What does Africa look like in a world without WW2? [Archive]

Falecius

January 21st, 2011, 04:12 PM

I'd expect a lot more of assimilation policies by France and Portugal, especially in Senegal and Angola. England will settle placese like Kenya and the Rhodesias more massively, and they might get the Dominion status in the sixties or the seventies.
The mandates might be given independence in the seventies (execpt Namibia) and so will some protectorates like Uganda and maybe Botswana. Apartheid will probably rise regardless.
Sudan will be probably partitioned.
Some small places like Djibouti might be included into France outright, Sudan will be probably partitioned between Egypt and a non-Muslim state in the South. Italian colonies might be interesting. In this scenario Fascism is still dominating and will put a considerable effort in them. Libya will have a considerable white populace, while Ethiopia could become a really hot spot.
I excepect a really harsh liberation war fought there with significant infighting between the various groups while they are busy to foght Italians (something similar to OTL Angola). Algeria might still be considered a part of France if the French manage to treat the Arabs as equals at some point (that's hardly happening before the sixties I guess). I don' t think that decolonization will start seriously before around 1970 or later for the Blacks, while as I said the whites in places like Rhodesia might come out as having distinct polities of their own and maybe Morocco could have independence earlier.
Belgian Congo would be a clusterfuck as it was OTL. Rwanda and Burundi might see never-ending Belgian-backed Tutsi power, but some accomodation might be found out so that the Hutu have less to complain. Tanganyika might well be the first mandate gaining full independence (within the Commonwealth I guess).
I expect the great waves of independence coming in the late seventies-early eighties, with likely a significant Soviet (and maybe german) support. Much depends upon how things develop in Asia I think.
Decolonization might be either less bloodier or far more so.

Julius Vogel

January 21st, 2011, 05:03 PM

Well, obvious changes

1. Italy would not be removed by force, so Libya, Eithiopa/Eritrea and Somalia would still be on the table.

They would probably leave the latter sooner rahter than later, if just for the cost, but if they left in a different way, that could change things. For example, I read a whiles back that the British (or British India to be more precise) stripped Eritrea of a lot of the investment Italy poured into the place, to the extend of ripping up train tracks, removing harbour improvements, for sale as scrap or reuse. If that didn't happen, Eritrea would have far better infrastructure

2. Britain might have more money/will to stand the line in the various African colonies. They may also be more forceful wrt Rhodesia.

3. Less migration to British Africa - without displaced persons or the post war push, it could be that the restrictive immigration practices of the 1930s endure

altamiro

January 21st, 2011, 05:13 PM

Well, obvious changes

1. Italy would not be removed by force, so Libya, Eithiopa/Eritrea and Somalia would still be on the table.

They would probably leave the latter sooner rahter than later, if just for the cost, but if they left in a different way, that could change things. For example, I read a whiles back that the British (or British India to be more precise) stripped Eritrea of a lot of the investment Italy poured into the place, to the extend of ripping up train tracks, removing harbour improvements, for sale as scrap or reuse. If that didn't happen, Eritrea would have far better infrastructure

Mussolini might be dumb enough to get himself into a war in North Africa nevertheless.

Lusitania

January 21st, 2011, 05:20 PM

I will take a different approach as Stalin would of pushed the communist doctrine and arms to the world faster, without the second world war to destroy so much of Russia he would be exporting revolution through both Europe and the rest of the world much sooner.

If no WWII in 1939-1945, would he of launched one with the help of marxist rebels in Europe to subdue all of Europe? But that is outside of the question. So I actually think the comunist insurections would of started much sooner rather than later.

Cuāuhtemōc

January 21st, 2011, 05:22 PM

Libya ends up incorporated with Italy. That's probably assured.

Geekhis Khan

January 21st, 2011, 05:28 PM

Blackfox5

January 21st, 2011, 08:07 PM

There would be some areas incorporated into Europe. France could probably retain Algeria. Italy would have Libya. I don't think there would ever be enough British settlers to change the demography in British East Africa. What happens in South Africa might be very interesting depending on local politics. It is likely, but not foreordained, that apartheid would be established in South Africa. It really depends on how alienated the Boers are from the English settlers.

