WI No "scramble for Africa"

[Paul Spring]

between about 1880 and 1900 several European powers competed to basically grab control of as much land in Africa as possible. Some of the land had economically valuable resources, but much of it was grabbed simply to prevent another power from grabbing it.

What if this had never happened? What if the only major European presence in Africa remained in the northern and southernmost parts of the continent, plus some coastal trade bases? How might large parts of Africa develop if direct European control was never imposed?

 

[Melvin Loh]

Paul, don't mean to rain on your parade, but are you sure your proposition ain't ASB ? It would've been inevitable IMO for the European colonial powers to have taken and carved up all of Africa just as they had everywhere else by the late 19th C and the 1885 Congress of Berlin. Esp new kids on the block like Kaiser Bill's Imperial Germany with Namibia, Togo, Tanganyika, etc. Therefore, I see your POD as extremely unlikely bordering on the unattainable.

 

[Anthony Appleyard]

Not up to European standard, until (1) the horse evolves immune to the nagana pest disease, or (2) they domesticate the zebra and breed it up to horse size and strength.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Paul, don't mean to rain on your parade, but are you sure your proposition ain't ASB ? It would've been inevitable IMO for the European colonial powers to have taken and carved up all of Africa just as they had everywhere else by the late 19th C and the 1885 Congress of Berlin. Esp new kids on the block like Kaiser Bill's Imperial Germany with Namibia, Togo, Tanganyika, etc. Therefore, I see your POD as extremely unlikely bordering on the unattainable.

I don't see it as inevitable at all. Saharan Africa had a number of settled Islamic states which were perfectly viable in themselves. Only the 'Hinterland' policy adopted at Berlin legitimised the conquest of the interior in order to defend the coastal colonies.

What were the strategic reasons for this policy ? On a local basis, it was an extension of punishment, the removal of a local threat, and the eradication of the slave trade. To go with this it has to be noted of course that if you start at A and conquer B, then C is your neighbour, so if you conquer C then D is your neighbour etc. Pacification and the establishment of a buffer zone is clearly a viable alternative

One area where you could look for a comparison as to how the policy could be implemented alternatively is with regard to Siam. During the nineteenth century Britain gradually swallowed up Burma (Asa), taknig first the coastal area, then elements of the interior, then the heartlands. But with regard to Siam, they took the coastal strip as part of the Malay Federated States, whilst France incorporated some areas into IndoChina, but Siam survived

It can be said that the 'Scramble for Africa' owed a lot of its impetus once it got going to rivalries between the powers. With Britain coming from one direction, France from another, Belgium from another, with Germany joining in and with Portugal trying to retain their influence, great power politics found an outlet for its energies that was far in excess of any real value for the lands over-run

Whilst a similar rivalry drove Britain and France to spread their influence over the Shan states (NE Burma and Laos) in SE Asia, the existence of Siam prevented the rivals bumping up against each other in the South

One could postulate a similar circumstance in Africa, with for example Sokoto (N Nigeria) providing a boundary for British influence going North

Grey Wolf

 

[Steffen]

For the German aspect: Let Bismarck have it his way, cal it the Bismarck doctrine, to be saturated with central europe.
Like his famous quote: "Here is France, here is Russia, we´re in between that´s all the map of Africa I need"

If we alter the russian policy a bit, make it´s panslawistic attitudes longer and earlier, it could ty up several big powers: Germany and the K+K monarchy, Britain with the threat to India.

This leaves France. But: With Britain and Germany, maybe as an Anti-Russian Axis, France will also be tied on the Rhine instead on the Congo or Nile.

But what will happen in the heart of Africa? Nothing important IMHO. But a "Cold war" between Russia, Germany and the other powers peering suspiciously at each other sounds really intersting

 

[Grey Wolf]

But what will happen in the heart of Africa? Nothing important IMHO. But a "Cold war" between Russia, Germany and the other powers peering suspiciously at each other sounds really intersting

It seems likely to me that the nations of the interior would become proxies, allies or clients of European nations where necessary

Ottoman influence would be greater, if rather loose, but would extend beyond OTL Sudan into OTL Central African Republic or 'Equatoria'

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It seems likely to me that the nations of the interior would become proxies, allies or clients of European nations where necessary

Ottoman influence would be greater, if rather loose, but would extend beyond OTL Sudan into OTL Central African Republic or 'Equatoria'

Grey Wolf

Was not Leopold's grab the spark that set off the scramble?

 

[Fiji]

Was not Leopold's grab the spark that set off the scramble?

yep, but he went looking for permission from the great powers.
If the great powers find this upstart country too bothersome with all this tension building up, they'd probably go "Leopold ... SIT! ... Good boy ... now, stay!"

 

[DuQuense]

Shore enuff

If the Europeans had remained on the Shore with Trading settlements Ect. The Black [south] and Berber States [Sahel] Would have had more time to assimuate the European technology. ?A Modern Nation Grown out of the Zulu Empire?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

yep, but he went looking for permission from the great powers.
If the great powers find this upstart country too bothersome with all this tension building up, they'd probably go "Leopold ... SIT! ... Good boy ... now, stay!"

But Leopold brilliantly hid his ambitions in the guise of humanitarian efforts, so it was some time before the world became aware that he had built a rapacious colonial empire.

 

[Flocculencio]

But Leopold brilliantly hid his ambitions in the guise of humanitarian efforts, so it was some time before the world became aware that he had built a rapacious colonial empire.

"The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed sombre under an overcast sky - seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness."

 

[carlton_bach]

If the Europeans had remained on the Shore with Trading settlements Ect. The Black [south] and Berber States [Sahel] Would have had more time to assimuate the European technology. ?A Modern Nation Grown out of the Zulu Empire?

