The goal of this thread is to give Somalia one of the top 50 GDPs on earth with a post 1945 POD. While it may seem like an inhospitable wasteland full of pirates, terrorists, dictators, and more pirates, that doesn't always have to be the case. Perhaps in some alternate timeline, it's a booming nation that more or less has a better economy than OTL Greece. It doesn't have to be the most stable or free of nations but business still has to be booming with the addition of a decent military.
AHC: A Better Somalia
- Thread starter Kerguelen
- Start date
It could be something similar to singapore. It is where every ship crossing suez goes near.
They have the resources, location, and even tourism possibilities to succeed but its just such a mess. Maybe a much more gradual process of independence? Although that would probably have helped all the African states, not just them. Or maybe just never unite British Somaliland with the rest.
Kill Halie Selassie, which could help make sure the British hand the Haud and the Ogaden to a Somali republic rather than Ethiopia. That, combined with a weaker France that allows Djibouti to join Somalia rather than remain in association with France, might whet the Somali appetite for Greater Somalia, butterflying the 1969 coup and the rise of Siad Barre. If a democratic Somalia can consolidate itself (and perhaps align with the Gulf states, with Arab oil-backed investment building industry and Somali migrant workers providing remittances), by the modern day it could be a fairly developed middle income country. They have large and diverse mineral reserves, significant agricultural potential, and a pretty solid geostrategic location.
Deleted member 97083
Maybe if Somalia had Socotra, they could urbanize that and turn it into a Hong Kong.
A more successful Ogaden War would at least leave Somalia in a stronger position after Barre's death economically speaking. A good way to do this might be to have the Derg lose much faster, as they were doing pre-Soviet intervention. If you can have Somali victory be a fait accompli before let's say December 1977 you could make this happen.
This should ameliorate some of Barre's lowering popularity in the 80s and make his regime more stable. After his death, if you can keep the state from collapsing, I would most likely expect a slow liberalization of the political system given that his successors would face the threat of rebellion.
Note: I am by no means condoning the horrific human rights violations undertaken by Barre's government. He was a despicable man and did awful things. But his government was the best hope for stability Somalia had at the time.
EDIT: Another way might be to have the Djiboutian referendum on whether or not to join Somalia in 1958 go the other way. Djibouti in Somalia would provide a somewhat stronger economy, and cause all sorts of butterflies. Or, you could just keep the military out of the hands of Siad Barre and avoid the coup, perhaps by having him die before 1965 (given that by then he was already consolidating large amounts of power and support in the army). I could see Somalia successfully remaining as a democracy and developing fairly well. It's in a great position for trade and has lots of potential for development if the clans can be reigned in or at least convinced to go along with the state.
This should ameliorate some of Barre's lowering popularity in the 80s and make his regime more stable. After his death, if you can keep the state from collapsing, I would most likely expect a slow liberalization of the political system given that his successors would face the threat of rebellion.
Note: I am by no means condoning the horrific human rights violations undertaken by Barre's government. He was a despicable man and did awful things. But his government was the best hope for stability Somalia had at the time.
EDIT: Another way might be to have the Djiboutian referendum on whether or not to join Somalia in 1958 go the other way. Djibouti in Somalia would provide a somewhat stronger economy, and cause all sorts of butterflies. Or, you could just keep the military out of the hands of Siad Barre and avoid the coup, perhaps by having him die before 1965 (given that by then he was already consolidating large amounts of power and support in the army). I could see Somalia successfully remaining as a democracy and developing fairly well. It's in a great position for trade and has lots of potential for development if the clans can be reigned in or at least convinced to go along with the state.
Why don't they just kill everyone? And then they conquer the world and kill everyone so there's only one person left and that man is now the richest person on the planet. Right?
Yeah, Siad Barre leading to a stable Somalia is the most realistic possibility for a better Somalia.
But I don't see how any Somali democracy in the 1960s would actually be a democracy and not a "democracy".
In any case, it could definitely have one of the stronger economies of sub-Saharan Africa, perhaps even to the extent that people consider it a Middle Eastern or "Arabian" nation and not a sub-Saharan African one. The problem is that even though Somalia is ethnically homogenous, instead of the competing ethnic groups present elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa they have competing clans.
