U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2013, 05:40 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,857,055 times
Reputation: 1877

Advertisements

How would the colonial empires of various countries have looked after World War I had Germany ended up winning World War I?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-20-2013, 03:42 PM
 
28,900 posts, read 48,723,636 times
Reputation: 46238
Well, let's make an educated guess.

If it were a short war, á la the Franco Prussian War, then probably not much of a change.

If it were a long war, then it would be stickier. For the British and Japanese would have likely taken the German colonies regardless of the outcome in Europe. The British might have returned them to the Germans at the end of the hostilities, but the Japanese might have said, "Make me." Hard to imagine the Germans steaming all the way around the world to retake the Marshall Islands.

Interestingly enough, when I was checking a fact on this, I discovered that various German states actually had brief possession of colonies in the New World, notably in what are now the Virgin Islands.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 07:38 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,457 posts, read 10,660,713 times
Reputation: 7032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
How would the colonial empires of various countries have looked after World War I had Germany ended up winning World War I?
Belgium Congo to Germany. The price of Belgium getting its independence back. Even then some in the German military wanted to keep Belgium itself.

French Congo to Germany. Morocco given its independence from France. The bare minimum I think the Germans would ask from the French.

Portuguese African colonies to Germany. Angola and Mozambique. Portugal, an ancient ally of England (Anglo-Portuguese Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), seized German and Austrian ships at Britain's request in 1916. The punishment if Germany won the war, might have been the Portuguese colonies in Africa in which Germany was interested anyway.

Italian Libya to the Ottoman Empire. The Italians had seized Libya from a weakened Ottoman Empire just a few years before WW1. It seems likely that the Turks would have gotten Libya and the Dodecanese Islands back if the Central Powers won the war.

The Germans may have received additional French colonies plus likely the remainder of the Italian colonies. If the Germans won really big (such as a successful U-Boat campaign against the British) they may have received British territory plus demanded independence for the Boers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Turn right at the stop sign
1,622 posts, read 2,774,361 times
Reputation: 3338
A blueprint of sorts does exist for what the Germans imagined the world would look like once they achieved victory. On September 9, 1914, the chancellor of Germany, Theobald Bethmann Hollweg prepared a memorandum which outlined what he believed Germany's war aims should be. The goal of the so-called "September Program" was to provide "security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time". First and foremost, France would be permanently eliminated as a world power. She would cede territory to Germany which would include Belfort, the western Vosges, the region of Briey-Longwy, and a strip of coastline stretching from Dunkirk to Boulogne. France would also be forced to pay war reparations which would make it impossible for her to rearm for fifteen to twenty years as well as sign a trade agreement that would make what remained of France economically dependent on Germany.

As for the rest of Western Europe, Belgium and Luxembourg would cease to exist as independent states. The Belgians would be forced to surrender Liege, Verviers, and Antwerp to the Germans. The resulting rump state would be placed under permanent German military occupation and be integrated into the German economic sphere. Luxembourg would be absorbed into Germany itself and become a new state within the German Reich. Bethmann Hollweg also proposed the creation of a Central European customs union that would make Germany the center of all industrial, technological, and financial activity on the European continent, thus allowing Germany to economically dominate the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Romania. In the east, Russia would be reduced to the borders that existed at the time of Peter the Great. Additionally, a buffer would be established between Germany and Russia by either the annexation or creation of satellite states from formerly Russian controlled territory such as Poland, Courland, Lithuania, Finland, and Ukraine. The program also imagined that German ties with the Ottoman Empire would continue after the end of the war, and that completion of the "Berlin to Baghdad" railway would allow Germany to extend its influence into the Middle East.

In Africa, Bethmann Hollweg envisioned the construction of a large Central African colony that would extend from Africa's eastern to western coast and which would tie together all of Germany's existing colonial possessions there with the exception of Togo. This colony (or Mittleafrika as it was referred to) would serve as a secondary market for Germany's industrial exports. "Mittleafrika" would come into being by the annexation of the Belgian Congo, as well as the French and Portuguese colonies of French Equatorial Africa, Dahomey, Senegal, Gambia, Angola, and Mozambique. What should be noted is the absence of any demands or expectations of territorial gains at the expense of the British even though in this scenario, Britain "lost" the war. This is in large part due to the fact that the Germans did not seek the destruction of Britain or its empire. Instead, they simply wanted Britain to accept Germany as the dominant economic power in Europe and to attempt to peacefully coexist on that basis. The Germans also believed that Britain would not object to the formation of "Mittleafrika" because no British colonies were necessary or required for its creation.

