Africa under colonialism

I'm gonna build the railroad and make the Germans pay for it!

>Lettow-Vorbeck
how can one man be so based?

Firstly, Rhodes' ambitions does not reflect British Foreign policy. He didn't have that much influence.

Had Portugal gained the corridor, Britain would have Rhodesia landlocked. It NEEDED the Corridor or they wouldn't be able to transport goods to and from Rhodesia at all.

Which sounds more reasonable:
>Portugal gets the corridor despite it not really being necessary, Rhodesia is landlocked and is now fucked in terms of trade

>Britain gains the Corridor, gives Portugal a smaller panhandle territory anyway as a way of saying 'We know you were here first, but we genuinely need this corridor, sorry'

You're being childish and you know it.

It's about time we bring back the Liberal Party in his name, get rid of the jokes that are the current ones

>the guy who Rhodesia was named after and who pushed the most for the ultimatum didn't have that much influence.

Sure thing, mate. It's absolutely more logical and reasonable to think that Rhodes founded Rhodesia in order to gain the corridor to begin with. So either he was influential and he personally wanted the railroad, or he wasn't that influential and Britain itself wanted it (aligning with Rhodes' wishes by chance).

You're being way too defensive.

>the guy who Rhodesia was named after and who pushed the most for the ultimatum didn't have that much influence.

He pushed for the ultimatum, but his influence in the Berlin conference is negligible. You're grasping at straws.

>It's absolutely more logical and reasonable to think that Rhodes founded Rhodesia in order to gain the corridor to begin with.

Rhodesia was founded as a northern expansion of the South African territory. Portugal had no real claim to the land. as this was before they requested it at the Berlin conference.

>So either he was influential and he personally wanted the railroad, or he wasn't that influential and Britain itself wanted it

Britain literally just wanted the corridor to connect Rhodesia with south Africa, as a railroad was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO NOT OWNING TANGANYIKA

Britain had no plans to try and gain Tanganyika from Germany, it was given to them at Versailles as they bordered it far more than France.

Rhodes ran the South African company that founded Rhodesia "as a northern expansion of South African territory", pushed for the ultimatum of 1890, and went public with his plan for the railroad a mere 2 years afterwards. If you believe that wasn't his plan all along, you're either ignorant of the importance of railroads at the time or retarded.

On the other hand, if you believe that Rhodes wanted the railroad from the start like any reasonable person would, you have to admit that even if the British government at large didn't agree with him, they were awfully lenient with letting him have what he wanted. And given that the railroad would be a major geopolitical asset, I find that position untenable to begin with.

I don't deny anything you said, but you're missing the point.

The point is, the Ultimatum was controlled by the British government, not Rhodes, and the British government had no way of building the railroad without Tanganyika, they only cared about the Mozambique angola corridor so Rhodesia would not be landlocked. It's just this also fit in with rhodes' long term ambition of a continuous African colony.

Let's say you're right, and the whole debacle was so Britain could have a continuous African colony they could build a railroad over, how is that any different from the motives of the Portuguese?

It's really that simple.

>how is that any different from the motives of the Portuguese?
It's literally not, which is why I said I would call it a Portuguese tantrum if they had taken the lands from the British with a ultimatum instead (and call the British cucks if they went with it).

Good on yout for having consistency, but as I said, it wasn't about a railroad, it was about not landlocking rhodesia.

How is it a tantrum to demand things in your own interest, anyway?

>How is it a tantrum to demand things in your own interest, anyway?
The way every single tantrum is exactly that? Why else would anybody throw a tantrum if not to demand things for their own interest?

If Britain didn't consider any plans for a railroad, chances are that it wouldn't have allowed the foundation of Rhodesia to begin with, lest it starts a conflict with its oldest ally who either claimed that land or impeded access to it (along with the similarly allied Belgium and the enemy-of-their-(traditional)-enemy Germany). The British government weren't idiots, they knew what would most likely happen as a natural consequence of expanding where Rhodesia was. And if the problem was having Rhodesia landlocked, they could have instead proposed a corridor towards the Indian Ocean that still let the Portuguese keep its claims and unite Angola and Mozambique. Instead, they very clearly expanded at the expense of the Portuguese claims as if trying to unite their northern and southern colonies in the long term.

>If Britain didn't consider any plans for a railroad, chances are that it wouldn't have allowed the foundation of Rhodesia to begin with

It was not claimed land. Britain wanted northern territory for south africa.

Why would they establish african colonies so they could build a railroad over them? that makes no sense, you build a railroad FOR african Colonies, not the reverse.