However, most of the African colonies remain as uneconomic drags on their imperial owners. Indigenous native elites continue to become radicalized after exposure to Marxism in European universities, and African nationalism would continue to build. Long term European control of most of the continent is doubtful. Still, all of the European colonial powers would have far more resources to devote to holding it together than they had IOTL.

I think the history of African colonialism really depends on what happens in Asia. India is pushing towards some form of home rule, and by the 1930s Indian nationalists wanted complete independence and not just dominion status. When India leaves (and I think it is just a matter of time unless Britain really decides a war is worth it to keep India in), it is going to jumpstart decolonization. Who else joins them? Well, the Philippines is already scheduled to become fully independent from the US in 1946. What happens in China? Both Chiang Kai-Shek's Chinese Nationalists and Japan are anti-European colonial powers (although Japan wanted to substitute their own domination in Asia). Either or both are going to support anti-French and anti-Dutch movements in Indochina and Indonesia, especially after the British leave India. If the Europeans leave Asia, then it is only a matter of time before they leave Africa.

Besides that, both the United States and Soviet Union are explicitly anti-colonial powers. Both will give at minimum lip service to nationalist aspirations. Even a Nazi Germany without Hitler could be anti-colonial, as a non-Hitler run Germany becomes more like a normal European power than one run on Hitler's ideological lines. That means Germans continue to be a friend to Nationalist China, and would want to weaken their European rivals.

Also, the Middle East will demand more and more that the European powers end their League of Nations mandates and allow them to completely govern themselves.

I think a likely sencario (but not the only one) is that the Europeans are out of their Asian colonies by early 1960s. That gives encouragement to African nationalists. At that point, some of the European powers decide to try to harness this force instead of fighting it, and agree to roadmaps to independence. They tried this IOTL but eventually abandoned the roadmaps because the Africans wanted them out much sooner. With the greater resources available to them, let's say the Europeans make it stick and agree to build up native ability to administer their own lands. This probably occurs throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Some colonies, like Ghana, may achieve independence quite soon. Others will take longer, but by early 1990s I think most of Africa is independent.

A lot of the Mediterrannean coast remains in European hands, perhaps indefinitely. Britain retains control of the Suez Canal while a pro-British monarchy survives in Egypt.

There will be some European powers that continue to fight the system. I can imagine that Fascist Italy, Nationalist Spain, and Salazar's Portugal all attempt to rule with an iron fist and come to grief that bleeds their finances, morale, and manpower. At some point, they will likely cut their losses, especially after Britain and France leave most of Africa.

In this scenario, some African countries probably do a lot better. But others may fare worse if they are at the spots where real warfare breaks out, as whatever European power they fight against use harsh tactics.

A lot of details depends if any major war breaks out in any of the regions (SE Asia, India, Middle East, or Africa) during this process.

Wendell

January 22nd, 2011, 01:22 AM

Communism is more widespread in the developing world.

Basileus Giorgios

January 22nd, 2011, 12:35 PM

Thanks for the detailed answer, Blackfox. So, is it safe to say we can assume perhaps half of African countries to do better than OTL, a quarter to do about the same, and a quarter to do worse?

Aside from Algeria and Libya, which colonies are most likely to remain under European rule? And in these colonies, which will be the most and least racist?

Faeelin

January 22nd, 2011, 01:45 PM

There would be some areas incorporated into Europe. France could probably retain Algeria. Italy would have Libya. I don't think there would ever be enough British settlers to change the demography in British East Africa.

Why would the French and Italians be able to retain their colonies? The French tried to keep Algeria in OTL. They didn't. What changes?

However, most of the African colonies remain as uneconomic drags on their imperial owners.

Actually, by the 1950s the British colonies at least were turning a profit.

Still, all of the European colonial powers would have far more resources to devote to holding it together than they had IOTL.

Why? Europe was undoubtedly richer and stronger in 1960 than it was in 1940. Yet they lost the colonies.

