Africa still colonial
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Xen
Banned
tom said:Because you will tear it to shreads.
I am not that well versed in history, and am better at PoDs than TLs.
But maybe I will see what I can do (no promises!).
Its rare I tear anything to shreds, I hate things getting tore to shreds here. But the more you write the better you will get.
Grey Wolf
Donor
No First World War is the best POD as the mandate system for the ex-German colonies effectively made it long term policy to make them, and by extension others, independent. Add to that the weakening of the colonial powers by the war itself, and the growth of the USA partly as a result of the weakening of others, then it made it most likely that any other great conflict would end up ushering in an era of decolonisation.
Of course, nothing is a linear process when it involves a whole continent and Italy's colonial empire only came into being AFTER the Great War (before the 1920s Italian Somaliland was not a colony but a pair of protectorates). Added to that the longevity of the Portuguese colonies which would have seemed laughable in 1914 when there were still plans afoot to partition them amongst the other powers.
But in a sense it is IDEAS that are dangerous
Grey Wolf
Of course, nothing is a linear process when it involves a whole continent and Italy's colonial empire only came into being AFTER the Great War (before the 1920s Italian Somaliland was not a colony but a pair of protectorates). Added to that the longevity of the Portuguese colonies which would have seemed laughable in 1914 when there were still plans afoot to partition them amongst the other powers.
But in a sense it is IDEAS that are dangerous
Grey Wolf
Chris
Banned
Here's a TL as to how Portugal could retain its colonies until the present day.
After Salazar is incapacitated by a stroke in 1968, a hardliner comes to power in Portugal. Marcelo Caetano was a moderate who was unable to please the hardliners or the reformists at the time and it ultimately led to his undoing in 1974. Let's say it's someone like General Kaulza de Arriaga, who was far more rightwing but also was much more into realpolitik than Caetano.
Portugal was facing five guerilla movements in the Portuguese Guinea, Angola and Mozambique at the time. The PAIGCV in Portuguese Guinea was the most successful. They were in control of 3/4 of the territory by that time and were backed by the USSR. Arriaga favoured granting independence to Guinea-Bissau as the territory was small and had always been an economic burden on Portugal. The war made it more so. By 1973 there were over 30,000 Portuguese soldiers stationed there and the territory was draining about 1/3 of Portugal's defence budget. The casualty rate here for soldiers was also much higher than in Angola or Mozambique. Marcelo Caetano feared giving independence here as he feared it would have led to a "domino effect". However what ended up happening was that the officers stationed in Portuguese Guinea were among the most disattisfied and most exposed to Communist propaganda. General Spinola the military governor of Portuguese Guinea would lead the revolution in Portugal in 1974. So getting rid of Portuguese Guinea frees up money, men and material to concentrate on Angola and Mozambique.
Angola had 3 "liberation movements" who by 1972 were fighting against each other rather than against the Portuguese. The UPA/FNLA was based in neighbouring Zaire and had the backing of Mobuto Sese Seko. They drew their support from the Bakongo people however by 1974 they were fighting against the Soviet backed MPLA. The MPLA fought mainly in Eastern Angola from bases in Zambia. UNITA was the smallest group and had a secret cease-fire agreement with the Portuguese and were fighting against the MPLA. By 1974 the war was quite in Angola, so much so that 10,000 troops were transferred from Angola to Mozambique.
In Mozambique Chinese-backed FRELIMO had been fighting against the Portuguese using bases in Tanzania. Most of the fighting occurred in the remote Northeast district of Cabo Delgado where few Portuguese settlers lived. By 1971 they began trying to attack the Cabora Bassa damn which the Portuguese were building on the Zambezi. Though things had gotten worse after 1972, the war was not nearly as bad as in Portuguese Guinea and with the additional troops and material freed up for Mozambique, the stalemate could have been reversed.
So I argue that with Portuguese Guinea being set free in 1968 or 1969 the Portuguese revolution in 1974 could have been averted. Portuguese army could have focussed on Angola and Mozambique. Both territories were experiencing huge amounts of economic growth. In Angola this was especially spurred by the growing petroleum output from Cabinda. This led to huge increases in the number of Portuguese settlers in both Angola and Mozambique. In 1940 there were 72,000 whites in both territories, by 1960 that number had reached 270,000 and by 1974 there were 650,000 Portuguese settlers in both territories.
The Portuguese remaining in Angola and Mozambique would have had effects on neighbouring South Africa as well as Rhodesia. Without the Portuguese departure from Angola and Mozambique the South Africans would have never had to invade Angola to protect Southwest Africa (Namibia). Without bases in Angola, SWAPO would have never gotten far. Also this would not have focussed so much unwanted international attention on South Africa leading to the UN arms embargo in 1977. In Rhodesia the ZANU and ZAPU did not have much success until they had Mozambique as a base to operate out of so the white regime could have survived and propsered there despite sanctions.
