No Berlin Conference

[eDGT]

So what happens?  Does Europe descend into war thirty years ahead of schedule?  Or is the BC replaced by a series of smaller conferences and talks which carve up Africa very differently to how we saw IOTL?

For added fun you can play with German and non-German scenarios, assuming that Bismark was the key to both German unification and the Conference, and thus experimenting with him removed from the picture.

[MinnesotaNationalist]

we're going to see a lot more crisises like the Morocco Crisis and the Fashoda Incident, especially because the principal of effective occupation wouldn't be a thing, so just about any ol' explorer can plant a flag on the ground or a diplomat a line a cross a map and declare that this area belonged to their country or sphere of influence, and never actually return to it, allowing other European empires to come and claim it as their own. Eventually, the competing claims will be found out and a crisis emerge.

[Krall]

Is it possible that, without the principle of effective occupation, more of Africa would've survived the era of European colonialism unscathed? Without the establishment of an administration being a requirement for claiming territory, it would be possible for European powers to claim land with less direct interference and control as they had in OTL. That said, without a framework for resolving colonial disputes it's possible that European powers would fund and fight proxy wars between native states and communities, which would be devastating for their population, development, and post-colonial peace.

[eDGT]

Mar 7, 2017 18:50:04 GMT MinnesotaNationalist said:

we're going to see a lot more crisises like the Morocco Crisis and the Fashoda Incident, especially because the principal of effective occupation wouldn't be a thing, so just about any ol' explorer can plant a flag on the ground or a diplomat a line a cross a map and declare that this area belonged to their country or sphere of influence, and never actually return to it, allowing other European empires to come and claim it as their own. Eventually, the competing claims will be found out and a crisis emerge.

Ah yes but wouldn't there also be more opportunities for compromise as well?  After all when crisis emerged IOTL they hashed out a deal, and it's more or less the same people here too.  There'll be a lot more colony swapping and special deals made if there's a lot more conflicting claims.  Hell maybe we'll see more co-dominions as well?  Britain and France can't decide who holds western Sudan, boom, co-dominion!

Mar 7, 2017 20:36:58 GMT Krall said:

Is it possible that, without the principle of effective occupation, more of Africa would've survived the era of European colonialism unscathed? Without the establishment of an administration being a requirement for claiming territory, it would be possible for European powers to claim land with less direct interference and control as they had in OTL. That said, without a framework for resolving colonial disputes it's possible that European powers would fund and fight proxy wars between native states and communities, which would be devastating for their population, development, and post-colonial peace.

That's very interesting, though I think I'd be a bit more optimistic though. I'd say a lot of post-colonial woe in Africa stems from the systems left behind by full European control. Take Nigeria, or Uganda. Britain just walked out and left the heads of big tribes in charge, they want to cement their power and build "nations" like the Europeans have, which means they're going to have to step on a bunch of ethnic, religious, and tribal minorities. In this scenario though things are more "organic" (for want of a better word). Britain, France, Germany etc pick their proxies to expand and work for them. They'll be brutal and bloody but at the end of it all there are clear dominant powers in the area, with clear borders no massive minority groups who might object to the situation because they all got driven out. In a backwards way that might actually lead to more peace in Africa, just as how our own religious and ethnic conflicts have eventually lead to relative peace in Europe.

There'd be a lot less development though. We all know if Europeans could have taken all the roads, rails, and towns with them when they left a colony they most definitely would have. There'll probably still be transport networks but I doubt there'll be much building done in the interior. Though that'll probably be good for the locals in the long run.

[Krall]

Mar 8, 2017 0:50:55 GMT eDGT said:

Ah yes but wouldn't there also be more opportunities for compromise as well?  After all when crisis emerged IOTL they hashed out a deal, and it's more or less the same people here too.  There'll be a lot more colony swapping and special deals made if there's a lot more conflicting claims.  Hell maybe we'll see more co-dominions as well?  Britain and France can't decide who holds western Sudan, boom, co-dominion!

I dunno about that. The colonisation of Africa was something of a zero-sum game - countries wanted to claim regions in part to strengthen themselves, but also to deny them to their rivals. Co-dominions between allies might be possible (a British-Portuguese co-dominion to solve the "Pink Map" issue might be interesting), but rivals are more likely to place pressure on each other and escalate incidents instead of compromising.

Mar 8, 2017 0:50:55 GMT eDGT said:

That's very interesting, though I think I'd be a bit more optimistic though. I'd say a lot of post-colonial woe in Africa stems from the systems left behind by full European control. Take Nigeria, or Uganda. Britain just walked out and left the heads of big tribes in charge, they want to cement their power and build "nations" like the Europeans have, which means they're going to have to step on a bunch of ethnic, religious, and tribal minorities. In this scenario though things are more "organic" (for want of a better word). Britain, France, Germany etc pick their proxies to expand and work for them. They'll be brutal and bloody but at the end of it all there are clear dominant powers in the area, with clear borders no massive minority groups who might object to the situation because they all got driven out. In a backwards way that might actually lead to more peace in Africa, just as how our own religious and ethnic conflicts have eventually lead to relative peace in Europe.

There'd be a lot less development though. We all know if Europeans could have taken all the roads, rails, and towns with them when they left a colony they most definitely would have. There'll probably still be transport networks but I doubt there'll be much building done in the interior. Though that'll probably be good for the locals in the long run.

I'm not sure about the lower level of development - in OTL colonial development in Africa was specifically designed around economically exploiting the colonies for the benefit of the metropole, meaning things like communication and transport infrastructure generally connected parts of a colony directly to the metropole and not to each other. If the development of colonial Africa is left more up to Africans, they're more likely to prioritise the development of infrastructure that connects parts of their country together, rather than funneling everything out to Europe. Especially if they're responsible for keeping the peace using police and military forces, since their base of operations would be within the country rather than in Europe.

If Europe in this scenario does take a more "hands-off" approach to governing Africa then I believe it would help a huge amount with easing the transition to independent, post-colonial countries. In OTL African countries were woefully unprepared for independence, with Africans having little to no experience in governing and extremely poor education overall. Assuming Europe essentially appoints local monarchs to rule on their behalf, these monarchs and their governments would be primarily African with European advisors, meaning there'd be a sizable body of Africans with experience in governing. It's also likely that these monarchs would send their children to European universities and schools, and Africans would need to be educated to participate in the government, so there's likely to be more educated Africans upon independence (though education facilities within the countries themselves would still be severely lacking).

Though even if Europe rules through native monarchs, people in the country would still resent European rule and would most likely revolt to overthrow Europe's proxy kings in many cases. That said, they might just kick out the old kings and replace them with more progressive, anti-colonial princes, which would help maintain a continuity of government. Assuming history otherwise goes similarly to OTL and decolonisation happens during a Cold War equivalent, both sides would likely fund a lot of rebel movements and prop up a variety of corrupt dictatorships as in OTL, which isn't going to make things any better.