Fewer Colonial Powers

[Beatriz]

During New Imperialism, there were a number of newer imperial powers - Germany, Italy, Japan, Belgium and America.
However, there are factors that could have resulted in these nations not seeking overseas Empire such as a Germany more focused on Europe, or a less smoother Japanese modernization combined with a stronger China locking out opportunity there.
One could even subtract the Netherlands from such a list given the British occupation of Indonesia during the Napoleonic wars.

What would the effect of a world with fewer colonial powers be?
Would it result in imperial overstretch?

 

[Beatriz]

Also, would these empires be entangled in world wars as much? WW1 in Europe began as a fight between Austria and Serbia and WW2 in Europe began with Germany invading Poland, so it doesn’t seem too major of a cause.

 

[how]

Spanish Empire wank, if the Iberian Union continues, the Dutch revolt is put down and the English are defeated then the entire new world would belong to Spain, if Spain had not lost their colonial primacy then France would not be able to establish its colonial holdings as it did IOTL or at least not the same extent though France might colonise the eastern seaboard instead of England/UK IOTL. The Spanish would also hold the Portuguese lands in Africa and Asia. Spain could conquer the East Indies aswell as colonise Oceania and Southern Africa. I don't think the Spanish would attempt a conquest of India in the fashion the British did, African holdings would probably be kept to the coasts, in this world Spain, France, the Ottomans and Russia would be the only European colonial powers, there would likely not be a scramble for Africa or at least it would not be the same as IOTL, another thing would be having Germany unified by a less militaristic faction, perhaps have Bavaria and the Southern German confederation unify Germany and be content with being more defensive and fiscally focused rather than expansionistic as the Prussians were, maybe going back and having the Catholics win the 30 years war and putting a stop to the Protestant north.

Without the British Empire I think Russia will conquer Persia due to the need for Indian Ocean access to essentially go around the Ottomans and access Africa, I think East Africa could be a Russian colonial target or you could have Russia instead become a guarantor of Ethiopia.

 

[Beatriz]

For a more modern POD could Britain, France and Portugal control roughly the same area as OTL’s 1920 if not more?

 

[Lusitania]

Spanish Empire wank, if the Iberian Union continues, the Dutch revolt is put down and the English are defeated then the entire new world would belong to Spain, if Spain had not lost their colonial primacy then France would not be able to establish its colonial holdings as it did IOTL or at least not the same extent though France might colonise the eastern seaboard instead of England/UK IOTL. The Spanish would also hold the Portuguese lands in Africa and Asia. Spain could conquer the East Indies aswell as colonise Oceania and Southern Africa. I don't think the Spanish would attempt a conquest of India in the fashion the British did, African holdings would probably be kept to the coasts, in this world Spain, France, the Ottomans and Russia would be the only European colonial powers, there would likely not be a scramble for Africa or at least it would not be the same as IOTL, another thing would be having Germany unified by a less militaristic faction, perhaps have Bavaria and the Southern German confederation unify Germany and be content with being more defensive and fiscally focused rather than expansionistic as the Prussians were, maybe going back and having the Catholics win the 30 years war and putting a stop to the Protestant north.

Without the British Empire I think Russia will conquer Persia due to the need for Indian Ocean access to essentially go around the Ottomans and access Africa, I think East Africa could be a Russian colonial target or you could have Russia instead become a guarantor of Ethiopia.

The difference is that Iberian Union was only in king. But each colonial empire stayed independent. That was one of the biggest dissolutions of Portuguese with the Iberian Union. No Spanish support

 

[how]

The difference is that Iberian Union was only in king. But each colonial empire stayed independent. That was one of the biggest dissolutions of Portuguese with the Iberian Union. No Spanish support

This is true but to me it seems the easiest way to limit or reduce the number of colonial powers without substantially changing the nature of European Imperialism. The Iberian Union only lasted for 80 years and during that period the Spanish Monarchy had to fight expensive and protracted wars and had numerous enemies limit the ammount of time that they had to integrate or merge the colonial empires. If the Spanish had been able to defeat the Dutch and English then they may well be spared the degree of involvement that they had in the 30 years war if it is not butterflied that is. Eventually the Spanish would want to completely merge the realms and thus their subjects together completing the subjugation of the Portuguese and its empire.