The 1980s would have been very interesting. With Margaret Thatcher coming to power in 1979 one assumes that her government would have been predisposed to settling the Rhodesia crisis by 1981. Embarassed by the issue a compromise would have been agreed to where African parliamentary representation would be increased incrementally over the years and Britain would provide funds for "African advancement" helping to improve the living conditions of the African majority. Unrest in South Africa would have certainly been less since the ANC would not have neighbouring countries to use as bases of attack against the government. The government here would not have had to spend as much money on defence. Also should sanctions come into force (it's less likely that they'll be as severe) the Portuguese will be willing to supply the South Africans through Mozambique as they did for the Rhodesians. With Reagan coming to power in 1980 in the USA and the coldwar heating up in Africa the American government would most likely be more willing to aid a NATO ally in fighting USSR backed guerilla movements. The Soviets had been wanting to expand their influence in Africa at this time by backing various regimes in Ethiopia, Somalia, etc. The war in Angola would have been won in the 1970s and the Chinese had really stopped caring about African revolutionary and socialist movents by the late 1970s when they cozied up with the West.
After the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Union the guerilla movements have no financial backers left. The neighbouring African states of Zambia, Zaire and Tanzania can no longer play the coldwar rivalry to get aid and are poorer than ever. Malawi was always friendly to the three countries. Zambia will probably fall into their orbit after the death of Kenneth Kaunda. Tanzania is far too weak and poor and no longer has an idealist leader like Julius Nyrere. It would be interesting to see if the three regimes would back a side in the Congo civil war, maybe wanting to control the riches of the Katanga. South Africa, Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique would be the most prosperous areas in Africa and the African countries are weaker than ever. The issue really is that colonialism and minority rule are seen negatively in a world where building democracy and human rights is seen as paramount. The Portuguese probably can escape sanctions since they aren't so much racist and will likely increase the number of Africans in the government (By 1973 Mozambique's provincial assembly was already majority non-white). One also has to remember that the Portuguese have more than enough oil in Angola to supply all three countries and still have enough left over. Rhodesia has Africans involved in government, but most international criticism will be against apartheid in South Africa.
After Salazar is incapacitated by a stroke in 1968, a hardliner comes to power in Portugal. Marcelo Caetano was a moderate who was unable to please the hardliners or the reformists at the time and it ultimately led to his undoing in 1974. Let's say it's someone like General Kaulza de Arriaga, who was far more rightwing but also was much more into realpolitik than Caetano.
Portugal was facing five guerilla movements in the Portuguese Guinea, Angola and Mozambique at the time. The PAIGCV in Portuguese Guinea was the most successful. They were in control of 3/4 of the territory by that time and were backed by the USSR. Arriaga favoured granting independence to Guinea-Bissau as the territory was small and had always been an economic burden on Portugal. The war made it more so. By 1973 there were over 30,000 Portuguese soldiers stationed there and the territory was draining about 1/3 of Portugal's defence budget. The casualty rate here for soldiers was also much higher than in Angola or Mozambique. Marcelo Caetano feared giving independence here as he feared it would have led to a "domino effect". However what ended up happening was that the officers stationed in Portuguese Guinea were among the most disattisfied and most exposed to Communist propaganda. General Spinola the military governor of Portuguese Guinea would lead the revolution in Portugal in 1974. So getting rid of Portuguese Guinea frees up money, men and material to concentrate on Angola and Mozambique.
Angola had 3 "liberation movements" who by 1972 were fighting against each other rather than against the Portuguese. The UPA/FNLA was based in neighbouring Zaire and had the backing of Mobuto Sese Seko. They drew their support from the Bakongo people however by 1974 they were fighting against the Soviet backed MPLA. The MPLA fought mainly in Eastern Angola from bases in Zambia. UNITA was the smallest group and had a secret cease-fire agreement with the Portuguese and were fighting against the MPLA. By 1974 the war was quite in Angola, so much so that 10,000 troops were transferred from Angola to Mozambique.
In Mozambique Chinese-backed FRELIMO had been fighting against the Portuguese using bases in Tanzania. Most of the fighting occurred in the remote Northeast district of Cabo Delgado where few Portuguese settlers lived. By 1971 they began trying to attack the Cabora Bassa damn which the Portuguese were building on the Zambezi. Though things had gotten worse after 1972, the war was not nearly as bad as in Portuguese Guinea and with the additional troops and material freed up for Mozambique, the stalemate could have been reversed.
So I argue that with Portuguese Guinea being set free in 1968 or 1969 the Portuguese revolution in 1974 could have been averted. Portuguese army could have focussed on Angola and Mozambique. Both territories were experiencing huge amounts of economic growth. In Angola this was especially spurred by the growing petroleum output from Cabinda. This led to huge increases in the number of Portuguese settlers in both Angola and Mozambique. In 1940 there were 72,000 whites in both territories, by 1960 that number had reached 270,000 and by 1974 there were 650,000 Portuguese settlers in both territories.
