West Africa, not Alsace: Is it worth it?

[Deleted member 109224]

France's Empire in Africa is interesting in how the French claimed everything was France proper and how from time to time the French would expand the franchise to certain places (the four communes of Senegal being the most notable).

My question is, what if there hadn't been a Great War (or reclamation of Alsace-Lorraine) and the French focused on integrating part of their African Empire into France proper.

Algeria was metropole OTL. Aside from Algeria, a trans-saharan railrod linking Algiers/Oran to Gao and Dakar/St Louis seems like a likely means of integration. French Sudan (Mali), Senegal, and Mauritania seem like the most likely candidates for integration. Gabon wanted to stay French OTL and Djibouti is small enough that it could be absorbed as an overseas collectivity as well.

Algeria would be an interesting melting pot once a railroad is completed, with West Africans and Mediterranean Europeans continuing to migrate there.

How does holding these territories compare to not having Alsace-Lorraine? Is it worth it from the long-term french PoV?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

... How does holding these territories compare to not having Alsace-Lorraine? Is it worth it from the long-term french PoV?

In hindsight? It took a bloody & otherwise costly war to regain Alsace-Lorraine. The cost of that does not stack up well vs Imperial development of West Africa. Conversely the average French leader in June 1914 will see none of that cost.

 

[Catspoke]

Certainly a world without WW1 and WW2 has more European migration to Africa. More $ for economic development in Africa. A rail line to the Niger river makes a lot of sense.

Germany should encourage this French behavior. Certainly not pick fights over Morocco.

 

[fasquardon]

From the point of view of a French leader in 1913? WW1 was definitely too high a price for a territory they'd mostly come to terms with losing.

From the point of view of a French leader in 1919? WW1 was absolutely worth gaining Alsace-Lorrain back! (The alternative, of course, was to face a reality to grim to bear facing - the Western Front is a giant toxic waste dump to this day, the soil unfit for human use due to heavy metal poisoning from all the shells exploded on it.)

So absolutely, it is better for the French to avoid WW1 and never get A-L back. I'm not sure that without WW1 the French would have valued their empire enough to expand the franchise and really invest in it though. Though of course, with a stronger French economy even caring for the Empire less may have still resulted in more investment in it.

fasquardon

 

[Grey Wolf]

Senegal sent deputies to the assembly in Paris did it not?

 

[sollol]

It did. Leopold Senghor, national idol of the Senegal, was a deputy. However, most of them were white Frenchman and there were very few people with Senegalese origins that received citizenship.

 

[Catspoke]

It was always my impression the French were the best colonialists. If you had to be colonized by someone, you would pick them. Without the wars its just a lot harder for independence movements to develop and repression, even heavy repression won't hardly get noticed (racial superiority theories won't be discredited). Air conditioning is just starting to be a thing in 1914, plus anti malaria drugs are just starting to be available. Wireless radio is also just starting to be a thing in 1914 with the Germans completing their big station in Togo. Of course flight improves. All this makes commercial possibilities easier even without a bunch of government money.

The Germans were big rail builders in Africa, were planning on extending their rail limes in Kamerun all the way to Lake Chad. So I expect the French to expand their net as a military precaution themselves.

 

[rfmcdonald]

In hindsight, I suppose French West Africa and Algeria could well have been a hugely profitable colony for France so long as France was willing to make the initial investments. For a variety of reasons, of which racism has to be ranked highly. The utter failure to come up with a meaningful way to include the Muslims of Algeria in the French nation politically comes to mind

 

[ennobee]

The problem with Alsace-Lorraine was that it once WAS part if France, but was taken away from them. So there will always be people crying injustice over that. It would be a different game if in 1870, Germany would have taken Algeria and left A/L with France.

 

[MichaelWest]

As one tinkering with the Great War I have at least pondered it. Without the Great War, or worse a lost war for France, I think she does invest better in her Empire. But that is not to say all is well. The French often had a benevolent neglectful attitude towards the Empire, policy rarely followed French ideals, at bottom she was as ugly an imperialist as any. The true issues will be racism and religious intolerance, Algeria being our best example and Indochina showing just how the French could alienate the masses. It is easy to assimilate the predominately white and Christian outposts of Empire, harder still to accept natives, Muslims and Africans as equals. France should have been better equipped ideologically to do so, yet my fear is that a place like Algeria suffers some split into the French coastal Metropole and the native populace pushed off into the desert. Or worse kept in limbo. But that just looks like OTL.

So, having the socialists succeed in gaining a cool peace with Germany, the French minority in A-L assimilating, tensions falling away and Franco-German trade blossoming, you get France possessing an Empire ready to feed Germany. German banks open investment partnering with Paris and infrastructure follows, schools, clean water, roads, airports, and more is built to pull the Empire up to European like levels. Backwaters remain and the average colonial subject might be quite poor, but governance might be actually benevolent, quality of life ticking upward each generation without war, reaction and abandonment. I am uncertain if the colonies ever quite reach equality and it is still not perfect being ruled from afar but more of the grim poverty, corruption and proxy fights might be worth the loss of independence. I am loathe to suggest European rule is simply better, but I accept that compared to OTL many of these peoples might welcome becoming on par with poorer parts of Europe and possessing only local autonomy.