I can see it becoming an actual democracy if, first of all Djibouti joins, and second of all, the Kenyan Somalis, who IIRC had repeatedly lobbied for secession from Kenya before and after independence, are able to join. That would remove one of the major sticking points in the new Somali republic, which was the issue of pan-Somalism, or at least, it would make the Ogaden the only outstanding territory occupied by largely Somalis not within the Republic. IIRC one of Barre's major problems WITH the republic was its failure to support a pan-Somali union. Victory for the Somali rebels in the Shifta War along with a successful Djiboutian referendum would be a good set of PODs here. Some constitutional representation for the clans would help; perhaps a bicameral legislature with representatives from the clans in the upper house and the usual "vulgar" legislature in the lower house.
The more I look at it, actually, the more I think preventing the coup and allowing for some favorable changes to the Republic is the best choice here.
Zachariah
Banned
Easiest way would be to start as early as possible. And actually, it'd be far easier than you might imagine. Simply have the Central Powers win WW1, and subsequently, with its full recognition as an ally of both the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire, have the Dervish State either get granted full sovereignty over British, French and Italian Somaliland (along with keeping a hold of the Dervish State's strongholds of Ogaden and the Haud region) in the aftermath of WW1, or by going on the offensive during WW1 and opening up a Somalian theater of WW1 while the Triple Entente colonial powers are occupied elsewhere, as part of a deal in which they'd be granted suzerainty over British/ or French Somaliland, in much the same way as Iyasu V of Ethiopia was offered French Somaliland (Djibouti) by the Germans in 1915, in return for invading the Sudan with 50,000 soldiers.
And since Iyasu V was the only Ethiopian monarch to recognize the Dervish state's independence, and even ally with it for the brief period he was in power, this would work best if both went in concert- with both the Ethiopian Empire and the Dervish State entering WW1 as agreed, on the side of the Central Powers, as mutual allies against the Entente imperialist colonials, with the Ethiopians getting Italian Somaliland and South Sudan in their half of the bargain, and the Dervish State getting French and British Somaliland, along with the Somali region which they'd already controlled for a quarter of a century anyway, in their half of the bargain.
How much manpower and materials would the Entente have been able to spare to deal with it, and would it have been anywhere near enough? With access to the Red Sea hampered by the Ottomans on one side and the Ethiopians and Dervishes on the other, how much harder would it have been for the Entente to support their continued war efforts? And even if the Arab revolt did happen in this TL, since the Dervish State was one of the most popular and famed in the Islamic world at the time, and the Yemenis were its closest diplomatic and military allies, wouldn't it only serve to strengthen the Somali Dervish State still further?
EDIT: Oh, wait, post 1945 POD. Never mind then...
And since Iyasu V was the only Ethiopian monarch to recognize the Dervish state's independence, and even ally with it for the brief period he was in power, this would work best if both went in concert- with both the Ethiopian Empire and the Dervish State entering WW1 as agreed, on the side of the Central Powers, as mutual allies against the Entente imperialist colonials, with the Ethiopians getting Italian Somaliland and South Sudan in their half of the bargain, and the Dervish State getting French and British Somaliland, along with the Somali region which they'd already controlled for a quarter of a century anyway, in their half of the bargain.
How much manpower and materials would the Entente have been able to spare to deal with it, and would it have been anywhere near enough? With access to the Red Sea hampered by the Ottomans on one side and the Ethiopians and Dervishes on the other, how much harder would it have been for the Entente to support their continued war efforts? And even if the Arab revolt did happen in this TL, since the Dervish State was one of the most popular and famed in the Islamic world at the time, and the Yemenis were its closest diplomatic and military allies, wouldn't it only serve to strengthen the Somali Dervish State still further?
EDIT: Oh, wait, post 1945 POD. Never mind then...
Wouldn't work so well for somewhere that far from the mainland.
I don't know how workable this is, given that I really don't know how important the Red Sea was to the Entente at the time, but I do like the idea quite a lot. I'm a big fan of the Dervish State.
It's also not a very good port, hence why Socotra was never as strategically important as, say, Zanzibar.
Mogadishu or other ports of Somalia were always more important and could easily be major cities in Africa with large amounts of international trade rather than what OTL Mogadishu is.