Either or both are going to support anti-French and anti-Dutch movements in Indochina and Indonesia, especially after the British leave India. If the Europeans leave Asia, then it is only a matter of time before they leave Africa.

Well theoretically Indonesia could be harder to lose; it was produced about 10% of the Netherland's GNP, and its resources would only beome more valuable.

Besides that, both the United States and Soviet Union are explicitly anti-colonial powers. Both will give at minimum lip service to nationalist aspirations.

Especially since the colonies will be part of the European trading bloc.s

Britain retains control of the Suez Canal while a pro-British monarchy survives in Egypt.

Why? Egypt in OTL was a hotbed of nationalism, as was the rest of the middle east...

lukedalton

January 22nd, 2011, 02:20 PM

Why would the French and Italians be able to retain their colonies? The French tried to keep Algeria in OTL. They didn't. What changes?

For Italy the continuing putting of immingrants in Lybia means that for the 60 at least half of the population will be italian not arab and with the discover of oil, well the possibility to give them independence will be null. But in general, no WWII mean that all the colonial power have the money, the military, the resource and the political will to put down local rebellion and keep the colony. Image the Suez Crisis but with UK and France that can happily give at the american president the middle finger when he menace great economic sanction if they don't back off.

Why? Europe was undoubtedly richer and stronger in 1960 than it was in 1940. Yet they lost the colonies.

It lost the will to keep it, it's different and a lot of them were give or promised independence in the immediate second after war when Europe were at his knee
Now without Hitler when of if Japan try to conquer his south resource zone face the undivided attention of all the european colonial empire so it will be really hard to achieve the same level of succes and so the local will not see the colonial oversee lost to another asiatic power so the spread of nationalism will be curtailed (if just temporaly)

Julius Vogel

January 22nd, 2011, 02:38 PM

I guess there are a lot of assumptions that we make with a no WW2 or analogue conflict about the Western European colonial powers.

1. They will have the financial power to act independently from the US or any other power, at will to protect their interests for as long as they can convince the home population

2. That they have the military power to do the same

3. That without any massive WW2 style shocks to the system (financial, military, psychological etc) they will be able to make the inter-war colonial arrangements last for much longer

4. That the home populations will support the above

I don't know if the above are correct in all situations though.

The US is going to grow in importance financially, relative to the WE powers with or without a war and they may enter into financial orbit/dependence, if but slower

The inter war militaries are a lot less competent and able to project power than their post WW2 equivalents. Without such a forced evolution will the various colonial powers be equipped to engage in colonial repression on a much wider scale? Their equipment edge by the 1950s was huge (it was huge before too, but the masses of good WW2/early cold war equipment helped)

The lack of terrible defeats and loss of independence will hugely boost the WE powers confidence, but I think it safe to assume that the local elites/educated classes etc who were starting to become voracious for home rule or independence will still rise (they are largely in place by the 1930s right?)

Domestic support. Well this may be hard to judge. I don't really know what people thought about the colonial empires at the time, if they ever gave much support. Would they be up for long mass colonial wars? I suspect maybe not - might be a little like Portugal in the 1970s - hundreds of thousands of troops were rotated through the African colonies

Julius Vogel

January 22nd, 2011, 02:42 PM

In terms of what Britain or France would do to places like Syria or Egypt - well, I think they would be far better placed for all sorts of reasons to be able to prop up regimes they liked, than they were IOTL.

They would have the money, men and will to intervene to prop up regimes, stop/encourage coups etc. A large British military presence in TTL on the Suez/Aden line could well be used to crush any Officer's coup analogue. Same would be true for a large French presence in Lebanon for Syria.

I would think that Britain would also widen its intervention in the Middle East as well. IOTL they propped up a lot of the smaller regimes - the little emirates or kingdoms well into the 1970s. ITTL they may even have the ability to keep kicking about in Iraq and stop the 1950s over throw of the monarchy.

Faeelin

January 22nd, 2011, 03:20 PM

For Italy the continuing putting of immingrants in Lybia means that for the 60 at least half of the population will be italian not arab and with the discover of oil, well the possibility to give them independence will be null.

