A united maghreb ?

This is my biggest fantasy , its a known fact that The north africans countries hate each other ( i mean the leaders not the people ) with Algeria and Libya supporting the Polisario and Morocco waging war against the polisario , there was even a war between Algeria and Morocco in 1963 now , lets say after getting their indepedance from France and Italy what if the maghrebians countries ( morocco , algeria , libya and Tunisia ) formed a union similar to the european union with Libya and Algeria's massive oils and Morocco and Tunisia's agriculture , the maghreb could be way more advanced both militiraly and technologically ( lets say they get nukes ) with a better lives for its people since poverty was the main reason why the Arab spring happened , how do u think This union would have impacted the arab world ? Will the Maghreb support Iraq against the USA ? Assuming there is no war between Israel and the arabs in the 20th century , how do u think Israel will fit into this timeline ? What about the arab spring ? How Does this impact ISIS and Syria ?
 
Maybe the French do it if they get Libya in WWII or an alternate WWI. I'm not sure if it would last though, nationalism could well tear it apart and it's too big not to get fucked up by Cold War politics. It could well give rise to a united Tuareg state since many of them would be in this country.
 
It probably requires a much earlier PoD (Point of Divergence) : Maghrebi political ensemble does pre-exist colonisation by centuries.
Not only Tunisian (and, earlier, Ifriqiyan) and Morrocean (litteraly, Maghrebi) dynastic states existed right since the Middle-Ages, but you had also political entities in middle Maghreb and modern-day Algeria as well (while, admittedly, a bit less identifiable with the modern country).

Meaning these regions had centuries to create and devellop their own structures (cultural, linguistical, religious, political, etc.) even when under the dominance of stronger powers (Imperial berber dynasties, Castille/Aragon, Ottoman Empire, France, etc.)

You need to have these structures and at least ruling/productive elites to think themselves as Maghrebi as well than Morrocans, Algerians, Tunisians, etc; and then having population being taught it as such.

If not, you'd at best end as an organisation as Arab Maghreb Union (as in an unefficient and largely dead institution) or at worst the laughable attempt made by Gaddafi to pull out a Tunisian-Libyan union.

You need such change to happen before the rise of Panarabism, as it would be really hard to challenge it on the grounds of multinational unification, and you need such PanMaghrebi ideology to be strong enough by the 1930's in order to challenge national anti-colonialism.

Now, how to have it...
My take would be a situation where french colonial power tries to actively break the pre-colonial structures for...reasons (let's just admit they'll do that against any reason*
It could lead Maghrebi elites (or at least colonized regional ones, as I think such colonial policy would be self-destructive regarding colonial expansion) to not only loose their regional hold, but to see on their neighbours more common interest and strategic opportunities.

Would that be enough? I don't know. But it would help.

*IOTL (In Our TimeLine), these structures remained largely in place with more or less technical protectorates (de facto ruled by colonial representants, at the contrary of other colonial protectorates) or Code de l'Indigénat in Algeria.
Keeping as much as old structures to "divide and rule" as well than prevent too much opposition was a sound policy enough, and you'd need real big changes to prevent this.
 
It probably requires a much earlier PoD (Point of Divergence) : Maghrebi political ensemble does pre-exist colonisation by centuries.
Not only Tunisian (and, earlier, Ifriqiyan) and Morrocean (litteraly, Maghrebi) dynastic states existed right since the Middle-Ages, but you had also political entities in middle Maghreb and modern-day Algeria as well (while, admittedly, a bit less identifiable with the modern country).

Meaning these regions had centuries to create and devellop their own structures (cultural, linguistical, religious, political, etc.) even when under the dominance of stronger powers (Imperial berber dynasties, Castille/Aragon, Ottoman Empire, France, etc.)

You need to have these structures and at least ruling/productive elites to think themselves as Maghrebi as well than Morrocans, Algerians, Tunisians, etc; and then having population being taught it as such.

If not, you'd at best end as an organisation as Arab Maghreb Union (as in an unefficient and largely dead institution) or at worst the laughable attempt made by Gaddafi to pull out a Tunisian-Libyan union.

