kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <1148146118.045278.316910@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> JoergRadd@yahoo.de (=3D?iso-8859-1?B?SvZyZw=3D=3D?=3D) wrote:
>
> > They felt entitled to all the older states like the UK and
> > Frence had, like an overseas empire
>
> Yes, however the way they went about it could have been more
> diplomatic. After all the first German colonies were acquired by
> Bismark without upsetting anybody.
>
> Ken Young
And that were nearly all colonies Germany ever got: Togo, Cameroon,
SWA, EastA, New Guinea, all in the time ofr Bismarck.
Only the Pacific islands came later.
Hm, given the fascination Germany later had with "Mittelafrika", have
we ever discussed the possibility of Germany acquiring the Congo area
instead of Leopold II? I willume the idea is that Germany does not
need lots of colonies scattered all around, but one large, potentially
profitable area to explore and exploit. So they would probably try to
trade (most of) the other new possessions in order to insure that, yes,
they get the Congo.
I am aware that common barteering for territory would not do, but
convincing the UK (in the 1880s) that Germany will never pose a serious
naval threat and that they would be better as keepers of the Congo than
the French might work - perhaps.
One selling point might actually be that compared to a Belgian-based
company, Germany would actually be strong enough to keep France from
simply violating the borders of Congo and annexing small parts. Leopold
II could not deter France with the prospect of starting an European war
over this, but the Second Reich could.
I suspect that Bismarck might have been able to actually pull it off,
had he wished to do so, but that would of course demand a complete
change of his postions on this.
J=F6rg
|