And then terrorism. And support for Libyan nationalism from the other Arab states.

And really, why are Italians going to move to Libya before oil makes it worth ethnically cleansing the people there? The state will force them, but it isn't economically profitable. If anything, as in OTL the tendency would be to move to where tee jobs are.

But in general, no WWII mean that all the colonial power have the money, the military, the resource and the political will to put down local rebellion and keep the colony.

Where does the money and military come from? France's economy recovered from WW2 within a few years. It acquired nuclear weapons.

Image the Suez Crisis but with UK and France that can happily give at the american president the middle finger when he menace great economic sanction if they don't back off.

The Russians gleefully provide arms and gain a series of allies in the Middle East. No?

It lost the will to keep it, it's different and a lot of them were give or promised independence in the immediate second after war when Europe were at his knee

Why would it keep the will in this ATL?

They would have the money, men and will to intervene to prop up regimes, stop/encourage coups etc. A large British military presence in TTL on the Suez/Aden line could well be used to crush any Officer's coup analogue. Same would be true for a large French presence in Lebanon for Syria.

They tried, and did, all of this OTL. remember Iran in 1953?

Falecius

January 22nd, 2011, 03:46 PM

And then terrorism. And support for Libyan nationalism from the other Arab states.

And really, why are Italians going to move to Libya before oil makes it worth ethnically cleansing the people there? The state will force them, but it isn't economically profitable. If anything, as in OTL the tendency would be to move to where tee jobs are.

Ethnic cleansing was the Italian policy before WWII in OTL, to some extent at least. Libya was meant to become a population colony. Attempts to settle Italians there fared poorly, but the Fascist government was committed to it.
In Cirenaica, there are estimates about a quarter of total population being killed as consequence of deportations, forced relocation and fighting, especially in the years 1928-1933.
While I'm not sure that Italian population would grow steadily there without WWII, I'm quite sure that the Italian Government really meant to make Libya the place where Italian immigrants were supposed to go.
Remind that Italy was described as an overpopulated country in the first half of 20 century. Fascism was dealing with this perceived problem reclaiming lands from marshes and supporting settlements in Africa, which of course entailed displacing the locals. This was met by stiff resistance in Libya. Italians crushed the Libyans with a considerable brutality.

lukedalton

January 22nd, 2011, 04:38 PM

[QUOTE=Faeelin;4072589]And then terrorism. And support for Libyan nationalism from the other Arab states.

And a lot, a very lot of dead arabs, sorry but if fascism or even a democratically elect government face terrorism in an already italianizated Lybia and face the risk to loss one of his greates resource, trust me...it will not be pretty. And for other Arab states who means? Just Egypt (nominally independent), the other are basically european protectorate
The other European power? They don't make a fuss at the italian move, they surely don't want that their population take some exaple from the lybian

And really, why are Italians going to move to Libya before oil makes it worth ethnically cleansing the people there? The state will force them, but it isn't economically profitable. If anything, as in OTL the tendency would be to move to where tee jobs are.

Falecius answer that very well

Where does the money and military come from? France's economy recovered from WW2 within a few years. It acquired nuclear weapons.

She recovered yes, after years, in Vietnam she don't have even the resource to resupply Dien-peh-bu (orrible spelling sorry:o) and begged the USA to continue to help them (a lot of weapons and supply were given to the starved armed forces)...but Washington put the plug and stop the aid.
And even with a recovery economy there aren't resource for everything, civilian sector and the military for the protection of the homeland come first, colonial war second.
Later she lost the will to keep fighting

The Russians gleefully provide arms and gain a series of allies in the Middle East. No?

What allies? All the government in the Middle East are colonial administration or equivalent. Probably some liberation front to give finance or weapon but simple just that

Why would it keep the will in this ATL?

Prestige, strategic position and resource and the more important think...that place are of their proprety and no uppity native will take that back (don't want to sound racist but that was the attitude of the time)

They tried, and did, all of this OTL. remember Iran in 1953?]

