Chapter 587: East Africa's "Westward Expansion"
Sigmaringen gained from it, and so did East Africa. The cost of materials and labor in East Africa was already low. During previous railway construction, they had taken advantage of the global steel surplus caused by the 1873 economic crisis.
Now, with East Africa's large and small steel plants in full production, meeting domestic demand was no longer an issue. As for labor costs, building this railway was nothing compared to current water conservancy projects.
Throughout the 1870s, East Africa used that decade to complete the foundational layout for steel, railroads, and related industries. In these fields, East Africa was on par with Russia in terms of quantity—although quality remained rough.
To get anything done in East Africa, money was one factor, and resource allocation was another. With an annual steel production capacity in the millions of tons, the state-owned East African Steel and East African Railway companies had become industrial trusts in their respective sectors.
Meanwhile, steel production in Britain and America hovered around 1.3 million tons, a drop from pre-crisis levels. The 1873 crash had bankrupted a third of their steel enterprises, and the ongoing economic slump continued.
East Africa, by contrast, saw explosive growth during the 1870s. It bought up failed European and American steel companies and machinery, and thanks to Ernst's central planning and understanding of local mineral resources, the East African steel industry rapidly grew and captured global market share.
The biggest beneficiaries were East Africa's military and railway sectors. Other industries also had surging steel demands. One clear example: agricultural machinery in East Africa underwent a quality leap in the 1870s, greatly boosting productivity and laying the groundwork for future infrastructure.
With rail now on track, steel demand began to shift into other sectors—and East Africa could even export its surplus.
Compared to other countries, East Africa's steel production was already in surplus. In a free-market economy, this would've led to bankruptcies and consolidation. But East Africa's planned economy meant the country still operated in a deflationary state.
In 1880, the U.S. had basically completed its westward expansion, but East Africa was just getting started. The interior was being developed, and by 1890, its central provinces—Matabele, Hohenzollern, and Swabia—were expected to reach the current development levels of the eastern regions.
East Africa's westward expansion differed greatly from America's. The U.S. focused mainly on agriculture. East Africa prioritized industry.
As mentioned before, most of East Africa's mineral wealth lay in its central region. So nearly all industrial investments in recent years had been inland—especially in steel, rail, copper, and other metallurgical industries.
America was different. The West didn't compare to the Northeast in resources. Its westward expansion was defined by cowboys and farms. Of course, massive railroad construction also featured heavily. At one point, the U.S. was building five transcontinental rail lines at once. By contrast, East Africa had only its Central Railway, which was only halfway transcontinental (due to Portuguese Angola, it lacked Atlantic access).
East Africa's rail projects started slightly later than America's. The 1873 crash marked the turning point. While America looked like a disaster afterward, the real economy was still huge. But market speculation had badly inflated railroad values.
East Africa, on the other hand, assigned more realistic value to its railways—there was no need to inflate figures.
Another reason East Africa focused on industrial expansion westward was that its eastern agriculture was already well-developed and productive—among the best globally.
By contrast, the eastern region's industry had lagged. The rise of coastal industrial cities like Dar es Salaam and Mombasa was driven by the westward expansion.
Before that, both cities were already trade and service centers—but not industrial hubs. Once the Central and Northern Railways were built, they inherited key industrial assets like locomotive factories, because they were the starting points of both lines.
That was only the early investment phase. Once the railroads were complete, East Africa shifted its focus to the central provinces, whose improving infrastructure enabled growth.
At that time, industrial locations were determined by resource proximity, not markets. This was especially true for steel and heavy industries.
That's why East Africa quickly outpaced Japan, which had little in the way of domestic minerals—no matter how skilled your labor, you can't cook without ingredients.
East Africa's westward expansion was government-driven. America's was only lightly guided—most of it was chaotic and unregulated.
East Africa's process was organized, planned, and gradual. The army cleared threats; the government coordinated settlers and allocated industries. There was little resistance.
America's westward push was the opposite—lawless, violent, and competitive. Lack of law enforcement, armed groups feuding, massacres of Native Americans, robberies, and revenge killings—all common. It was almost a gangster-style expansion.
Still, the American model had its upsides. Yes, it was messy. But it required almost no government spending. America had a small government—it could barely collect taxes—so private initiative carried the weight.
In fact, America had only taxed by force for less than 20 years. Its IRS was created in 1862 to fund the Civil War and was quickly shut down afterward.
Also, the brutal competition brought opportunity—especially for the ruthless. Many amassed vast fortunes quickly. Countless American tycoons were born from this era—many tied to train and bank heists.
East Africa, by contrast, was more conservative. The government bore most of the burden and naturally claimed most of the profits—settlers were mostly fed and sheltered, nothing more.
With its powerful state apparatus—army, police, and enforcement—crime found little room to grow. East African settlers were handpicked, mostly small farmers and artisans, easy to manage.
Two models, each with its strengths. But in the end, both America and East Africa successfully developed their western frontiers. America took over a century. East Africa took less than ten years.
Though East Africa's expansion focused on industry, agriculture still dominated overall investment.
Thank you for the support, friends. If you want to read more chapters in advance, go to my Patreon.
Read 40 Chapters In Advance: patreon.com/Canserbero10