> And if the problem was having Rhodesia landlocked, they could have instead proposed a corridor towards the Indian Ocean that still let the Portuguese keep its claims and unite Angola and Mozambique.

A 500 mile corridor? are you retarded?

>Instead, they very clearly expanded at the expense of the Portuguese claims as if trying to unite their northern and southern colonies in the long term.

The Portugese had no real claim, they just wanted Mozambique and Angola connected. Britain genuinely needed Rhodesia to be connected to south Africa, or as we've been over, it'd be landlocked.

At least paradox players try to carve out nice looking, connected swathes of land rather than this border gore.

Having a railroad reinforces the British position in Africa and makes it easier to expand outwards (whether by establishing settlements a la Rhodesia and using diplomacy, or in the event of war). Remember that there was no reason to believe that Europeans would actually get out of Africa in the foreseeable future, so playing a long game was exactly a good strategy.

The Portuguese would much sooner grant a 1000 km corridor than losing the chance to build their own railroad across southern/central Africa. They granted way more land than any reasonable corridor would have meant, to begin with, and distance-wise the ocean is even closer than the South Africa border (which isn't even the start of the sea) so it even benefits the Brits if all they want is access to Rhodesia. So I'm the one that must ask you if you are retarded, seeing as you dismiss the more reasonable solution.

>Britain genuinely needed Rhodesia to be connected to south Africa
And the child throwing a tantrum in Walmart genuinely wants his Power Rangers toy.

That's mostly because sea movement in paradox games is absolutely horrible.

>Having a railroad reinforces the British position in Africa and makes it easier to expand outwards (whether by establishing settlements a la Rhodesia and using diplomacy, or in the event of war). Remember that there was no reason to believe that Europeans would actually get out of Africa in the foreseeable future, so playing a long game was exactly a good strategy.

Establishing Colonies for the railroad however is inefficient, the land must be arable and worth settling, if not there's no reason to colonize it.

>The Portuguese would much sooner grant a 1000 km corridor than losing the chance to build their own railroad across southern/central Africa. They granted way more land than any reasonable corridor would have meant, to begin with, and distance-wise the ocean is even closer than the South Africa border (which isn't even the start of the sea) so it even benefits the Brits if all they want is access to Rhodesia. So I'm the one that must ask you if you are retarded, seeing as you dismiss the more reasonable solution.

A Colony from rhodesia to the Pacific or the Atlantic is retarded, as the connection of Mozambique and Angola would be of far less value than a connection of South Afric and rhodesia, as rhodesia is reliant on south africa.

The corridor provided was 3x less as long as the one you're suggesting, not to mention the fact the Portugese have no more of a claim to the land than the British.

>Britain genuinely needed Rhodesia to be connected to south Africa
>And the child throwing a tantrum in Walmart genuinely wants his Power Rangers toy.

Do you not realize Rhodesian settlers were reliant on south african goods being shipped north to survive in the region? That becomes 6x more expensive if they must do it by sea, then send goods by a 1000km corridor, all because the Portuguese are obsessed with a joint colony.

I am now going to bed, so i won't be responding.

Your anglophobia is ridiculous.

>anglo delusion

>Establishing Colonies for the railroad however is inefficient
Not if you're establishing new colonies in between already established and functional colonies. Joining them lets you have less disputed borders, less flanks, and the possibility of consolidating them into a single economic unit.

So we have a dichotomy where Rhodesia is either is really worth it and all that's left is to connect it to the two other important colonies, or Rhodesia is worthless and was only claimed to get the land the Portuguese claimed and advance further into connecting said colonies. Either way, the railroad (or at least the continuous colony) between Cape and Cairo is a motivation.

>Pacific
????

>The corridor provided was 3x less as long as the one you're suggesting
But that's wrong. A corridor from Rhodesia's then eastern border to the Indian Ocean is about as long as a corridor from Rhodesia's then southern border to South Africa's then northern border, and the former is preferable as it connects directly to the sea instead of connecting to more land that doesn't even yet have the infrastructure built at the north to get the goods up there.

>That becomes 6x more expensive if they must do it by sea
According to who?

And if the Rhodesia settlement really is unsustainable, the simple solution is to not build it. Which would send you back to the dichotomy to explain why they did it anyway.

Britain went out of its way to build a settlement disconnected from any of its claims, on land bordered by allies (or neutrals) on all sides, and got land from one of those allies to connect it to its other settlements at the expense of said ally trying to do the same. Are you telling me that makes the slightest bit of sense if you don't look at the bigger picture of a continuous British colony from Cairo to Cape? Because from your point of view, the British government apparently screwed its oldest ally for shits and giggles.

>Your anglophobia is ridiculous.
lol