Yes but here without WWII the UK is still a great power, for heaven sake in OTL for paying the debt with the USA they keep the rationing for years after the war, here they had resource and will to keep their empire.

Wolfpaw

January 22nd, 2011, 04:53 PM

Actually, by the 1950s the British colonies at least were turning a profit.Really? Would you mind saying a little more about this?

Faeelin

January 22nd, 2011, 05:01 PM

And a lot, a very lot of dead arabs, sorry but if fascism or even a democratically elect government face terrorism in an already italianizated Lybia and face the risk to loss one of his greates resource, trust me...it will not be pretty. And for other Arab states who means? Just Egypt (nominally independent), the other are basically european protectorate

The United Arab Republic, a Soviet backed secular nationalist state. Or did you think the USSR would do nothing in this period? Or that the

Nobody seems to be thinking that the USSR will also not have lost tens of millions of people as well, and have not lost a decade of economic growth.

And the US is out there. Its first involvement in Saudi Arabia dates to the 1930s.

The other European power? They don't make a fuss at the italian move, they surely don't want that their population take some exaple from the lybians

So now the UK and Germany are going to go along with watching the Libyans be oppressed and ethnically cleansed, when opposing it and harassing Italy is a great way to win PR?

She recovered yes, after years, in Vietnam she don't have even the resource to resupply Dien-peh-bu (orrible spelling sorry:o) and begged the USA to continue to help them (a lot of weapons and supply were given to the starved armed forces)...but Washington put the plug and stop the aid.

The French economy quadrupled between 1950 and 1985 OTL. A fourfold increase.

the UK's GDP also increased between 1940 and 1960. So again, what has changed from OTL?

And even with a recovery economy there aren't resource for everything, civilian sector and the military for the protection of the homeland come first, colonial war second.
Later she lost the will to keep fighting

Why does it not lose the will in an ATL? Why would public services not come first ATL?

What allies? All the government in the Middle East are colonial administration or equivalent. Probably some liberation front to give finance or weapon but simple just that

Pan Arabism was already stirring; the Egyptian uprisings against Britain in 1920 and 1921 happened already. The Iraqi army revolted in WW2; the egyptians were on the fence. And there are several great powers who would like to see these exclusive empires crash and burn.

Yes but here without WWII the UK is still a great power, for heaven sake in OTL for paying the debt with the USA they keep the rationing for years after the war, here they had resource and will to keep their empire.

Falecius

January 22nd, 2011, 05:35 PM

The United Arab Republic, a Soviet backed secular nationalist state. Or did you think the USSR would do nothing in this period? Or that the

Nobody seems to be thinking that the USSR will also not have lost tens of millions of people as well, and have not lost a decade of economic growth.

And the US is out there. Its first involvement in Saudi Arabia dates to the 1930s.

So now the UK and Germany are going to go along with watching the Libyans be oppressed and ethnically cleansed, when opposing it and harassing Italy is a great way to win PR?

The French economy quadrupled between 1950 and 1985 OTL. A fourfold increase.

the UK's GDP also increased between 1940 and 1960. So again, what has changed from OTL?

Why does it not lose the will in an ATL? Why would public services not come first ATL?

Pan Arabism was already stirring; the Egyptian uprisings against Britain in 1920 and 1921 happened already. The Iraqi army revolted in WW2; the egyptians were on the fence. And there are several great powers who would like to see these exclusive empires crash and burn.