Of course, the "September Program" sprang from a moment in time when the Germans believed they were close to winning the war and was meant to serve as a possible basis for a negotiated peace with Britain. The German defeat during the "Battle of the Marne" and the resulting stalemate that developed on the Western Front awoke everyone to the fact that the war might well last longer than anyone anticipated. And though the "September Program" remained the guiding document of Germany's war aims until the signing of the armistice in 1918, few within the German government believed that the goals set out by Bethmann Hollweg were either realistic or even remotely achievable after 1914.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2013, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,206 posts, read 10,934,148 times
Reputation: 5274
Interesting question Futurist 110.

Thanks TonyT for the summary of the September program.

LINative much to ponder there.

LINative, I can see all of what you suggest except the Portuguese re-alignment. And this holds true for the September program's creation of Mittelafrika as well. The seizure of the Portuguese colonies would have required either their physical occupation by German armies in Africa, or the physical occupation of Portugal. Under any realistic victory scenario, no one here is proposing that even a victorious German army in WWI would have had the means to go sailing around the world occupying territory. And that folds in well with CPGs comment about the Marshall Islands that a victorious Germany may not have gotten those islands back. Or under this "what if" scenario, are we anticipating a Germany so victorious that they occupied ALL of France, expanded the war by marching into Spain, and then into Portugal?

Given the incapacity of Germany to pursue a maritime martial strategy, we are left with exchanging the occupation of European homelands for the transfer of colonies. That means Belgian Congo and some French colonies, which, as pointed out would most likely be both French and Belgian Congos along with Morocco because of the previous crisis involving that country.

Now, if we DO assume a German Army which marched all the way to Lisbon, through Spain. That means they could have picked up Spanish Sahara along with Morocco and Spanish Guinea along with the French and Belgian Congos, and the Portuguese possessions, bringing about the creation of Mittelafrika.

Thinking further, if they were THIS victorious, they could have occupied the Netherlands and extracted Indonesia in return. However, Surinam and French Guiana would have gotten their independence because the US would have prevented their transfer to Germany, as the US would have prevented the transfer of any of the Lesser Antilles to Germany. And finally, would they then have invaded Denmark and gotten Iceland in return for Danish independence? Could they have kept it? Or could they have kept Denmark and let the less valuable Iceland slip away? But these final scenarios really are beyond the plausible for WWI (but not WWII!).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2013, 12:35 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,457 posts, read 10,660,713 times
Reputation: 7032
Quote:
Originally Posted by kettlepot View Post
Interesting question Futurist 110.

Thanks TonyT for the summary of the September program.

LINative much to ponder there.

LINative, I can see all of what you suggest except the Portuguese re-alignment. And this holds true for the September program's creation of Mittelafrika as well. The seizure of the Portuguese colonies would have required either their physical occupation by German armies in Africa, or the physical occupation of Portugal. Under any realistic victory scenario, no one here is proposing that even a victorious German army in WWI would have had the means to go sailing around the world occupying territory. And that folds in well with CPGs comment about the Marshall Islands that a victorious Germany may not have gotten those islands back. Or under this "what if" scenario, are we anticipating a Germany so victorious that they occupied ALL of France, expanded the war by marching into Spain, and then into Portugal?

Given the incapacity of Germany to pursue a maritime martial strategy, we are left with exchanging the occupation of European homelands for the transfer of colonies. That means Belgian Congo and some French colonies, which, as pointed out would most likely be both French and Belgian Congos along with Morocco because of the previous crisis involving that country.

Now, if we DO assume a German Army which marched all the way to Lisbon, through Spain. That means they could have picked up Spanish Sahara along with Morocco and Spanish Guinea along with the French and Belgian Congos, and the Portuguese possessions, bringing about the creation of Mittelafrika.