The Portuguese remaining in Angola and Mozambique would have had effects on neighbouring South Africa as well as Rhodesia. Without the Portuguese departure from Angola and Mozambique the South Africans would have never had to invade Angola to protect Southwest Africa (Namibia). Without bases in Angola, SWAPO would have never gotten far. Also this would not have focussed so much unwanted international attention on South Africa leading to the UN arms embargo in 1977. In Rhodesia the ZANU and ZAPU did not have much success until they had Mozambique as a base to operate out of so the white regime could have survived and propsered there despite sanctions.
The 1980s would have been very interesting. With Margaret Thatcher coming to power in 1979 one assumes that her government would have been predisposed to settling the Rhodesia crisis by 1981. Embarassed by the issue a compromise would have been agreed to where African parliamentary representation would be increased incrementally over the years and Britain would provide funds for "African advancement" helping to improve the living conditions of the African majority. Unrest in South Africa would have certainly been less since the ANC would not have neighbouring countries to use as bases of attack against the government. The government here would not have had to spend as much money on defence. Also should sanctions come into force (it's less likely that they'll be as severe) the Portuguese will be willing to supply the South Africans through Mozambique as they did for the Rhodesians. With Reagan coming to power in 1980 in the USA and the coldwar heating up in Africa the American government would most likely be more willing to aid a NATO ally in fighting USSR backed guerilla movements. The Soviets had been wanting to expand their influence in Africa at this time by backing various regimes in Ethiopia, Somalia, etc. The war in Angola would have been won in the 1970s and the Chinese had really stopped caring about African revolutionary and socialist movents by the late 1970s when they cozied up with the West.
After the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Union the guerilla movements have no financial backers left. The neighbouring African states of Zambia, Zaire and Tanzania can no longer play the coldwar rivalry to get aid and are poorer than ever. Malawi was always friendly to the three countries. Zambia will probably fall into their orbit after the death of Kenneth Kaunda. Tanzania is far too weak and poor and no longer has an idealist leader like Julius Nyrere. It would be interesting to see if the three regimes would back a side in the Congo civil war, maybe wanting to control the riches of the Katanga. South Africa, Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique would be the most prosperous areas in Africa and the African countries are weaker than ever. The issue really is that colonialism and minority rule are seen negatively in a world where building democracy and human rights is seen as paramount. The Portuguese probably can escape sanctions since they aren't so much racist and will likely increase the number of Africans in the government (By 1973 Mozambique's provincial assembly was already majority non-white). One also has to remember that the Portuguese have more than enough oil in Angola to supply all three countries and still have enough left over. Rhodesia has Africans involved in government, but most international criticism will be against apartheid in South Africa.
Paul,
Welcome to the board. Very good TL.
W/out the loss of Mozambique and ZANU/ZAPU victories, how will Ian Smith deal with his domestic (black) opponents in Rhodesia? In OTL, he was forced to form a coalition with Bishop Muzorewa and others to fight ZANU/ZAPU (things didn't work out and Mugabe triumphed soon afterward). Will he be more willing to deal with Thatcher if the domestic situation is more secure?
Welcome to the board. Very good TL.
W/out the loss of Mozambique and ZANU/ZAPU victories, how will Ian Smith deal with his domestic (black) opponents in Rhodesia? In OTL, he was forced to form a coalition with Bishop Muzorewa and others to fight ZANU/ZAPU (things didn't work out and Mugabe triumphed soon afterward). Will he be more willing to deal with Thatcher if the domestic situation is more secure?
Sierra Leone
Thing is guys, in 2000 just after the British military intervention into Sierra Leone to support the UN PKO against the RUF, there was apparently a great upsurge of support among the ordinary ppl for Britain to resume control as the colonial power and govern them with peace and prosperity, since there'd been such a succession of corrupt civilian govts or brutal military juntas in power ever since independence. Could such a situation in recent times facilitate the actual reimposition of old-style Euro colonialism in Africa today ?
Thing is guys, in 2000 just after the British military intervention into Sierra Leone to support the UN PKO against the RUF, there was apparently a great upsurge of support among the ordinary ppl for Britain to resume control as the colonial power and govern them with peace and prosperity, since there'd been such a succession of corrupt civilian govts or brutal military juntas in power ever since independence. Could such a situation in recent times facilitate the actual reimposition of old-style Euro colonialism in Africa today ?
Melvin Loh said:
I don'tthink so. Sierra Leone is something of an anomaly oin that its colonial rule was fairly prosperous awhile its postcolonial life has been an unmitigated disaster. I don't see anyone in Namibia wanting the South Africans back, or the Congolese hankering after good king Leo.
Even if we discount the role of national pride (which does exist in Africa, though it usually takes second seat to opther identity aspects. That might change if the nation is under threat), the kind of colonial government the Africans would want (aid, law and order, economic development, freedom of movement) is not the kind of government European nations would be prepared to give. Once the honeymoon is over, things would get ugly.