When Italy deported and massacred the Libyans OTL around 1930, the only countries where this seemed to matter were, IIRC, Turkey and Egypt. In this scenario, they will have little say, probably less than post WWII in OTL. The Arab public opinion would be mad at that, and some token declaration by Britain against Italian policies is likely, especially in order to appease the Arabs. But a British intervention would mean that Britain goes outright at war with Italy over it. I hardly see this happen, unless it is a pretext for some deeper conflict. Germany IMHO could not care less, if the Nazis are still somewhat in power and they stay friendly to Italy. The Soviets would likely cry "fascist murderers!" and do very little, maybe some economic sanctions to Italy but with probably little effect.
No, I don't see any major power doing something really effective to stop Italians massacring Libyans if they want to. Think of what happened OTL in far worse cases such as Cambodia or Rwanda.
Yep, Arab volunteers could try to do something. An internationalized Jihad like in OTL's Chechnya might appear to some extent. It actually did, OTL some Turks and Arabs volunteered to fight the Italians in both Libya and later Ethiopia since 1915, though it never was a really popular thing AFAIK.
But later on their energies were more attracted by the events in Palestine.
After 1933 Libya was pacified and depopulated enough, and I foresee something like 15 year before a significant resistance can regroup and start again challenging the Italian settlement in any major way, surely with covert support from Middle Eastern countries and maybe even some British and French tacit consent (but hardly open endorsement: the danger of setting a precedent for their own Arab subjects is too high).
The Soviets will say something about the right of the Libyans to self-determination, but they won't back significantly a religiously based, "reactionary" movement like the Libya resistance was.

What happened in Egypt between the wars was more about Egyptian nationalism than Pan-Arabism. The latter really became a force during the war, even if it was already around before.

lukedalton

January 22nd, 2011, 05:47 PM

The United Arab Republic, a Soviet backed secular nationalist state. Or did you think the USSR would do nothing in this period? Or that the

Nobody seems to be thinking that the USSR will also not have lost tens of millions of people as well, and have not lost a decade of economic growth.

And the US is out there. Its first involvement in Saudi Arabia dates to the 1930s.

Faaelin, there is no UAR, Syria it will be still under french rule, Nasser the moment he try to do something will be arrested by the british force.
The USA in this moment (pre WWII) don't depend in foreign oil and it's very isolationist apart the Monroe doctrine, so i don't see them do anything, maybe some protest or word of condemnation, but nothing who impair their lucrative business with UK, France or Italy, who by the way now they are not rebuilding nations depending on the Marshall Plan, but still great power.
Sure the URSS still there, and probably Stalin will try to foment revolt in the colonies but, at least until he obtain nuclear weapons, must limit what he can do if he wont face a war against the rest of the european empire (Stalin was crazy not stupid and caution was his second name)

So now the UK and Germany are going to go along with watching the Libyans be oppressed and ethnically cleansed, when opposing it and harassing Italy is a great way to win PR?

The Answer is...yeah, in OTL nobody say anything. The other colonial power don't want any independent arab nation, and frankly without the nazi the attitude regarding the native will continue as usual...translated: who give a damn. This is not our political correct time, is more 'white man burden' territory

The French economy quadrupled between 1950 and 1985 OTL. A fourfold increase.

the UK's GDP also increased between 1940 and 1960. So again, what has changed from OTL?

Million of dead averted, famine averted, massive reconstruction of infrastructure averted, heavily indebtment with anyone averted, mass psycological trauma averted, mass displacement of people averted, reconstruction of house in enormous scale averted, must continue? It's not a simple matter of GDP, rationing, house crisis, famine was rampant in all continent, as my grandfather say in that time there was very few cat and dog in the street...if you understand what i mean.

Why does it not lose the will in an ATL? Why would public services not come first ATL?

Maybe they will but much later then in OTL, probably around the '80

Pan Arabism was already stirring; the Egyptian uprisings against Britain in 1920 and 1921 happened already. The Iraqi army revolted in WW2; the egyptians were on the fence. And there are several great powers who would like to see these exclusive empires crash and burn.

Yes and they were crushed, the iraqy revolted only with the UK occupied in Europe.

LeoXiao

January 22nd, 2011, 07:27 PM

the UK's GDP also increased between 1940 and 1960. So again, what has changed from OTL?
I may be wrong but are you referring to the Marshall Plan?

Faeelin

January 22nd, 2011, 08:33 PM

I may be wrong but are you referring to the Marshall Plan?

No, just economic growth. People like to talk about how Europe was exhausted by WW2, but they ignore that 20 years later Europe was far richer than it was in 1939. East and West.