Okay, so I think I've identified the needed POD for Somali victory in the Ogaden. If the SNA captures Dire Dawa on August 17, 1977 (my birthday coincidentally), then Ethiopia has no chance at victory. The capture would cut off Ethiopia's only rail line to the sea and put their second largest military airport in Somali hands, strangling the flow of Soviet-Cuban support. I figure the war ends by late October given that famine would be a real threat to Ethiopia as a result of losing its major import corridor.
I'm really interested in this idea, you guys. Might write a TL.
I'm really interested in this idea, you guys. Might write a TL.
Not sure how feasible this is, but:
Potsdam conference goes differently. Allies agree to return Somalia to Italy, under the condition that Italy ends any state-sanctioned discrimination against Somalis, and agrees to hold a Somali independence referendum by 1968. They do a similar thing with Libya.
Italians vote to retain the monarchy in 1946.
Over the next 20 years, the idea of a trinational and trilingual "United Kingdom of Italy, Libya, and Somalia" becomes popular, as lots of Italians don't wish to abandon their colonies (which have a large Italian population), but realise that the only way Italy can retain Libya and Somalia is if the natives consent to this.
So, in the years up to 1968, Italy gives full Italian citizenship to Libyans and Somalis, makes Arabic and Somali co-official languages of government in Libya and Somalia respectively, and generally tries to persuade them to stay in union with Italy. It works, and both Libya and Somalia vote against independence in 1968.
By 2017, thanks to funds from Italy and the EU, Somalia is very much a developed country. There is a Somali independence movement, advocating independence from Italy and becoming a separate EU member state, but only about 20% of Somalis are pro-independence. Similar to the situation with OTL Wales.
Potsdam conference goes differently. Allies agree to return Somalia to Italy, under the condition that Italy ends any state-sanctioned discrimination against Somalis, and agrees to hold a Somali independence referendum by 1968. They do a similar thing with Libya.
Italians vote to retain the monarchy in 1946.
Over the next 20 years, the idea of a trinational and trilingual "United Kingdom of Italy, Libya, and Somalia" becomes popular, as lots of Italians don't wish to abandon their colonies (which have a large Italian population), but realise that the only way Italy can retain Libya and Somalia is if the natives consent to this.
So, in the years up to 1968, Italy gives full Italian citizenship to Libyans and Somalis, makes Arabic and Somali co-official languages of government in Libya and Somalia respectively, and generally tries to persuade them to stay in union with Italy. It works, and both Libya and Somalia vote against independence in 1968.
By 2017, thanks to funds from Italy and the EU, Somalia is very much a developed country. There is a Somali independence movement, advocating independence from Italy and becoming a separate EU member state, but only about 20% of Somalis are pro-independence. Similar to the situation with OTL Wales.
I don't think it's feasible given how revenge-driven the Allies were towards the Axis in general after WW2 (for damn good reason, I might add), but if you can keep Italy out of the war or on the Allied side (thus making a very different war) or less likely, have the Italian government be overthrown and sue for peace BEFORE Italian soil is invaded, then I could see this happen.
B-29_Bomber
Banned
I don't think it's impossible. Just have the provisional Italian Government be really, really, fanatically anti-German/Nazi.
That might get the Allies to reconsider their treatment of Italy.
At least not any less so than any other African state.
The trick to everything is the Ogaden War. That screwed up everything and turned Somalia into the dumpster fire it is today. Prevent it entirely or have Somalia win it.
Preventing it could be done by having the British give Ogaden to Somalia when everything is apportioned, aka the sensible thing.
Winning it? Have the Derg go even more nuts during the power struggles and purge the Air Force, a holdover from the Empire, as a counterrevolutionary bastion, along with just generally making the place even more divided and anarchic. The EtAF in OTL was critical to them winning, and without that and with an even worse army it might work. Have Somalia take Ogaden and then aid the Tigray and Eritrean guerrillas, causing them to win. The relative success of the Somalians convinces the Soviets that having them in their corner is still the better move and the split between Brezhnev and Barre doesn't happen.
The rest of Ethiopia is an anarchic wasteland (we're basically turning it into OTL Somalia so this can work), while Somalia becomes relatively wealthy.
Not something to root for, but my best effort.