Can a France without demographic decline keep the Maghreb?

[Socrates]

If we assume the common thesis of French demographic decline being caused by changes to inheritance laws with the Revolution, then metroplitan France could have had a population twice the size by the 1950s.

In our timeline, there were about 1.5 million Pied Noir in North Africa at the point of independence. If we also assume France still takes North Africa, it seems that with a French population tens of millions higher, this could easily be several million higher, perhaps reaching 30%, 40% or even 50% of the population.

Doesn't this mean that France not only can hang on to its Maghreb territories, it is likely to do so?

 

[Avrorrange]

If we assume the common thesis of French demographic decline being caused by changes to inheritance laws with the Revolution, then metroplitan France could have had a population twice the size by the 1950s.

In our timeline, there were about 1.5 million Pied Noir in North Africa at the point of independence. If we also assume France still takes North Africa, it seems that with a French population tens of millions higher, this could easily be several million higher, perhaps reaching 30%, 40% or even 50% of the population.

Doesn't this mean that France not only can hang on to its Maghreb territories, it is likely to do so?

Lots of butterflies lol....Whether there's a decolonization wave around OTL to begin with due to the two world wars is in doubt given France would still be the premier power of Europe with it's large population.

 

[Socrates]

Lots of butterflies lol....Whether there's a decolonization wave around OTL to begin with due to the two world wars is in doubt given France would still be the premier power of Europe with it's large population.

Yes, that's true. We can even go earlier and question how likely an invasion of Algeria is without a Revolution. As long as Britain re-established naval supremacy, which I think is likely even without the Napoleonic Wars, then France will be looking closer afield for colonies, and the Barbary pirates give plenty of excuses for an invasion.

I also think an alternative-revolution is likely at some stage, due to the unsustainability of the ancien regime, but even a couple of decades extra of high fertility will make a huge difference.

However, I was thinking more macro rather than specific causal chains. The timing of decolonisation may be different, but it seems nigh on impossible to hold on to colonies long term against the wishes of a large majority of the local population.

 

[Faeelin]

Wouldn't Frenchmen move to America, which is richer and has more opportunities?

This is the world where America's wineries take off decades ahead of OTL, not apartheid Algeria.

 

[Citycat]

I'm not sure if it would have hung on to all of the Maghreb, unless in this alternative history there was mass migration to Morocco and Tunisia.

But it might have hung on to the northern part of Algeria that was part of Metropolitan France.

 

[water123]

I agree with a few others; the French could probably hold on to Northern Algeria if they continued flooding it with colonists. The Mahgreb or even southern Algeria is useless to the French at best; few resources, angry natives, and it would cost too much to control it rather than, say, holding on to Northern Algeria.

 

[Socrates]

If they hold on to the coastal strip, isn't pacifying the interior the equivalent of the Scottish highlands or Siberia? i.e. something brutal and slow, but which inevitably happens with time?

 

[scholar]

Wouldn't Frenchmen move to America, which is richer and has more opportunities?

This is the world where America's wineries take off decades ahead of OTL, not apartheid Algeria.

More would, but that's a percentage change. Also, in the Americas, unless they are going to Canada, they are going to a place where the need for English is a priority. Not only is Algeria closer, it also does not require learning another language. Further, while the French would at best hope for the lower rung of the upper classes in the US after mastering another language and developing skill sets and influence, a Frenchman would automatically be near the top of society in Algeria with only a minor need for skills and influence.

 

[Roland Traveler]

France could have held it OTL if they really wanted. They were winning in Algeria until PR made them watch their step. If France was willing to do whatever it took, and assuming colonization goes similar to OTL, the Magreb is theirs bar a foreign intervention.

 

[Blackfox5]

It's not so much that France increases its population faster, it's that the native Algerians had their population explode once French improvements in sanitation and medicine reduced mortality there, but the birth rates remained the same. Even as the non-Muslim population increased from 1880-1950, it kept being only between 10-15% IOTL peaking in 1926 at around 15%.

Also, the pied-noirs were predominantly an urban population. Their numbers in cities which a much higher percentage of the urban population than their overall population percentage. The Algerians were overwhelmingly in the rural population. You really need not just an increase in French population, but French settlement in the rural areas if you want to secure the land for France. Otherwise I just see a particularly ugly partition and/or repatriation.

From what I understand colonization really started taking off only in the 1880s. Perhaps if there was greater French settlement in the 1830-1860 period, the combination of more French colonists plus taking over more land directly (as opposed to mere landlords), that might have a real demographic effect. Otherwise I think the French hit their limits by the 1920s no matter what they do.

One way or the other, you need to reduce the Algerian population by the early-mid twentieth century even if you do increase the French population substantially.

 

[funnyhat]

France could have held it OTL if they really wanted. They were winning in Algeria until PR made them watch their step. If France was willing to do whatever it took, and assuming colonization goes similar to OTL, the Magreb is theirs bar a foreign intervention.

In OTL there was no satisfactory political solution that could keep Algeria part of France. France found itself fighting on behalf of 10% of the population to keep the other 90% subservient. That situation could not hold. Even if France won every battle, it had no way of convincing the great majority of the population to give up the fight and accept being non-citizens.

The only realistic way to defeat the FLN would have been to grant citizenship to the entire Algerian population, which was politically impossible, given that it would have dramatically changed the demography of France itself. The best-case scenario for France OTL was to keep a couple of coastal enclaves, à la Ceuta/Melilla for Spain.