 

[Lusitania]

This is true but to me it seems the easiest way to limit or reduce the number of colonial powers without substantially changing the nature of European Imperialism. The Iberian Union only lasted for 80 years and during that period the Spanish Monarchy had to fight expensive and protracted wars and had numerous enemies limit the ammount of time that they had to integrate or merge the colonial empires. If the Spanish had been able to defeat the Dutch and English then they may well be spared the degree of involvement that they had in the 30 years war if it is not butterflied that is. Eventually the Spanish would want to completely merge the realms and thus their subjects together completing the subjugation of the Portuguese and its empire.

There never was an effort to unite Spain and Portugal nor its colonial empire. There was no desire for the Portuguese to become Spanish which meant their colonies be sacrificed to strengthen Spanish colonies. Spain cannot get out of the wars it was in and in that period of time it went bankrupt several times. So the idea that all wars be avoided disregards that other countries were both envious and afraid of Spain and worked vehemently to attack and support opposition to it.

 

[Vangogh]

dutch and belgian colonies could have easily been squeezed out of the colonial game. Belgian kongo especially was a lucky fluke. in

 

[Pax_Nihil]

Simply have Bismarck and the following governments not support the business interests who requested the annexation of their own spheres of influence, and Italy gets its butt kicked harder by Ethiopia for whatever reason hence not gaining Eritrea, which would probably be more than enough to put a damper on the ambition to take Libya from the Ottomans (though I think Italy may try harder to get Tunisia at the least otherwise its going to be a grumpy buckaroo, not that any of the real Great Powers would actually care).

Leopold II dies from venereal disease or a random staircase and boom no Congo Free State for Belgium to take, now you have three fewer colonial powers.

Japan is the only one who in my opinion has a drive to expand that would not be stifled all too easily, maybe it can be stopped from annexing Korea outright but I can't imagine how it wouldn't find a way to get the Ryukus and Taiwan.

 

[Insane Ranter]

During New Imperialism, there were a number of newer imperial powers - Germany, Italy, Japan, Belgium and America.
However, there are factors that could have resulted in these nations not seeking overseas Empire such as a Germany more focused on Europe, or a less smoother Japanese modernization combined with a stronger China locking out opportunity there.
One could even subtract the Netherlands from such a list given the British occupation of Indonesia during the Napoleonic wars.

What would the effect of a world with fewer colonial powers be?
Would it result in imperial overstretch?

Are we just keeping Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

By "new imperialism", I assume you mean post industrial revolution?

The colonial empires of the following countries date from before 1750:

Turkey
Portugal
Spain
Russia
UP or Netherlands
France
England or Britain

I assume these are grandfathered in by the phrase "new imperialism", though you could come up with pre-1750 PODs where the United Provinces and Kingdom of the Netherlands doesn't exist, or loses its entire colonial empire to Britain or France.

After the Napoleonic wars, they were joined in the "new imperialism" by these powers:

USA
Germany
Italy
Belgium
Japan

A United States with its 1783 Treaty of Paris boundaries is too powerful not to expand, and this includes the overseas possessions. And splitting it up later doesn't help, since at least one of the fragments will be powerful enough and motivated enough to acquire overseas colonies.

For the USA, Germany, Italy, and Belgium, the simplest POD is to prevent their formation as unified countries in the first place. While the Belgian Congo is quite easy to butterfly away, a unified Germany and Italy would acquire some colonies for prestige, and the Americans are both going to expand westward -plans were being made in the 18th century, and acquire overseas possessions due to business interests and the US navy.

With Japan, you can either keep China really powerful, keep Japan backwards and isolated from the rest of the world, or best yet have Japan itself become a colony. Note that it has to be at least one of these, and they are all difficult because pre-1850 Japan was heavily populated and not exactly backwards.

China itself I put in its own category. If China counts as a "new imperialism empire", have the Qing dynasty fall apart much earlier.

Better yet, delay the industrial revolution and/ or not have it take place in Europe.

 

[Beatriz]

Are we just keeping Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal?

Not necessarily

 

[Grey Wolf]

Maybe the Netherlands would have been more harshly punished if Napoleon hadn't deposed Louis, and the nation had remained an ally rather than a province?

