WI: The USA had annexed Liberia?

SinghKing

Banned
First, a bit of OTL background info. During the 1920s, the United States access to rubber was restricted by the European colonial powers (Britain and the Netherlands), which held a monopoly in rubber production. Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, considered rubber a vital resource due to its usage for car tires, and began working with American rubber companies in order to find a rubber source that was controlled by US interests. As part of a worldwide search for a place for rubber plantations subsidised by the US Department of Commerce, rubber magnate Harvey Samuel Firestone sent experts to Liberia in December 1923 to do a soil survey. The results were good, and in 1926, the Liberian government granted Firestone a 99-year lease for a million acres (to be chosen by the newly created Firestone Natural Rubber Company, anywhere in Liberia) at a price of 6 cents per acre, and Firestone created the world's largest rubber plantation.

Firestone also provided a $5 million loan, quoted at a 7% interest rate, to the Liberian government to pay off its foreign debts, and to build the harbor needed by Firestone to export rubber from the plantation. The loan was given in exchange for complete authority over the government's revenues, which the Firestone Natural Rubber Company would hold until the loan was totally repaid. The loan took a larger and larger portion of the Liberian government's incomes: it grew from 20% of the total revenue of Liberia in 1929, to 32% in 1930, to 54.9% in 1931, and nearly the whole national revenue of Liberia in 1932. An estimation made by a member of the American Legation in Liberia said that Liberia really paid a 17% interest rate for the loan, and Liberia only finally managed to repay the loans to the company (and to retake control of its own national revenues from the Firestone Natural Rubber Company) in 1952.

During the Great Depression, as rubber price fell, Firestone stopped its development of the plantation, using just 50,000 acres. By cutting wages in half, he deprived the Liberian government of tax incomes, and forced the government to miss a loan payment to the company. With his self-contrived cassus-belli, Firestone subsequently asked the US government to send a warship to Monrovia to enforce the debt payment, but President Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected the "gunboat diplomacy"- or at least, he did IOTL.

What would have happened if, in an ATL, FDR had agreed to Firestone's proposal, sending the requested US warship to the Liberian capital of Monrovia to support Firestone's coup, and the USA had either officially annexed Liberia as a US territory or installed Firestone as Liberia's new dictator?
 

The True Eurasian_Ti

wow this is deep. If the u.s had done this, it would have caused maybe more interest in colonial seigement by the u.s and other countries, or it may have caused an african war with great powers looking to expand their colonies in hopes of gaining wealth to lift themselves out of depression , while fighting for new african territory. there are many outcomes
 

SinghKing

Banned
So, does anyone else think that this might be feasible? And what implications would it have- for the USA, for the rest of Africa, for the other colonial nations around the world, for future conflicts across the globe, for civil liberties and for colonialism in general?
 

The True Eurasian_Ti

if the u.s took military action, it may have sparked colonial interest in americans and the u.s may have been drawn into ww2 quicker to protect its holdings. It would also make u.s take more interest into foreign affairs and not be so isolated.
 

Legend-in-Exile

The UN may not make decolonisation a priority if 3 of the p5 were against it.

America may want colonies for destroyers in WW2.

Other empires may survive. Maybe, if only to not destabilise US colonies/territories (whatever the euphemism might be)
 

Carl Schwamberger

Essentially this is expansion of the 'Bananna Wars' across the Atlantic to Africa. Roosevelt did not support the ongoing operations of the US military in Nicaragua and Hati, gradually shutting those interventions down from 1932. similarly he reduced US military presence in China, with ultimately the 15th Infantry Regiment returning to the US & the 4th Marines Regiment shrinking in size as the the Navy Asiatic squadron.

Lets assume Roosevelt is not elected & a business friendly president, either Democrat or Republican continues the 1920s doctrine of "Making Latin America Safe For United Fruit". In that case we might very well see US Marines landing on the docks in Liberia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7PCHvBIHgg

About all the original motivation for intervention in the Carribean & Central America was to ensure US business had the advantage over Europeans & US banks got control of loans to the local governments.

http://co.quaker.org/Writings/SmedleyButler.htm

Assuming all this happens, then the USN is restablished in its old 19th Century 'North African Station'. That leads to a small naval base, military airfields, & even a signals intel station as on Luzon or Guam. Where this gets interesting is after 1940. The US has a small base in Liberia, to expand into a big one for "Supporting US Interests" in NW Africa. The US Nuetrality Zone could be extended to the shores of Liberia.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Carl Schwamberger said:
Essentially this is expansion of the 'Bananna Wars' across the Atlantic to Africa. Roosevelt did not support the ongoing operations of the US military in Nicaragua and Hati, gradually shutting those interventions down from 1932. similarly he reduced US military presence in China, with ultimately the 15th Infantry Regiment returning to the US & the 4th Marines Regiment shrinking in size as the the Navy Asiatic squadron.

