How would the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890 be different if Bismarck was still Chancellor of Germany? I read that he hated the out come of the agreements and apparently he said, "We traded trousers for a button". How would the map of Africa change if it would change at all?
 
Last edited:
How would the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890 be different if Bismarck was still Chancellor of Germany? I read that he hated the out come of the agreements and apparently he said, "We treated trousers for a button". How would the map of Africa change if it would change at all?
Is it possible the he was just criticizing the government for the sake of criticizing the government. He was not a big believer in Colonial imperialism.
 
If Germany retains a larger interest in East Africa, then in addition to Tanzania they maybe seek to expand influence in Kenya and eventually parts of the Horn? This may impact Italy's expansion into Somalia.
 
Is it possible the he was just criticizing the government for the sake of criticizing the government. He was not a big believer in Colonial imperialism.
Should he not then have approved of Germany getting rid of a colony in return for territory closer to home?
 
If Germany retains a larger interest in East Africa, then in addition to Tanzania they maybe seek to expand influence in Kenya and eventually parts of the Horn? This may impact Italy's expansion into Somalia.
I don't think Bismarck would threaten the new triple alliance with Italy for colonies in Somalia. Maybe he would want compensation in British Solmalia but will are the British willing to give up there base in the Red Sea? Maybe he can get British Solmalia in exchange for Togoland but Britain had shown zero interest in West Africa and at this time, British colonial policy revoled around protecting India.
 
Should he not then have approved of Germany getting rid of a colony in return for territory closer to home?
That is true. At the end of the Franco-Prussian War, the French offered there Protectorate in Vietnam instead of Alsace-Lorraine, Bismarck refused and demanded Alsace-Lorraine.
 
This is a little off topic but why did enterprises like the German West Africa Company and German East Africa Company fail in governing the Colonies, while the British South Africa Company, British Great Lakes Company, and Royal Nigeria Company were successful in Governing the there colonies?
 
Last edited:
Should he not then have approved of Germany getting rid of a colony in return for territory closer to home?
With the possible exception of permission to integrate Luxenberg there is not an inch of territory in Europe that could be traded for an African colony
 
What do you mean? They got Heligoland - European territory - for Zanzibar.
You make my point for me, they traded a prosperous Indian ocean trade port for A small barely habited island in the North Sea (albeit near important European shipping lanes).

Major concession in Africa for A minor gain in Europe, I can totally see Bismarck using German colonies as bargaining chips four minor gains in Europe.
 
You make my point for me, they traded a prosperous Indian ocean trade port for A small barely habited island in the North Sea (albeit near important European shipping lanes).

Major concession in Africa for A minor gain in Europe, I can totally see Bismarck using German colonies as bargaining chips four minor gains in Europe.
I mean with Heligoland Germany will have a naval base in the North Sea and control of the entrance to the Rhine river
 
After Bismarck was forced to resign he was extremely bitter and also working on his own legend.
So his criticism of his successor should be seen in that light.

He might have done exactly the same.
 
So think we call can agree that Bismarck would have done the same thing and the he was just criticizing the government just to criticize the government.

But like I asked why did the German West Africa Company and German East Africa Company fail in governing the colonies, the British South Africa Company and British Great Lakes Company were successful in running the Colonies. Especially since Bismarck preferred corporate rule for Colonies over government rule.
 
The Treaty really wasn't anything special that Bismarck wouldn't have done either, trading claims that would be very impractical to uphold for goodwill, diplomatic capital and the ability to better defend the very important Kiel Canal.

But like I asked why did the German West Africa Company and German East Africa Company fail in governing the colonies, the British South Africa Company and British Great Lakes Company were successful in running the Colonies. Especially since Bismarck preferred corporate rule for Colonies over government rule.
Because those areas were not as rich as the ones seized by the British Companies, and those firms were hastily drawn up as tools of German influence.
One does not simply conjure profits where everything has to be explored, subjugated, then built and only afterwards could be safely exploited.
 
Germany also got the Caprivi Strip in South West Africa as part of the deal and a guarantee of her colonial boundaries from the world's largest naval power, Heligoland would have been real useful in keeping German ports open in a war against France Russia only. It also settled any open issues with Britain, which Caprivi considered more important than other considerations. Germany could have done better negotiating in areas like the Orange river valley in South West Africa, maybe got a little bit of the Volta delta in Togo but it's really minor issues.
 
Top