You need such change to happen before the rise of Panarabism, as it would be really hard to challenge it on the grounds of multinational unification, and you need such PanMaghrebi ideology to be strong enough by the 1930's in order to challenge national anti-colonialism.

Now, how to have it...
My take would be a situation where french colonial power tries to actively break the pre-colonial structures for...reasons (let's just admit they'll do that against any reason*
It could lead Maghrebi elites (or at least colonized regional ones, as I think such colonial policy would be self-destructive regarding colonial expansion) to not only loose their regional hold, but to see on their neighbours more common interest and strategic opportunities.

Would that be enough? I don't know. But it would help.

*IOTL (In Our TimeLine), these structures remained largely in place with more or less technical protectorates (de facto ruled by colonial representants, at the contrary of other colonial protectorates) or Code de l'Indigénat in Algeria.
Keeping as much as old structures to "divide and rule" as well than prevent too much opposition was a sound policy enough, and you'd need real big changes to prevent this.

Thank you for the good response , i am from Morocco and have a lot of tunisians/algerians friends because they live with us , the people of Maghreb see themselves as the same people , same culture and nearly the same language , king mohamed V after getting the independance from France , the France suggested giving some algerians lands to Morocco but the king refused and said " we will our algerian brothers until they get their independance" but Algeria backstabbed Morocco later , the problem is with the leaders , the people literally has no problem with each other and a lot of them think that the maghreb union could have been something if the leaders put their ego outside of it
 
I don't remember any proposal to move the border in favour of Morroco before the independence : if there was one thing on which both FLN and France agreed, it was that the integrity of colonial Algeria's territory had to be maintained.

There was, post-independence, a somehow murky attempt by French diplomat to support Morrocean's claim on Trinquet Line being a temporary border and critically on western Algerian territories. But it was half-assed at best, some tentative to divide and rule before Boumediene's coup and while autogestion-like attempts by Ben Bella could be seen as a threat on post-colonial French interests.

I can miss something, and I'm not the most knowledgable person on the matter. But to imply Morroco did supported FLN is really, really hard to proove.
There's exemple on how the fifth wilaya's bases within Morroco were crushed by French forces up to the end of the war.

Morroco seems to have a more murky attitude : not actively fighting FLN bases and troops, but not really defending them either, trying to get benefits from each sides.

Which brings back to the point : Morrocean and Algerian elites were quite different, and definied themselves (especially in Algerian Atlas) by comparison with their neighbour, especially with a Morrocean identity that was definied with the dynastical reinforcement of Alawites : summarizing it roughly, a quite identified state from one side, and from the other, peoples that didn't identified themselves as part of it.
Of course it's more complex, and Morroco could have absorbated Tinduf at some point in the XIXth without too much trouble. But by the 60's, westernized conception of state came by, and colonial borders were an important political matter (it's interesting to see that Morroco, having kept more pre-colonial features when it came to its political ideology, was really opposed on this regard with the more modernist take of GPRA)

Point is, sorry to get this long, that Morroco itself couldn't have taken by his own to unify Maghreb as more it would have attempted so, more you'd have a reaction from Saharian (and Coastal evenmore) populations east of their IOTL territory. Different elites, different references.

Now, could Morroco becomes sort of PanMaghrebi leader; comparable in the region with Nasser's PanArabism?
Eh... I could see where it could come from, but for reasons aformentioned above, I don't think so.

However, and that might be an interesting twist, with a more integrationist (territorialy speaking) French colonial policy : Morrocean dynastic/imperial elites could have fueled a PanMaghrebi ideology more efficiently that if it was incarnated by a state.
Let's imagine that, for some reasons (Alawite/Saadian conflicts goes really bad and end with territorial desintegration?), most of IOTL Morroco, Algeria and possibly part of Mauretania are treated by the colonial power as a whole : maybe not a départementalisation, not at this scale, but some sort of territorialisation equivalent to AOF/AEF.