 

[Roland Traveler]

In OTL there was no satisfactory political solution that could keep Algeria part of France. France found itself fighting on behalf of 10% of the population to keep the other 90% subservient. That situation could not hold. Even if France won every battle, it had no way of convincing the great majority of the population to give up the fight and accept being non-citizens.

The only realistic way to defeat the FLN would have been to grant citizenship to the entire Algerian population, which was politically impossible, given that it would have dramatically changed the demography of France itself. The best-case scenario for France OTL was to keep a couple of coastal enclaves, à la Ceuta/Melilla for Spain.

I did say any means. That includes ethnic cleansing/genocide. Horrible, but if France was so determined, it would work.

 

[Napoleonrules]

I'm not sure if it would have hung on to all of the Maghreb, unless in this alternative history there was mass migration to Morocco and Tunisia.

But it might have hung on to the northern part of Algeria that was part of Metropolitan France.

No way do they hold and annex Morocco, not only is it a separate nation with their own Sultan/King, the Spanish who have joint protectorate rights would be PISSED, and unless butterflied with the multiple PODs mentioned, FDR will still promise Morocco that the right of self-determination applies to them as well. Tunisia and Algeria are a LOT easier to overcome demographically and politically, and on the international stage. Unless you butterfly away the Soviet Union, International Communism, and the Cold War we have the additional problem of the Soviets constantly pushing the UN to do something, which the French can block, but will humiliate the US into taking a position either way and hurt the French on the world's stage. Insurgencies financed by Nasser's Egypt and Libya's Khaddafi will be constant as well, if they even exist though. Then there's how this affects French involvement in invading the Suez Canal with Britain and Israel; possible with their Arab problems of their own in North Africa the French are not willing to have this first ever neo-colonial adventure of the post-war era.

 

[Citycat]

No way do they hold and annex Morocco, not only is it a separate nation with their own Sultan/King> snip

Yep, that's what I already said, it is unlikely they could hold on to Morocco.

So I'm not sure why you quoted me and then wrote a long argument about it.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Yep, that's what I already said, it is unlikely they could hold on to Morocco.

So I'm not sure why you quoted me and then wrote a long argument about it.

Uh... you said "unless there is mass migration to Morocco", I'm saying- not even with mass migration and it is irresponsible and wrong to say that with mass migration it possible. It isn't, and for the reasons I said. So there is a difference. Thanks. Bye.

 

[Drewbdu]

Uh... you said "unless there is mass migration to Morocco", I'm saying- not even with mass migration and it is irresponsible and wrong to say that with mass migration it possible. It isn't, and for the reasons I said. So there is a difference. Thanks. Bye.

There are more grotesque ways to hold on to territory, if the French became ideologically radical enough to initiate such methods.

 

[Socrates]

No way do they hold and annex Morocco, not only is it a separate nation with their own Sultan/King, the Spanish who have joint protectorate rights would be PISSED, and unless butterflied with the multiple PODs mentioned, FDR will still promise Morocco that the right of self-determination applies to them as well. Tunisia and Algeria are a LOT easier to overcome demographically and politically, and on the international stage. Unless you butterfly away the Soviet Union, International Communism, and the Cold War we have the additional problem of the Soviets constantly pushing the UN to do something, which the French can block, but will humiliate the US into taking a position either way and hurt the French on the world's stage. Insurgencies financed by Nasser's Egypt and Libya's Khaddafi will be constant as well, if they even exist though. Then there's how this affects French involvement in invading the Suez Canal with Britain and Israel; possible with their Arab problems of their own in North Africa the French are not willing to have this first ever neo-colonial adventure of the post-war era.

With a POD around the 1780s, I'm pretty sure all of that could be butterflied. I don't see why, in a different timeline with a much larger French population, Morocco can't be annexed. Spain would be a long way behind in the power stakes.

 

[Napoleonrules]

With a POD around the 1780s, I'm pretty sure all of that could be butterflied. I don't see why, in a different timeline with a much larger French population, Morocco can't be annexed. Spain would be a long way behind in the power stakes.

A larger French population does nothing to help a nation annex a sovereign nation that you are simply a joint partner in a protectorate over, and which other nations such as Germany, Britain, and the USA have interests in keeping the status quo. Morocco was not a colony, it had its own sovereign ruler co-recognized by Spain and France, please don't confuse it with a colony.

 

[Gloss]

A larger French population does nothing to help a nation annex a sovereign nation that you are simply a joint partner in a protectorate over, and which other nations such as Germany, Britain, and the USA have interests in keeping the status quo. Morocco was not a colony, it had its own sovereign ruler co-recognized by Spain and France, please don't confuse it with a colony.

Like people said in 1780 there is nothing that would stop France from not annexing Morocco not as a joint protectorate.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Simply having a larger population, including a larger population of potential migrants, will do nothing. I suspect that OTL's percentage of pieds-noirs was about as high as it could go: there was only so much space for intensive agriculturalists and professionals in an Algeria that, besides being poor and underdeveloped, was already pretty densely populated. Where could more migrants go?

I suppose space might be created for them if France adopted a much more repressive policy towards Algerian Muslims, at best confining them to rural bantustans on the South African model for reserves of cheap labour, at worst subjecting them to ethnic cleaning or outright genocide. I just find it difficult to imagine any of OTL's French governments enacting such nakedly brutal policies.

If there was a larger French population in the 19th century, one with more rapid growth and a younger population, then migration will be different. Perhaps there will be less immigration to France from the Third Republic on. Perhaps there will be more emigration, whether to the United States, Canada, or the Southern Cone (Argentina and Uruguay were major destinations). Algeria, though?