Thinking further, if they were THIS victorious, they could have occupied the Netherlands and extracted Indonesia in return. However, Surinam and French Guiana would have gotten their independence because the US would have prevented their transfer to Germany, as the US would have prevented the transfer of any of the Lesser Antilles to Germany. And finally, would they then have invaded Denmark and gotten Iceland in return for Danish independence? Could they have kept it? Or could they have kept Denmark and let the less valuable Iceland slip away? But these final scenarios really are beyond the plausible for WWI (but not WWII!).
Hi Kettlepot.

Regarding Portugal, I am guessing that with a Germany victory, the British and especially the French would have been willing to sacrifice Portuguese territory instead of their own at a peace conference. So there will no need for the Germans to actually occupy Portugal, because the Portuguese would have been deserted by her great power allies.

Also keep in mind Imperial Germany had either the second or third largest navy by 1918 (Britain was first, not sure about the USA and Germany). Without allies, there is nothing that Portugal could do if Germany blockaded the Portuguese coast with a dozen plus dreadnaught battleships. Also, Germany had colonies next to the big Portuguese colonies (German SW Africa next to Portuguese Angola & German East Africa next to Portuguese Mozambique. Germany could have built up her forces in these colonies and moved into the Portuguese territories at will.

Your last paragraph is interesting because no one knows what a victorious WW1 Germany would have done further. Still the Kaiser/Imperial Germany was not evil the way Hitler/Nazi Germany were. IMO, after the war I do not think that Imperial Germany would have invaded neutral countries like the Netherlands and Denmark - but who knows?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2013, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,206 posts, read 10,934,148 times
Reputation: 5274
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Hi Kettlepot.

Regarding Portugal, I am guessing that with a Germany victory, the British and especially the French would have been willing to sacrifice Portuguese territory instead of their own at a peace conference. So there will no need for the Germans to actually occupy Portugal, because the Portuguese would have been deserted by her great power allies.

Also keep in mind Imperial Germany had either the second or third largest navy by 1918 (Britain was first, not sure about the USA and Germany). Without allies, there is nothing that Portugal could do if Germany blockaded the Portuguese coast with a dozen plus dreadnaught battleships. Also, Germany had colonies next to the big Portuguese colonies (German SW Africa next to Portuguese Angola & German East Africa next to Portuguese Mozambique. Germany could have built up her forces in these colonies and moved into the Portuguese territories at will.

Your last paragraph is interesting because no one knows what a victorious WW1 Germany would have done further. Still the Kaiser/Imperial Germany was not evil the way Hitler/Nazi Germany were. IMO, after the war I do not think that Imperial Germany would have invaded neutral countries like the Netherlands and Denmark - but who knows?
I hadn't thought about a German blockade of the Portuguese coast, but that could only have occurred with the destruction of the British Navy. The destruction of their navy might have been a pre-condition of the victory we are discussing here, but my scenario assumed only a German land victory. Other than the U-boats, the Germany Navy didn't accomplish much of anything.

Regarding the German colonies in Africa, and their proximity to the Portuguese colonies, I had thought about that. Again, I figured the British Navy would have prevented any sort of re-supply or build up in Tanzania and Namibia. Both a build up in Namibia in preparation for an invasion of Angola, and a build up in Tanzania for an invasion of Mozambique would have been threats to Britain's gold mine in South Africa. During the war, and at the peace conference, the British would have had every reason to support Portugal's continued possession of Mozambique. During the war, if a Namibian build up had occurred, the greater resources of the South Africans beyond anything the Germans could hope to ferry to Namibia would have prevented an invasion of Angola by the Germans. For safety's sake, the South Africans would have had to view themselves as the target, not Angola.

So, the pattern I keep seeing in my scenario is a defeated and occupied France and Belgium, but a Britain that was not defeated, but which had determined continued pursuit of the continental war was no longer in her interests. They still would have had control of the seas and thus could have protected the Portuguese coast from blockade and never would have abandoned Mozambique to the Germans. Angola, hmmm... maybe they would have been ok with transferring Angola to the Germans.