Faaelin, there is no UAR, Syria it will be still under french rule, Nasser the moment he try to do something will be arrested by the british force.

There is no UAR in 1944. There will be pan arab nationalism backed by the USSR. Or are the Europeans somehow so awesome that they can win every colonial conflict when they lost all of them OTL? I

The USA in this moment (pre WWII) don't depend in foreign oil and it's very isolationist apart the Monroe doctrine,

American isolationism is a myth. The US was vigorously expanding financially, setting up oil deals in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, financing German reparations, using fiscal influence to get the French out of the Ruhr, etc.

so i don't see them do anything, maybe some protest or word of condemnation, but nothing who impair their lucrative business with UK, France or Italy, who by the way now they are not rebuilding nations depending on the Marshall Plan, but still great power.

And so major trade rivals. Cordell Hull saw Britain, and not Nazi Germany, as the biggest threat to America up until the mid 1930s.

Sure the URSS still there, and probably Stalin will try to foment revolt in the colonies but, at least until he obtain nuclear weapons, must limit what he can do if he wont face a war against the rest of the european empire (Stalin was crazy not stupid and caution was his second name)

Why would anyone go to war if he sends arms? and why are you treating Stalin in 1940 as how Stalin would respond in 1950?

Obviously in 1940 the Arab World was still under European control. In 1950 and 1960....

The Answer is...yeah, in OTL nobody say anything. The other colonial power don't want any independent arab nation, and frankly without the nazi the attitude regarding the native will continue as usual...translated: who give a damn. This is not our political correct time, is more 'white man burden' territory

Thus the reaction to Armitsar, right?

Frightfulness is not in the British pharmacopeia.

Yes and they were crushed, the iraqy revolted only with the UK occupied in Europe.

And then the did so a bit later.

The Soviets will say something about the right of the Libyans to self-determination, but they won't back significantly a religiously based, "reactionary" movement like the Libya resistance was.

The Soviets backed Chiang because he was anti-Japanese. They'll back whoever is convenient to promote their interests.

lukedalton

January 22nd, 2011, 09:46 PM

No, just economic growth. People like to talk about how Europe was exhausted by WW2, but they ignore that 20 years later Europe was far richer than it was in 1939. East and West

Yes but during this 20 years, India go independent ( UK promised that to obtain their cooperation during WWII), Indonesia and Vietnam succesfully revolted ( France and Netherland don't have the resource to fight it) and frankly after that carnage there were very little interest in colonial adventure or development, it was more 'our nation first' time.

There is no UAR in 1944. There will be pan arab nationalism backed by the USSR. Or are the Europeans somehow so awesome that they can win every colonial conflict when they lost all of them OTL? I

No, Europeans will not win the colonial conflict becouse of awesomess, but simple becouse this time they will not drained phisicallya and morally by a terrible war, finacialy and strategically indebted to a nation who want bring an end to their colonial empire and the URSS is more contained than in OTL, and remember their public opionion is a lot less prone to side with the rebel than our OTL

American isolationism is a myth. The US was vigorously expanding financially, setting up oil deals in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, financing German reparations, using fiscal influence to get the French out of the Ruhr, etc.

Finance is one thing Faelin, directly meddling in the intern politic of an empire supporting rebel faction is another

And so major trade rivals. Cordell Hull saw Britain, and not Nazi Germany, as the biggest threat to America up until the mid 1930s.

Yes but the concept that the USA go to war...for arab or african colony is almost ASB and give the kind support that the colonies needed to overthrow the colonial empire is an act of war.

Why would anyone go to war if he sends arms? and why are you treating Stalin in 1940 as how Stalin would respond in 1950?

Obviously in 1940 the Arab World was still under European control. In 1950 and 1960....

They will still under european control full stop. And i treat Stalin in this manner, becouse without nuclear weapons a conventional war is more propable and old Joseph is know for is caution in external matter, so he will not send ton and ton of weapon to the arab rebel, URSS can be in a better shape without WWII (with him in charge is debatable but...) but Poland, Ungary, Romany, Yugoslavia (if Italy will not grab her) and Bulgaria are not under her thumb, Germany is still unite so is strategical situation is a lot worse.

