If you manage to wipe out the birth control movement, whether through legal means, or by creating PODs that stop scientific development of it, you can see European birth rates stay at large levels post both world wars, you could end up with a larger European population, perhaps even stopping both World Wars leads to greater colony investment from European powers, making Africa a more popular destination for European migrants.
Massive European Immigration To Africa?
- Thread starter TickTock The Witch's Dead
- Start date
Chungus Maximus
Banned
Given the current disfunction, perhaps Italian colonial rule was actually better...
The whole idea sounds more feasible as part of a "no world wars in 1st half of 20th century" TL.
Ricardolindo
Banned
Actually, I now think that Botswana and Libya could also have become European majority, given their low and sparse populations.
This is especially the case with Libya, if Italy had remained neutral in World War II.
For Botswana, maybe diamonds being found would lead the British to encourage settlement there.
In alternate history, we have this wonderful thing called the butterfly effect. Take for example the fine nation of Somalia. It has the resources, the geography, and the tourism to become a prosperous nation. However, there are pirates and warlords running around due to Said Barre's mismanagement of the country which in itself was caused by the death of President Sharmarke, the first democratically elected successor to an African head of state.
Stable African countries like Egypt could fall into massive instability given certain circumstances. But what's this? A large group of Italian immigrants come to Somalia and the government starts improving the colonial military/ infrastructure to support their white population. Maybe this allows the Somalians to develop more and improve, but we'll never know because this alternate history opens up thousands of possibilities for the future of Somalia.
I had a thought: if the European empires developed polices where they would give away free land (at the expense of the native blacks) for people to get who that encourage immigration or no?
This is what happened OTL in most colonies. In some cases it was explicit, like Rhodes' "Pioneer Column" into Zimbabwe offered those whites who joined a guaranteed number of hectares of land and a number of gold claims. In others it was implicit rather than explicit, but it still happened. It was literally how settler colonisation took place.
Nevertheless, none of these resulted in anything close to majority white populations, even on a province or district basis
It's not as if it was impossible; the climate may be a bit stuffy and they would need some investment for ending tropical diseases (which I am sure the natives would also appreciate) but if they are determined to there would be nothing stopping them.
The problem would be the lack of will and the fact that in some areas of Africa are already populated with natives who would feel like it is an imposition.
The problem would be the lack of will and the fact that in some areas of Africa are already populated with natives who would feel like it is an imposition.
Maybe if the Boer wars didn't happen this would help. Estimated 100,000 people died as a result. Of that number 20,000 were British troops so having the remainder live would increase population totals later on down the road. Plus it was costly for Britain anyway. No bad thing for having us not invent concentration camps.
80,000 Boers certainly didn’t die, that numbers may seem plausible when counting Indigenous African death tho.
But it doesn’t help the challenge, at best you’d increase the modern Afrikaner population by 10-15% but wouldn’t affect immigration directly - beyond the obvious political effect
Although I do think that either a united party ruled South Africa that avoids apartheid OR a cape colony which never unites with the rest could become attractive destination for european migrants after ww2 in the same way Australia was, over 4 millions people emigrated to Australia in the 40 years after ww2, 40% of that being from the British isles, if a third of that goes to SA/Cape today it may have more than 2-2.5 millions additional European descended people
In a national population of 52 million of 18 million for the Cape provinces
Well you’re not going to massively alter South African demographic with a post 1900 POD lol, not without doing terrible things.
But an united Party non-pariah South Africa, that had european immigration and better quality of life and development in the 1960s-1990s could end up in a situation where whites-coloured/Indian make up a good 25-30% of the populaiton today together
An extra 4 million people would be needed, i.e. 14 million out of 56 million. The original question was about European immigration though?
My best candidates are Southwest Africa and Libya respectively, even post-Great War. If Germany retained SWA they possess a small empire, the incentive is to invest more to make it useful, something bigger empires lack as everything is spread wider. Same for Italy in Ljbya. Both offer the potential for Europeans to outnumber natives or create independent native states that remove them. In my draft Germans move to SWA like Americans did Florida, large retiree population, Windhoek looks like Las Vegas, a big air base, tourist industry, maybe the atomic test site, large suburbia. I carve off Ovamboland to a separate state, akin to an Indian reservation with local rule, and in Libya I just allow Italians to either emigrate enough, oil industry drawing in workers and investment.
Somalia could get a boost from European minority, like a lot of places, but no "white" majority. Without both wars or just WW2, European investment will flow to select holdings, making a few more look like SA, higher investment and development, bigger minority, more pressure to European-ize. France could do something similar to Algeria, Germany in East Africa, and so on. Without a USSR or other disrupter, the struggle to independence is different. More of the empire system persists, the British islands in the Caribbean or Aden or Singapore behave more like HK. Local majority ruled by British minority who share enough to hold on even as the larger world breaks away.
Somalia could get a boost from European minority, like a lot of places, but no "white" majority. Without both wars or just WW2, European investment will flow to select holdings, making a few more look like SA, higher investment and development, bigger minority, more pressure to European-ize. France could do something similar to Algeria, Germany in East Africa, and so on. Without a USSR or other disrupter, the struggle to independence is different. More of the empire system persists, the British islands in the Caribbean or Aden or Singapore behave more like HK. Local majority ruled by British minority who share enough to hold on even as the larger world breaks away.
A Mormon type religious movement in the mid-late 19th century in Germany,led by a charismatic founder,could lead his/her followers to southwest Africa.If they establish themselves and make the area attractive to Europeans,maybe a portion of the ethnic groups that moved to Brazil,Argentina,Venezuela around the same time end up in Africa.
!
I don’t think this is likely. Rhodesia and South Africa irl restricted marriage to within a race.
South Africa is possible if gold is discovered much earlier, which would draw in enough people to make alternative industries also develop, and eventually a critical mass would be reached where it became a destination in and of itself like Canada or Australia.
Namibia is a desert, so I'd say likely no, but a longer lasting Kaiserreich or German Victory in WW1 would help. That, or if we want to get creative, a second Great Trek of sorts from the Afrikaner people, in reaction to a huge upscale in British colonization stemming from an earlier Gold Rush, and the annexation by franchise of the Boer Republics. The same would go for Algeria. If France loses either World War, expect a significant increase in immigration from mainland France.
Rhodesia could see significantly more immigration if economic conditions in Britain are much worse. Kenya, likely not. Kenya also suffered from a pretty nasty group in charge of its colonization effort that alienated newcomers and often led to them leaving for other places, in addition to stirring up unrest from the natives, which also dissuaded settlement.
Namibia is a desert, so I'd say likely no, but a longer lasting Kaiserreich or German Victory in WW1 would help. That, or if we want to get creative, a second Great Trek of sorts from the Afrikaner people, in reaction to a huge upscale in British colonization stemming from an earlier Gold Rush, and the annexation by franchise of the Boer Republics. The same would go for Algeria. If France loses either World War, expect a significant increase in immigration from mainland France.
Rhodesia could see significantly more immigration if economic conditions in Britain are much worse. Kenya, likely not. Kenya also suffered from a pretty nasty group in charge of its colonization effort that alienated newcomers and often led to them leaving for other places, in addition to stirring up unrest from the natives, which also dissuaded settlement.