 

[SpaceCowboy]

France's Empire in Africa is interesting in how the French claimed everything was France proper and how from time to time the French would expand the franchise to certain places (the four communes of Senegal being the most notable).

My question is, what if there hadn't been a Great War (or reclamation of Alsace-Lorraine) and the French focused on integrating part of their African Empire into France proper.

Algeria was metropole OTL. Aside from Algeria, a trans-saharan railrod linking Algiers/Oran to Gao and Dakar/St Louis seems like a likely means of integration. French Sudan (Mali), Senegal, and Mauritania seem like the most likely candidates for integration. Gabon wanted to stay French OTL and Djibouti is small enough that it could be absorbed as an overseas collectivity as well.

Algeria would be an interesting melting pot once a railroad is completed, with West Africans and Mediterranean Europeans continuing to migrate there.

How does holding these territories compare to not having Alsace-Lorraine? Is it worth it from the long-term french PoV?

Can I vote for a third option here? Specifically, can I vote for a third option: no World War I but also no integration of French West Africa?

The price to regain Alsace-Lorraine was probably way too high. I won't dispute that. However, I am unsure that it would be wise from the perspective of social harmony for France to annex French West Africa (or even to keep Algeria in the long(er)-run). A French annexation of West Africa eventually means giving French citizenship and full suffrage and equality to everyone living there (the same is also true for Algeria; else, France becomes an apartheid state). Due to the rapid population growth in West Africa and Algeria, this would eventually mean a France dominated by non-Europeans. Would Europeans in France have been willing to accept that? Also, would they have been willing to accept millions of Arabs, Berbers, and Africans moving to their cities? (France's cities are diverse right now, but the scale would probably be much larger if France kept Algeria and West Africa.)

Overall, it seems that keeping West Africa (and Algeria) would only result in a lot of social problems and tensions down the road.

 

[SpaceCowboy]

In hindsight, I suppose French West Africa and Algeria could well have been a hugely profitable colony for France so long as France was willing to make the initial investments. For a variety of reasons, of which racism has to be ranked highly. The utter failure to come up with a meaningful way to include the Muslims of Algeria in the French nation politically comes to mind

Yeah, if you're going to incorporate parts of your empire into your country, you'd have to give full suffrage and equality to everyone living there in order to avoid becoming an apartheid state.

I just don't see Europeans in France being willing to accept a scenario where they would eventually be outnumbered by Muslims and Africans. I mean, this scenario terrifies Israel in our TL, and without the World Wars, it would probably take racism much longer to fade away in both France and other Western European countries. (Hitler's genocide against the Jews, Roma, et cetera was thankfully a severe blow to the popularity of racism in the West in our TL.)

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Yeah, if you're going to incorporate parts of your empire into your country, you'd have to give full suffrage and equality to everyone living there in order to avoid becoming an apartheid state.

I just don't see Europeans in France being willing to accept a scenario where they would eventually be outnumbered by Muslims and Africans. I mean, this scenario terrifies Israel in our TL, and without the World Wars, it would probably take racism much longer to fade away in both France and other Western European countries. (Hitler's genocide against the Jews, Roma, et cetera was thankfully a severe blow to the popularity of racism in the West in our TL.)

In 1900 the populations were

France: 38,900,000
Algeria: 4,675,000
French Sudan: 2,672,000
Senegal: 1,200,000
Mauretania: 502,000
French Congo: 280,000
Gabon: 240,000
French Somaliland: 50,000

WWI caused a demographic stagnation in France and ended a period of immigration to France and Algeria.

Assuming full integration + higher income levels/development for integrated "overseas provinces" + access to family planning, it seems like a manageable situation. The French metropole likely has ~80-85 million people by present day and the integrated provinces likely have upwards of ~60 million people. (versus around 80 million OTL).

 

[SpaceCowboy]

In 1900 the populations were

France: 38,900,000
Algeria: 4,675,000
French Sudan: 2,672,000
Senegal: 1,200,000
Mauretania: 502,000
French Congo: 280,000
Gabon: 240,000
French Somaliland: 50,000

WWI caused a demographic stagnation in France and ended a period of immigration to France and Algeria.

Assuming full integration + higher income levels/development for integrated "overseas provinces" + access to family planning, it seems like a manageable situation. The French metropole likely has ~80-85 million people by present day and the integrated provinces likely have upwards of ~60 million people. (versus around 80 million OTL).

In 1900 the populations were

France: 38,900,000
Algeria: 4,675,000
French Sudan: 2,672,000
Senegal: 1,200,000
Mauretania: 502,000
French Congo: 280,000
Gabon: 240,000
French Somaliland: 50,000

WWI caused a demographic stagnation in France and ended a period of immigration to France and Algeria.

Assuming full integration + higher income levels/development for integrated "overseas provinces" + access to family planning, it seems like a manageable situation. The French metropole likely has ~80-85 million people by present day and the integrated provinces likely have upwards of ~60 million people. (versus around 80 million OTL).

