Cairo, why wouldn't they at least have an interest in further "civilizing" their colonies by binding them together with a rail line?
I second this question; indeed, was no one interested in this idea besides Rhodes?

Also, in regards to your original question here, perhaps we see a merger of Britain's East African colonies in this TL? After all, Britain merged Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria into one colony in our TL; thus, why not have Britain do the same in East Africa in this TL?

Indeed, if this occurs, we could see the creation of the East African Federation a century earlier than in our TL--a federation which will eventually become independent and become a very powerful state.
 
I'm curious on this myself; if Britain contiguously controlled African territory from the Cape to Cairo, why wouldn't they at least have an interest in further "civilizing" their colonies by binding them together with a rail line?

Though its creation is possible, it's way too expensive, with not enough returns from creating the rail line, and they already have sufficient transportation to the colonies.
 
Though its creation is possible, it's way too expensive, with not enough returns from creating the rail line, and they already have sufficient transportation to the colonies.

Forgive the video game reference but I loved a level that explored PART of this concept in Railroad Tycoon 3 (link - look for Africa)

I think this would be the key value in a Cape-To-Cairo rail system. Rather than extraction economies, it would enable trade between the inland areas of different economies - such as the Great Lakes. Taking a train from Cape to Cairo is great for propaganda, but the kicker is the logistics spine it provides. Goods transport, and later on, military transport, suddenly becomes much easier when inland. Making dealing with people like the Mahdi much easier. Just take the train from Cape Town, or Cairo.

However, its the internal trade that would be the money-spinner, and that would take a shift in British Economic Strategy to have them actually value it for that purpose. Even if they'd begrudgingly accept it to offset the costs.
 
The question I want to ask is why do the Germans decide not to colonise East Africa ITTL? What makes them turn their head away from the region?

Did they gain more territory elsewhere, at the expense of a different European power?
 
The question I want to ask is why do the Germans decide not to colonise East Africa ITTL? What makes them turn their head away from the region?
Well, in the broadest sense, this question has several hypothetical answers; but considering that I'm thinking of a Russo-Turkish War PoD in this specific case, maybe we could say that 1882 events in Egypt go down differently? Maybe Britain is taking a more adversarial position to Germany, with them still allied to their Russian rival? Or maybe Germany is now looking for bigger fish elsewhere on the continent (maybe the Congo)?
 
Well, in the broadest sense, this question has several hypothetical answers; but considering that I'm thinking of a Russo-Turkish War PoD in this specific case, maybe we could say that 1882 events in Egypt go down differently? Maybe Britain is taking a more adversarial position to Germany, with them still allied to their Russian rival? Or maybe Germany is now looking for bigger fish elsewhere on the continent (maybe the Congo)?

A POD in the Russo-Turkish War and German acquisition of the Congo (they had great interest in the region OTL as it was; it was given to Belgium/King Leopold as a compromise between the great powers) have consequences that are further reaching than the effects of a British-dominated East Africa. I suppose, though, that this may have an effect on German efforts to colonise the Pacific - without a coaling station in East Africa, these efforts might be hindered.
 
Top