Lets assume Roosevelt is not elected & a business friendly president, either Democrat or Republican continues the 1920s doctrine of "Making Latin America Safe For United Fruit". In that case we might very well see US Marines landing on the docks in Liberia.

Assuming all this happens, then the USN is restablished in its old 19th Century 'North African Station'. That leads to a small naval base, military airfields, & even a signals intel station as on Luzon or Guam. Where this gets interesting is after 1940. The US has a small base in Liberia, to expand into a big one for "Supporting US Interests" in NW Africa. The US Nuetrality Zone could be extended to the shores of Liberia.
Click to expand...

The one hook there is Roosevelt was probably the most interventionist of the potential candidates for 1940. Everyone else might either have wanted to fold the tent and withdraw, or to keep a very low profile for that station.

Still, while it was on the continent, it was pretty removed from the key WW2 locations:
  • Dakar - 1200km
  • Casablanca - 3000km
  • Cairo - 5000km

A point in it's favor, at the end of Casablanca, when Rick & Capt. Renault are walking off into the fog, instead of heading for the Free-French garrison in Brazzaville, Rick might have suggested joining the Marines in Monrovia....;)
 
Simon

Simon

Would they have flat out annexed the country or simply declare it a protectorate and take it over in all but name like they did with Puerto Rico or the Philippines? Makes me wonder if the back to Africa movement might not get a second wind, IIRC Garvey stopped supporting the idea in the late 1920s due to problems European financial interests in Liberia.
 

Blackfox5

The US would never have annexed Liberia. Firestone practically was the government; it was just trying to get blood from a turnip at that point. Assuming a new government was put in place, it would not be Firestone officials. It would just be members of the existing Liberian elite who would be willing to cut Firestone an even better deal as the price of being in charge - it might even be the exact same people.

At most, it would some variation of Britain taking over "responsible government" in Newfoundland when that Dominion could not pay its bills. Liberian sovereignty would be kept on paper. Some New York bank officials put in place to "monitor" the Liberian budget and expenses, and some new loan worked out to keep Liberia afloat and paying the loan to Firestone.

To be honest, not much would change from OTL. World War II would still establish a rubber boom and put Liberia on a more stable financial footing.
 

SinghKing

Banned
Blackfox5 said:
The US would never have annexed Liberia. Firestone practically was the government; it was just trying to get blood from a turnip at that point. Assuming a new government was put in place, it would not be Firestone officials. It would just be members of the existing Liberian elite who would be willing to cut Firestone an even better deal as the price of being in charge - it might even be the exact same people.

At most, it would some variation of Britain taking over "responsible government" in Newfoundland when that Dominion could not pay its bills. Liberian sovereignty would be kept on paper. Some New York bank officials put in place to "monitor" the Liberian budget and expenses, and some new loan worked out to keep Liberia afloat and paying the loan to Firestone.

To be honest, not much would change from OTL. World War II would still establish a rubber boom and put Liberia on a more stable financial footing.
Click to expand...

So, the Firestone incident couldn't have potentially 'lit the match', and led to the Liberians rising up in an insurgency to retake their own sovereignty- a 'Liberian-American War' vaguely comparable to the Philippine-American War?
 
Last edited:

Blackfox5

I don't think it would have ever gotten that far because I don't think any intervention would have lead to any kind of permanent occupation. Even if FDR agrees to send a ship to Liberia, the US is not going to sponsor a major expedition to Africa. It would be a signal that the US really wanted some kind of successful negotiation between Liberian President Barclay and Firestone, not an actual occupation. And as for the negotiations, Liberia just doesn't have the money so I'm not sure exactly what Firestone could get. It's mainly going to be numbers moved around on paper.

Liberia doesn't exactly have a national consciousness at this time. The country is very split between the elite comprised of descendants of ex-Liberian slaves and the "natives" who lived there before they came in. It's very divided and poor. I don't think the government would want to rile up some kind of armed revolution which could only turn against the elite at some point; and without some kind of concerted leadership, I don't think the indigenous peoples are really going to care.
 

SinghKing

Banned
Blackfox5 said:
I don't think it would have ever gotten that far because I don't think any intervention would have lead to any kind of permanent occupation. Even if FDR agrees to send a ship to Liberia, the US is not going to sponsor a major expedition to Africa. It would be a signal that the US really wanted some kind of successful negotiation between Liberian President Barclay and Firestone, not an actual occupation. And as for the negotiations, Liberia just doesn't have the money so I'm not sure exactly what Firestone could get. It's mainly going to be numbers moved around on paper.

