Without the World Wars, where would Europe turn for further colonization?

China partitioned between Britain, France, Russia, Germany and Japan.

The Ottoman Empire partitioned between Britain, France, Italy, Greece and Russia.

Persia partitioned between Britain and Russia.

Siam partitioned between Britain and France.
*The Corpse of Cecil Rhodes starts laughing*
 
outside of the colonial question, you have to wonder just what would be going on in a Europe that hasn't experienced the huge manpower and materiel losses of two world wars...
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Dunno, but ... somehow I got the feeling, that most comments here don't refer to "colonization" and actually "running" colonies but more to "simple" power projection with all these "partitioning" and "dividing" fantasies of existing political bodies (China, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire).

As mentioned, colonization in terms of land aquisition had almost ended prior to WW1. There were no more "white plains" on the globe to be explored or rather exploited. The world WAS partinioned among the several "powers".
Wizhout the "Big Wars" there might have been some rearrengements and reshuffling, but IMO nothing really considerable.
For "power projection" aka (more or less) effective control of the behavior of other states/nations, "spheres of interest" there will ofc be a LOT of room, but ITTL probably mostly restrained to economical/cultural influence, perhaps some "small" localized wars.

In terms of "colonization" ... the big challange would be - IMO for almost every colonial power - to actually get something out of their colonies. I.e. the last german State Secretary of colonial affairs had discovered, that the "old ways" of ruthless exploitation with slave-like managing of indigenious people did NOT pay off. Having exercised different approaches by himself (Samoa) with which he managed to get it at least paying for itself (not needing any subventions from the "motherland" anymore). The same was reached in Togoland by developing instead of "simple" exploiting.
IMO there would be a "race" between the colonial powers, who gets most out of his colonies for the least costs - financially as well as in terms of "human costs" as a means to "support" any possible "claims" on land owned/administered by a competing colonial power. The colonies might become more something viewed as what might be thought of by the term of LoN "mandates".
"The" multicentered cold war of this ITTL : who develops his underdeveloped foreign peoples the best.

"Colonization" in terms of "settlement" of members of the colonial powers (europeans) in a ... "far away" strip of land ...
Dunno, would IMO depend on who can create a "feeling" of overpopulation at home to encourage settlers to leave for foreign shores. Otherwise I won't see much of an impetus for educated workers to leave home, where they have a proper work and proper/satisfactory-enough wgaes to pay for "colonial goods" at the shop around the corner in Berlin-Wedding or Duisburg or where-ever.
Without a moajor world economy crash I could only see the germans - for a short time - be able to create such a propagandistic narrative to increase partially emigration towards their colonies, redirecting some of what went to the americas IOTL, though probably not all. But IMO that would wind down relativly fast (somewhere during the thirties, forties ITTL at last IMO).
 
Perhaps there wouldn't be an Antarctic Treaty System, and so we'd colonies in Antarctica for the sake of dick-waving and/or resource exploitation(although I've no idea how economically plausible the latter would be).

Russia might grab Mongolia and parts of Northern China, and perhaps even Korea if a second Russo-Japanese war takes place.
 
Colonial powers no longer interested in expanding their colonies?

Hmm, I think that not all top powers would be in the same boat in this issue. Some would be happy with what they have, true: the British and the USA. But others, including the French, and then especially the newcomers (Germany, Italy, Japan, others) clearly showed, in the years just before WWI, that they still wanted larger slices. Think of the Agadir crisis: the French were not through with Morocco, and Germany and Spain wanted compensations. Think of the Italian war on Turkey that gave Italy Libya and the Dodecanesus. Think that Japan completed its annexation of Korea just in 1910.

So yes, those bits that are still out there would in all likelihood still need to fall under control of a colonial power. Others have already mentioned it, Ethiopia, Mongolia, Siam, and for the really hungry, the Ottoman Empire. Maybe the British and the USA would pass, this time; or maybe they'd decide they need to contain the competition by competing themselves. It's possible that they'd go for informal influence rather than direct colonial annexation, but they should beware; the French and the British thought they were vying for that in Addis Ababa, and that it would suffice, but brute force was shown to be able to trump that.
 
Top