In the end, what I appear to be describing is what Europe looked like in June 1940, with Britain run by a Chamberlain/Halifax cabinet rather than a Churchill cabinet. Only during WWI, a 'defeated' Britain would have been less vulnerable than a still fighting Britain was in 1940 because there was no real threat from the air during the earlier period.

My conclusion: thank God for Churchill.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2013, 08:50 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,457 posts, read 10,660,713 times
Reputation: 7032
Quote:
Originally Posted by kettlepot View Post
I hadn't thought about a German blockade of the Portuguese coast, but that could only have occurred with the destruction of the British Navy. The destruction of their navy might have been a pre-condition of the victory we are discussing here, but my scenario assumed only a German land victory. Other than the U-boats, the Germany Navy didn't accomplish much of anything.

Regarding the German colonies in Africa, and their proximity to the Portuguese colonies, I had thought about that. Again, I figured the British Navy would have prevented any sort of re-supply or build up in Tanzania and Namibia. Both a build up in Namibia in preparation for an invasion of Angola, and a build up in Tanzania for an invasion of Mozambique would have been threats to Britain's gold mine in South Africa. During the war, and at the peace conference, the British would have had every reason to support Portugal's continued possession of Mozambique. During the war, if a Namibian build up had occurred, the greater resources of the South Africans beyond anything the Germans could hope to ferry to Namibia would have prevented an invasion of Angola by the Germans. For safety's sake, the South Africans would have had to view themselves as the target, not Angola.

So, the pattern I keep seeing in my scenario is a defeated and occupied France and Belgium, but a Britain that was not defeated, but which had determined continued pursuit of the continental war was no longer in her interests. They still would have had control of the seas and thus could have protected the Portuguese coast from blockade and never would have abandoned Mozambique to the Germans. Angola, hmmm... maybe they would have been ok with transferring Angola to the Germans.

In the end, what I appear to be describing is what Europe looked like in June 1940, with Britain run by a Chamberlain/Halifax cabinet rather than a Churchill cabinet. Only during WWI, a 'defeated' Britain would have been less vulnerable than a still fighting Britain was in 1940 because there was no real threat from the air during the earlier period.

My conclusion: thank God for Churchill.
Sorry for the delayed response Kettlepot, I been busy for a few days.

Yes, it appears we are talking about two different things. You are talking about if France surrenders and Britain fights on (as happened in WW2). In that case, Germany could not directly get at Portugal as long as the British control the sea.

However I am going by the OPs original question - what happens if Germany won the war. I was assuming in my case that Britain and Germany came to some kind of terms.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,206 posts, read 10,934,148 times
Reputation: 5274
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Sorry for the delayed response Kettlepot, I been busy for a few days.

Yes, it appears we are talking about two different things. You are talking about if France surrenders and Britain fights on (as happened in WW2). In that case, Germany could not directly get at Portugal as long as the British control the sea.

However I am going by the OPs original question - what happens if Germany won the war. I was assuming in my case that Britain and Germany came to some kind of terms.
My post is even further delayed. I forgot all about this thread.

My case assumes Britain and Germany have come to terms as well. However, it is based on a negotiated peace with a relative but not complete German victory. Germany in WWI would never have had the capability to completely defeat and occupy Britain. However, in this scenario Britain comes to terms to end the war along with France and Belgium with the latter two suffering the most colonial losses for the return of their national homelands.

I believe Britain would have objected strongly to having a German pincer on both the western and eastern borders of South Africa, and in this scenario Germany would not have been in physical possession of Namibia, would not have taken Mozambique from Portugal during the war, and would still have lost effective control of Tanganyika (Tanzania). The Britain of this scenario while a relative loser, would still have had the capability and bargaining power to prevent this threat to its South African interests.

India may have been the figurative "Jewel in the Crown," but South Africa literally supplied the jewels in the crown.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
17,388 posts, read 16,088,491 times
Reputation: 17260
I guess I have a hard time believing that a single victory could overcome the fact that the Germans were about 100 years too late to the imperialist expansion game. It seems that they would have a difficult time acquiring more than a couple new territories outside of the empire. Suppose they acquired land in the Congo... What's to stop the local population from revolting after their original rulers vacate? Changes in ownership and rule would prove to be an attractive opportunity for local populous to stretch their muscles a bit.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top