Let's say an Afrique du Nord Française, where at least in a first time, these distinct elites may be able to pull an equivalent to Mali Federation (very rough equivalent, of course, giving the cultural and much possibly colonial differences in spite of the PoD).
How it could last in one piece, in spite of very real cultural, linguistical, political, economical, tribal, etc. differences, is anyone's guess.

But it could give enough credence for a PanMaghrebi political project, at least as a non-token political force. Not as an unified Maghreb, as in a sole country and culture. But maybe as some federative attempt, and even if it fails, as more ground for international institutions.
 
I don't remember any proposal to move the border in favour of Morroco before the independence : if there was one thing on which both FLN and France agreed, it was that the integrity of colonial Algeria's territory had to be maintained.

There was, post-independence, a somehow murky attempt by French diplomat to support Morrocean's claim on Trinquet Line being a temporary border and critically on western Algerian territories. But it was half-assed at best, some tentative to divide and rule before Boumediene's coup and while autogestion-like attempts by Ben Bella could be seen as a threat on post-colonial French interests.

I can miss something, and I'm not the most knowledgable person on the matter. But to imply Morroco did supported FLN is really, really hard to proove.
There's exemple on how the fifth wilaya's bases within Morroco were crushed by French forces up to the end of the war.

Morroco seems to have a more murky attitude : not actively fighting FLN bases and troops, but not really defending them either, trying to get benefits from each sides.

Which brings back to the point : Morrocean and Algerian elites were quite different, and definied themselves (especially in Algerian Atlas) by comparison with their neighbour, especially with a Morrocean identity that was definied with the dynastical reinforcement of Alawites : summarizing it roughly, a quite identified state from one side, and from the other, peoples that didn't identified themselves as part of it.
Of course it's more complex, and Morroco could have absorbated Tinduf at some point in the XIXth without too much trouble. But by the 60's, westernized conception of state came by, and colonial borders were an important political matter (it's interesting to see that Morroco, having kept more pre-colonial features when it came to its political ideology, was really opposed on this regard with the more modernist take of GPRA)

Point is, sorry to get this long, that Morroco itself couldn't have taken by his own to unify Maghreb as more it would have attempted so, more you'd have a reaction from Saharian (and Coastal evenmore) populations east of their IOTL territory. Different elites, different references.

Now, could Morroco becomes sort of PanMaghrebi leader; comparable in the region with Nasser's PanArabism?
Eh... I could see where it could come from, but for reasons aformentioned above, I don't think so.

However, and that might be an interesting twist, with a more integrationist (territorialy speaking) French colonial policy : Morrocean dynastic/imperial elites could have fueled a PanMaghrebi ideology more efficiently that if it was incarnated by a state.
Let's imagine that, for some reasons (Alawite/Saadian conflicts goes really bad and end with territorial desintegration?), most of IOTL Morroco, Algeria and possibly part of Mauretania are treated by the colonial power as a whole : maybe not a départementalisation, not at this scale, but some sort of territorialisation equivalent to AOF/AEF.

Let's say an Afrique du Nord Française, where at least in a first time, these distinct elites may be able to pull an equivalent to Mali Federation (very rough equivalent, of course, giving the cultural and much possibly colonial differences in spite of the PoD).
How it could last in one piece, in spite of very real cultural, linguistical, political, economical, tribal, etc. differences, is anyone's guess.

But it could give enough credence for a PanMaghrebi political project, at least as a non-token political force. Not as an unified Maghreb, as in a sole country and culture. But maybe as some federative attempt, and even if it fails, as more ground for international institutions.
Maybe the maghrebian union could work the same way the soviet union worked ? I don't know how the people reacted to the creation of The USSR but if a union like that wasalive for 70 years , i don't see why the maghreb couldn't work , especially since both Tunisia and Morocco really wanted now , the only problem is Algeria governement who will do anything just to piss off Morocco , maybe have a party rise up in Morocco , Algeria and Tunisia that they're only purpose is to unify the Maghreb , have people get around them and then massive revolutions happens to take down the respectives governemens and after all said is done , the new union of great maghreb states happens
 
A short message so I can follow up easily on this thread. Very interesting.