Indonesia was a complicated thing, and still is! It was nothing like the 20th century swathe of Dutch territory as Britain still had lands in Sumatra, Aceh was independent, Portugal had greater claims that were still pushed etc. Add to that, of course, British occupation of the other important places in the war, and you could set it up so that post-war the Netherlands lose it all. Britain and Portugal would be the imperial winners here.

Now, during the 19th century the Dutch and Danes sold their West African possessions to Britain, and the Danes also ceded islands in the Bay of Bengal to them. However, both the Netherlands and Denmark continued to own islands in the Caribbean. Denmark would lose theirs in the First World War when the US forcibly purchased them. The Netherlands of course has them to do this day.

Sweden was gifted Saint Barts but later sold it to France after its capital Gustavia was wrecked in a hurricaine and Sweden didn't want to bear the cost of repair. It would be reasonably easy I would think not to have them given the island in the first place, perhaps simply given more money.

Germany and Italy obviously only got into the colonisation game after unification - you could retard this, have it happen differently or not at all, or simply have events play out differently, especially where Germany is concerned. Italy OTL lost out in Tunis and was furious, but they could have remained furious and unsuccessful - their next colonial adventures were defeat by the Abyssinians, and rebuff by the Chinese. Only in defeating the Ottomans in 1911 did they gain modern Libya, and the Dodecanese.

US imperialism probably has its most successful roots in Hawaii. Have Hawaii become an official British protectorate and the US won't get a foothold there. WIthout it, the distance to the Philippines seems much larger. If the Maine doesn't blow up, there might not be a Spanish-American War at all, so Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines etc remain Spanish, or battle for their independence at some date.

Arguably Russia is no more a colonial power in conquering Central Asia than the USA was in spreading West over the Indian lands, and taking land off Mexico, or the Ottoman Empire was in their conquests of Egypt or the Balkans. You can say these are imperialism as in empire-building, but not colonialism per se, certainly not in the modern sense.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

During New Imperialism, there were a number of newer imperial powers - Germany, Italy, Japan, Belgium and America.
However, there are factors that could have resulted in these nations not seeking overseas Empire such as a Germany more focused on Europe, or a less smoother Japanese modernization combined with a stronger China locking out opportunity there.
One could even subtract the Netherlands from such a list given the British occupation of Indonesia during the Napoleonic wars.

What would the effect of a world with fewer colonial powers be?
Would it result in imperial overstretch?

I noticed you didn't mention a situation in which America didn't get into the colonial adventure

Anyway, here's a rough breakdown of what I believe could result from the lack of colonial initiative from Germany, Italy, Japan and Belgium:
1)Tripoli-Cyrenaica-Benghazi (basically Libya) would likely remain under Turkish rule until either France or Britain negotiated with the Ottoman Empire for the cession of the territories as a buffer between their existing North African colonies and dependencies, and those of their rivals. It's also possible that a Barbary state could fully break away from Turkish suzerainty and become a regional power in the Mediterranean, devoted to piracy in which even their former overlords would no longer be immune.

2)Congo Basin - As the cession of the Congo Basin to Belgium was meant as a compromise to prevent a major Franco-German colonial conflict which would've spilled into Europe in the post-Franco-Prussian War period in which France was looking for any reason to launch a campaign to recover Alsace-Lorraine, should this no longer be possible, there would either have to be a major partition of the basin region amongst the closest colonial powers or there would be conflict. Only good thing about this scenario is that there would be no Belgian atrocities committed against the native population. On the other hand, this could be replaced by atrocities committed by a different colonial power.

3)Far East - Germany had little in the way of concessions from China when compared to Britain, France, Japan, even Russia. The decline of Spanish power in the Pacific as a result of the post-Napoleonic Slump would open the door to partition of their few remaining Pacific colonies between Britain, France, Japan and possibly America. Japan would be a likely participant because they may get into the colonial game too late to secure their influence in Korea and Manchuria due to heavy Russian influence and/or military occupation.

As for the other areas of Africa which in OTL Germany did colonize, those would most likely have gone to a different European power such as Britain or France. This would result in a major clash between the two nations and could possibly delay the Entente Cordiale which they later agreed..if not prevent it entirely,

The only possible way America would avoid becoming a colonial power would be due to economic and military weakness resulting from the Civil War, although should the South manage to achieve independence in the war, they would likely immediately swing into colonialism with the purchase or conquest of Cuba from Spain.