Thus the reaction to Armitsar, right?

Frightfulness is not in the British pharmacopeia.

EH?...boh? Well you asked what the other empire will do in case of severe abuse and use of extreme force and tattic to put down a rebellio, you had the answer, sorry if you don't like it but frankly this is what will happen

And then the did so a bit later.

Yes, in a totally different situation, cold war, decolonization, etc. etc. Here we have simple a repeat of the show

The Soviets backed Chiang because he was anti-Japanese. They'll back whoever is convenient to promote their interests.

Soviet back whoever is convenient to promote their interests and don't cause a war with them...it's a little different, in the sense yes they give moral and logistical support to this but not so much that France or UK or even Italy can use it as a casus belli, they are expansionist not idiot

Wendell

January 24th, 2011, 04:25 PM

It would be ironic, in a situation like this, if Germany became a champion of decolonization.

Falecius

January 24th, 2011, 05:46 PM

It would be ironic, in a situation like this, if Germany became a champion of decolonization.

But actually possible, if a right-wing non-Nazi regime is in charge.

lounge60

January 24th, 2011, 05:54 PM

Coastal Libya is already (even before the POD) officially integrated into Metropolitan Italy as four provinces. Balbo (barring accident still alive) will be moving more and more Italians in, with the real possibility to outnumber the Libyans by 1965-1970. When oil is discovered the colony will pay for itself and more, and the Fascist economy might be saved from idiotic autarchic policies. The natives will remain second-class citizens and we may see terrorism appear.

Eritrea is the Crown Jewel with the most favored minority, the best infastructure investments, and will remain firmly within the Italian sphere, probably going into a Dominion- or Commonwealth-type status by 1980. Eritreans will remain "Italy's Gurkhas" for a long time to come.

Somalia will get more investment, but will remain Eritrea's "Little Brother". Fed and supported from Rome as a dependency, it probably remains in the Italian orbit vis-a-vis Eritrea.

Ethiopia will be a clusterfuck of ethic strife, insurgency, and terrorism. It'll probably remain an economic drain and I'd expect Mussie's sucessor to cut it loose sometime to descend into chaos.

The conquest of Ethiopia was a terrible,silly,error.
Also in this scenario Ethiopia before or after would be a great problem for Italy.
Without Ethiopia Italy could concentrate efforts on Lybia with the real possibility to outnumber the Libyans by early 60s.

without any massive WW2 style shocks to the system (financial, military, psychological etc) they will be able to make the inter-war colonial arrangements last for much longer

the home populations will support the above

Domestic support. Well this may be hard to judge. I don't really know what people thought about the colonial empires at the time, if they ever gave much support.

But in general, no WWII mean that all the colonial power have the money, the military, the resource and the political will to put down local rebellion and keep the colony.

The only countries where this seemed to matter were, IIRC, Turkey and Egypt. In this scenario, they will have little say,
The Soviets would likely cry "fascist murderers!"

[QUOTE]

"And then terrorism. And support for Libyan nationalism from the other Arab states".

And a lot, a very lot of dead arabs, sorry but if fascism or even a democratically elect government face terrorism in an already italianizated Lybia and face the risk to loss one of his greates resource, trust me...it will not be pretty. And for other Arab states who means? Just Egypt (nominally independent), the other are basically european protectorate
The other European power? They don't make a fuss at the italian move, they surely don't want that their population take some exaple from the lybian

"The Russians gleefully provide arms and gain a series of allies in the Middle East. No"?

What allies? All the government in the Middle East are colonial administration or equivalent. Probably some liberation front to give finance or weapon but simple just that

I think that without a WW-II and Cold war,colonialism would last much,much more.
I think that the start of decolonization process would begin not first that in 90s,at the least.
The key is that colonial powers would have the military strenght to suppress any revolt,and no limits to apply this strenght,nor by domestic public opinion,nor by USSR or USA.
Totally free hands.