I'm not sure it would have been that easy, but then...

If the European powers had decided they didn't want any of Africa other than a few treaty ports the colonisation need not have happened. Most colonies post-1880 (and quite a few before) were acquired mostly out of a desire not to let the other guy have it. THe British had already developed a concept of 'informal Empire' (ie economic rather than military domination) in their dealings with South America and arguably, Germany's colonies were a drain rather than a source of wealth and resources. Of course, someone would have to keep a rein on Egypt's ambitions to become the first non-Western colonial power of note.

So, if a treaty were signed stating that no European claims on African land will be made beyond the status quo of, say, 1874, the next step very likely would be acquiring allies among the native states and developing structures of economic dominance. German colonisers were perpetually upset that native planters were doing so much better along the shores of Lake Tanganyika than German settlers in the highlands, so we can at least tentatively extend that pattern into other parts of the continent. The winners will very likely be the native states that can either provide goods the Europeans want to buy at a trade nexus (the Sultan of Sansibar or the Niger and Congo delta kingdoms), or those that can provide the security and stability needed to develop transport in areas that can yield useful resources, but no direct trade routes (railways to Lake Tanganyika and Victoria come to mind). The Zulu are probably too close for comfort to the Boer republics and the English to last as a truly powerful nations (though I could see them as a British client state keeping the neighboring tribes in check and making the world safe for free enterprise. The Ashante would stand a good chance of becoming useful allies, especially if they wake up to the possibilities of a Kumasi railroad, and I'm sure the Abyssinians would recognise the commercial advantage of being Christian in dealing with European powers. But a modern state in the real sense of the word? I doubt it, at any rate before the 1920s. Remember what happened to Egypt - and that was a nation with millennia of contact with the Mediterranean and no appreciably greater culture shock to deal with than Russia or India.

How far would the European powers allow the native states to run their own affairs? What I could imagine would be either the Congo model - malign neglect, basically, ie the Europeans simply further their own interests by supporting the group promising the greatest immediate profit - or the Native States model, ie. a relatively high degree of control by ostensibly 'diplomatic' personnel in order to ensure stability, a continuing investment-friendly climate and a docile ruler. Given the experience of China, I'm afraid the former is likely. Not a good thought... Imagine Rio Tinto arming one group of Africans and Creusot the other.

 

[raharris1973]

What if quinine was not invented?

Wasn't the development of quinine and certain other technologies critical for the ability of whites to survive in a sustained basis in Africa and certain other tropical areas?

Is there a way we could slow that down, without slowing down the rest of the industrial and scientific revolution. With Africa less hospitable for disease reasons, maybe the whole schedule of "Carving up" the non-western world is slower, or the middle east is carved before africa instead of after.

thoughts?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Wasn't the development of quinine and certain other technologies critical for the ability of whites to survive in a sustained basis in Africa and certain other tropical areas?

Is there a way we could slow that down, without slowing down the rest of the industrial and scientific revolution. With Africa less hospitable for disease reasons, maybe the whole schedule of "Carving up" the non-western world is slower, or the middle east is carved before africa instead of after.

thoughts?

I don't see a 'carve up' of the Middle East as logical. For a start much of it is ruled by the Ottoman Empire and the preservation of the power of the empire is vitally important to preventing the spread of Russia. In addition, despite what misreadings of WW1 may seem to say, the Arab population was not dissatisfied with Ottoman rule - it was THE empire and they were part of it, not conquered subjects. Its different with the Sherif of Mecca but that was a political clash within the empire, that only became a move to independence because of world war, whereupon all bets are off. Even Ibn Saud, nominally a vassal of the Ottomans, could well have been brought to heel if the empire had been free to focus on him.

Moving around the peripheries of the empire, you have British presence already developing - in Aden, in Muscat, over the Trucial States and Kuwait. And Persia is a meeting point for the rival ambitions of the various empires as well.

To an extent the carve-up has already happened - the sultanate of Oman relocated to Zanzibar, lost its African coastal possessions to Britain and Germany, and then lost its final independence also.

Grey Wolf

 

[raharris1973]

Interesting points - what about the sub-Saharan Africa part?

I don't see a 'carve up' of the Middle East as logical. For a start much of it is ruled by the Ottoman Empire and the preservation of the power of the empire is vitally important to preventing the spread of Russia.


If I understand you correctly, the only thing that made the carve-up of the Middle East logical was the Ottomans choosing to join Germany in WWI. I would agree as this applies to Ottoman control of the Straits and in southwest Asia. The Europeans didn't mind picking off Egypt, North Africa and Cyprus however, and didn't see that as crippling to Ottoman resistance to Russia.


In addition, despite what misreadings of WW1 may seem to say, the Arab population was not dissatisfied with Ottoman rule - it was THE empire and they were part of it, not conquered subjects.

Sure, fancy that - Ottoman subjects preferring their own rulers over invaders.

Its different with the Sherif of Mecca but that was a political clash within the empire, that only became a move to independence because of world war, whereupon all bets are off. Even Ibn Saud, nominally a vassal of the Ottomans, could well have been brought to heel if the empire had been free to focus on him.

I agree, Arab nationalism would have taken alot of time and Ottoman provocation to succceed indigenously.





Moving around the peripheries of the empire, you have British presence already developing - in Aden, in Muscat, over the Trucial States and Kuwait. And Persia is a meeting point for the rival ambitions of the various empires as well.

To an extent the carve-up has already happened - the sultanate of Oman relocated to Zanzibar, lost its African coastal possessions to Britain and Germany, and then lost its final independence also.


Interesting, but could technology, like the lack of quinine, be the key to stopping or delaying the carve-up