France's population was already almost stagnating by 1914:

Also, I wouldn't consider Algeria to be a part of metropolitan France since its culture and religion appear to be closer to that of West Africa than to France. Thus, the actual figures would be something like 40-45 million Europeans in France and 140-145 million non-Europeans in France. In such a scenario, the Europeans would be outnumbered more than 3 to 1!

 

[SpaceCowboy]

And Yes, it might not be clear to France's population and leaders in 1900 that they are going to get outnumbered if they'll attempt to keep Algeria and incorporate West Africa into France. However, it should become sufficiently clear to them by the end of the 20th century.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

France's population was already almost stagnating by 1914:

Also, I wouldn't consider Algeria to be a part of metropolitan France since its culture and religion appear to be closer to that of West Africa than to France. Thus, the actual figures would be something like 40-45 million Europeans in France and 140-145 million non-Europeans in France. In such a scenario, the Europeans would be outnumbered more than 3 to 1!

If you maintain the pre-WW1 fertility rate, continue it to around the OTL WWII point, and then have the demographic recovery which I'd associate with the growing middle class culture of the post-WW2 era (and I don't see why such a economic situation wouldn't happen when France would likely be richer without two destructive wars), I would think France would have a European population that's 10-15 million people greater than OTL 2018 France's.

Plus France here is only integrating OTL Mali, Senegal, Mauritania, Gabon, Algeria, and French Congo here - not all of French West Africa. If you use the OTL population of all of French Africa it's around 140 million but here the bit that is French is more like 60 million most likely.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

France's population was already almost stagnating by 1914:

Only tangentially related, but the historical population growth of France was really an outlier, from the stagnation of the 19th century, to the sudden growth immediately after WW2 before the postwar economic recovery was even underway. Even the traditional explanation of land inheritance laws in the 1800s doesn't explain other mainland European countries that had the same inheritance laws. And other countries that were occupied in WW2 like France, didn't instantly recover after the war but took some years. Anyone know why France's pattern and demographic transition was so different?

 

[SpaceCowboy]

If you maintain the pre-WW1 fertility rate, continue it to around the OTL WWII point, and then have the demographic recovery which I'd associate with the growing middle class culture of the post-WW2 era (and I don't see why such a economic situation wouldn't happen when France would likely be richer without two destructive wars), I would think France would have a European population that's 10-15 million people greater than OTL 2018 France's.

See, that's what I'm skeptical about. I don't know what exactly the causes of France's post-WWII economic recovery were, but I suspect that it had something to do with France's security finally being assured. After World War II, Germany's military power was destroyed and it was divided into two separate countries. Also, the US and USSR were keeping the peace in Europe after the end of WWII--something which prevented French people from worrying about themselves or their allies getting conquered by Germany.

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this, but as of right now, I suspect that the stable post-WWII order in Europe allowed French people to finally relax and focus on economic growth and on having large families.

Also, I don't think that Western Europe would have been much wealthier on a per capita basis without the World Wars. After all, Western Europe recovered from World War II very quickly and experienced decades of robust economic growth afterwards.

Finally, I should probably mention that perhaps 10% of France's population is composed of Muslims and Africans. They should be added to the non-European population tally in this scenario.

Plus France here is only integrating OTL Mali, Senegal, Mauritania, Gabon, Algeria, and French Congo here - not all of French West Africa. If you use the OTL population of all of French Africa it's around 140 million but here the bit that is French is more like 60 million most likely.

OK, but would this 60 million be the peak population figure or would it continue growing?

Also, let's say that you're correct (something which I strongly doubt, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument). A country which has 80 million Europeans and 60 million non-Europeans (primarily Muslims and Africans) does not look like it would be too stable. I mean, the U.S. will probably manage to do this, but its immigrants (Hispanics, Asians, and the Muslim elite) appear to be more culturally compatible than working-class Muslims would be. Indeed, I doubt that things would go very smoothly if Israel annexed the West Bank and gave Israeli citizenship to everyone living there.

 

[SpaceCowboy]

Only tangentially related, but the historical population growth of France was really an outlier, from the stagnation of the 19th century, to the sudden growth immediately after WW2 before the postwar economic recovery was even underway. Even the traditional explanation of land inheritance laws in the 1800s doesn't explain other mainland European countries that had the same inheritance laws. And other countries that were occupied in WW2 like France, didn't instantly recover after the war but took some years. Anyone know why France's pattern and demographic transition was so different?

France's population recovery began under Vichy, no?

If so, one possible guess is that, whether France was on the winning or losing side of World War II, French people finally stopped being in a sense of panic. After all, France wouldn't be the one who'd have to enforce the peace in either of these two scenarios. Now, compare that with the vulnerable situation that France found itself in from 1866 to 1940.

Of course, I'm just guessing here. It might be something else completely.

 

[Wendell]

I think one factor in possible integration with the metropole will depend on how the colonies of other powers fair under these circumstances. If World War I is avoided, for example, there may be more British and German migration into some of their colonies. Perhaps slightly more Portuguese migrate to the colonies also. If this happens, then the odds are increased that these colonies will be in some way integrated, thus, those of France may be too. How integrated though will vary by colony I suspect.