My two cents would be that it would take an impulse from the French à la Union Indochinoise. However we know how long the last one lasted...

There's also the matter of the different status. Algeria was France, Tunisia a heavy protectorate and Morocco a lighter one which had kept its monarchy.
 
A short message so I can follow up easily on this thread. Very interesting.

My two cents would be that it would take an impulse from the French à la Union Indochinoise. However we know how long the last one lasted...

There's also the matter of the different status. Algeria was France, Tunisia a heavy protectorate and Morocco a lighter one which had kept its monarchy.
I think Morocco was a heavy protectorate too , actually my grandfather went to prison for a month just for arguing with a french soldier , my grandmother was nearly shot by a french guard because they caught her giving him food while visiting grandpa , you can't go out in the street or even open a window after 7 o'clock in the evening those who dare to are shot , anyway let's just say that France get rid of the monarchy they're (good for nothing anyway) so after all the independant countries of the maghreb realising that their only shot of improving is to bond together and form a union similar to that of the soviets , heck make the Soviet union the major sponsor of the Maghreb , is this possible ?
 
The main problem with the USSR comparison is that the Soviets were, in quite a few ways, basically the successor state of the old Russian Empire (which held most if not all of their territory for at least a century) and that Russia proper is by far the biggest/strongest constituent - both factors which gave it at least some inherent stability.
Such a Maghreb state would have to be born in the XVI century at least, anyways, to have a strong enough common identity before the Scramble for Africa started in earnest - and even that, depending on how much they get pressured by European encroachment, might prove not enough.
As for the question of Moroccan protectorate - it was light when you compare it to outright annexation, maybe lasting centuries, and utter cultural destruction. Morocco still had an independant façade, a sovereign with an Arab elite which had some semblance of self-rule (though Frenchmen could do whatever they pleased) and strong European control only lasted two generations; only Ethiopia did better than that.
 
The main problem with the USSR comparison is that the Soviets were, in quite a few ways, basically the successor state of the old Russian Empire (which held most if not all of their territory for at least a century) and that Russia proper is by far the biggest/strongest constituent - both factors which gave it at least some inherent stability.
Such a Maghreb state would have to be born in the XVI century at least, anyways, to have a strong enough common identity before the Scramble for Africa started in earnest - and even that, depending on how much they get pressured by European encroachment, might prove not enough.
As for the question of Moroccan protectorate - it was light when you compare it to outright annexation, maybe lasting centuries, and utter cultural destruction. Morocco still had an independant façade, a sovereign with an Arab elite which had some semblance of self-rule (though Frenchmen could do whatever they pleased) and strong European control only lasted two generations; only Ethiopia did better than that.
Did the soviets ever faced some forms of nationalism in the republics after the foundation ? Especially since the Soviet anthem has " great Russia " in the lyrics?
 
I think Morocco was a heavy protectorate too , actually my grandfather went to prison for a month just for arguing with a french soldier , my grandmother was nearly shot by a french guard because they caught her giving him food while visiting grandpa , you can't go out in the street or even open a window after 7 o'clock in the evening those who dare to are shot , anyway let's just say that France get rid of the monarchy they're (good for nothing anyway) so after all the independant countries of the maghreb realising that their only shot of improving is to bond together and form a union similar to that of the soviets , heck make the Soviet union the major sponsor of the Maghreb , is this possible ?
Oh my bad, most of what I know about it is through a biography of Lyautey who seemed to mostly get the monarchy back on track. He did leave in 1924 though and now I seem to remember it was strenghtened after
 
Did the soviets ever faced some forms of nationalism in the republics after the foundation ? Especially since the Soviet anthem has " great Russia " in the lyrics?

Only to some extent - due to a combination of external needs, and some periods of true well-being, nationalities always had to contend with a soft Russification but were never pushed to the brink of active unrest until the death of Brezhnev, when the writing was clearly on the walls for many. Most of the time, as long as you didn't cause any real trouble, you had some gray space in which national identities could express (even if at a somewhat low level).
 
Top