Liberia doesn't exactly have a national consciousness at this time. The country is very split between the elite comprised of descendants of ex-Liberian slaves and the "natives" who lived there before they came in. It's very divided and poor. I don't think the government would want to rile up some kind of armed revolution which could only turn against the elite at some point; and without some kind of concerted leadership, I don't think the indigenous peoples are really going to care.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be an uprising by the government? Conditions on the Liberian plantations were (and still are, to an extent) akin to slavery, arguably far worse than European serfdom in the early 20th century. The Comintern were in full swing, establishing communist front organisations in many countries around the world from the 1920s onwards. The Comintern's trade union arm especially, The Profintern, was tasked with the mission of promoting Communist trade unions across the world, and "engaged in overt and covert political agitation in addition to a number of clandestine activities."

Could a communist uprising be sparked in Liberia ITTL, and potentially even succeed in taking over or destroying the Firestone plantation (as the National Patriotic Front of Liberia eventually did IOTL in 1990)? If this had happened, back in the 1930's, would the USA have had any choice diplomatically other than to send a major military expedition to violently put down the communist rebels, retake their holdings and maintain a military occupation force in Liberia to deter any further communist uprisings? And how many butterflies would this conflict have spawned? Would anti-imperialism and communism become even more synonymous ITTL than IOTL? Would the Comintern have directed their efforts to promoting communist trade unions and uprisings in Colonial Africa far earlier, and to a far greater degree than IOTL?

Would the Profintern have established a Pan-African Trade Union Secretariat in response to the Liberian uprising (akin to their existing Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat, which they established in 1927 IOTL)- potentially striking a resonant chord, especially given that Liberia served as perhaps the dominant proponent of both African independence from the European colonial powers and Pan-Africanism IOTL. Could such a Soviet Pan-African Trade Union Secretariat have potentially been even more successful than its Pan-Pacific counterpart was IOTL? Would the decolonization of Africa after WW2 have subsequently been dominated almost entirely by communist movements, potentially leading to OTL's Organisation of African Unity, and the subsequent African Union, eventually being established ITTL as a single Soviet Union-style Marxist-Leninist state, a union of multiple subnational African republics with a highly centralized government and economy?

Would NATO and the Western World be either willing or desperate enough to risk starting a nuclear war with the Warsaw Pact to prevent the formation of such an African Soviet Union ITTL? And if NATO wasn't prepared to risk WW3 in order to hold on to Colonial Africa, and such an African Soviet Union did come into being ITTL in spite of their efforts to hold back the anti-colonialist red tide, how profoundly would it shift the balance of world power in the Cold War?
 
Last edited:

SinghKing

Banned
So, does anyone else think that this speculative alternate history scenario may be worthy of development into a proper ATL? Or is it just me?
 

Son of Leman Russ

Banned
Clandango said:
If you made a timeline for it, would it focus on domestic Liberia, domestic American, or worldwide affairs?
Click to expand...

USA joins the colonialist game as a new but really strong player

say goodbye to Decolonizations... :D ... :(

I have a feeling that their "new" ness to the game of colonialism, and their explicit interests in Africa, could utterly butterfly Axis powers (but not Nazis I think). US and Italy will end up in a strange alliance, with UK and France as "friendly rivals". And Nazis as weird bunch of evildoers who end up friendless...

US will have a long term plan to invade and turn China into their colony... :D

And this may or may not lead into war against Japan, depends if US decides to be hypocrite and attack Japanese holdings at Manchuria, or *GASP* invade Japan and turn them into US colony themselves!

So... yeah, Pacific will end up as US' shiny toys after this... as well as a good part of western Africa...
 
Clandango

Clandango

Son of Leman Russ said:
And this may or may not lead into war against Japan, depends if US decides to be hypocrite and attack Japanese holdings at Manchuria, or *GASP* invade Japan and turn them into US colony themselves!
Click to expand...

Attack Japanese holdings in Manchuria. From where, the area in Shanghai they shared with the British? And you probably would do better having the Americans keep the Bonins(which the Japanese only annexed after finding out about their existence), having them support the Koreans when the Japanese invaded (due to Somme treaty with Korea about protection or something like that), etc. and if there is another Boxer Rebellions of sorts, would this mean the Americans would break with IOTL in which they were the only ones told not to loot? (Perhaps reasonable that there was a bit of looting of the palaces by the surviving Europeans and Americans though, considering what they went through because of the Dowager Empress and others). You would also have possibilities of treaty ports in Japan if the Americans decide not to demand everyone has access to the country, the Americans trying to buy up the right to sovereignty in Sabah or Sarawak from the American consul, and of course Ireland would be needing statehood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top