Can a France without demographic decline keep the Maghreb?

[Napoleonrules]

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

In 1780? Yes, there's the impossibility of France annexing Morocco in 1780, hell the French couldn't even stop Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco from taking their warships and holding them hostage, it took an upstart USA (actually an international coalition obstensibly led by Sweden, but since when do posters in AH.com let real historical facts matter) to prove fighting back instead of paying ransom worked. Then the British learned to fight back and lead the charge. No, France could not in the late 18th century conquer Morocco. In fact Germany, Spain, Britain, and the USA would all have blocked such an attempt at dismantling the local sultanate. The protectorate wasn't established until 1912... in what time do you have to annex and create a colony prior to colonial dismemberment in the '50s? French interference and a "sphere of influence" didn't even begin until 1890s with 1904 when Britain and Spain agreed the French could take the lead towards eventual protectorate status. Real OTL history needs to be understood before deciding if a POD would work. In this case- no, France can't. You'd have to have a far back POD more than "France gets more people".

 

[Socrates]

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.

You are being ridiculously historically determinative here. With 100 years or so to play with you have plenty of time to create the butterlies needed to do this. To say a country of tens of millions of population can't possibly annex a nearby country of a couple million under any circumstances is absurd.

As for the idea that the Pied Noir hit their population limit, there is simply no evidence for this, given at no point did it flatline in our timeline. In addition the Algerian population continued to boom post independence, showing there was no upper limit on capacity.

 

[rfmcdonald]

You are being ridiculously historically determinative here. With 100 years or so to play with you have plenty of time to create the butterlies needed to do this. To say a country of tens of millions of population can't possibly annex a nearby country of a couple million under any circumstances is absurd.

This is true. It is, however, safe to say that the conditions are narrow.

Considering the case of Estonia and Latvia. Between their 1940 annexation and their regaining of independence in 1991, their Russophone populations grew hugely. In Estonia, Russophones became a near-majority in the area of the capital, Tallinn, and an overwhelming majority in the northeast around Narva; in Latvia, Russophone populations were larger still and diffused throughout Latvia's urban areas. How did this happen?

Yes, the Soviet government did engage in some ethnic cleansing of locals. (Narva before 1940 was two-thirds Estonian, and its previous population not allowed to return.) Yes, the Soviet government did encourage migration from other points in the Soviet Union to these two republics. This migration, though, was fundamentally an economic one, as people elsewhere in the Soviet Union moved in large numbers to two countries that were not only among the richest and most Westernized republics in the Soviet Union, but compared to East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Why will French people move in such huge numbers to Algeria, even if there are more of them? Where will the sustainable economic opportunities for more French colonists come from?

As for the idea that the Pied Noir hit their population limit, there is simply no evidence for this, given at no point did it flatline in our timeline.

That's not at all the same thing. The Pied Noir population was growing, although not much more rapidly than the Algerian population before the Second World War. The thing is, in a very poor society with an unequal distribution of wealth, there are only so many niches for immigrants. Unless a French government was willing to engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing of the Algerian Muslim competition, an Algeria dominated by European migrants is as likely as a South Africa likewise dominated by European migrants.

In addition the Algerian population continued to boom post independence, showing there was no upper limit on capacity.

If you're arguing that Pied Noirs would have grown in number had they accepted the living standards of ordinary Algerians, well, I can't say that you're necessarily wrong.

 

[Dominic]

This was never the most likely outcome, but with an early enough POD it's quite achievable, depending on how you define 'Maghreb'. You don't even need some French demographic recovery earlier than OTL. The fact of European colonialism prior to 1914 is that it would have been _extremely_ difficult to dislodge without some equivalent to WW1&2. The European powers were effectively unchallenged in their carving up of the world, with US/Russian/Japanese attacks on the colonial empires being entirely by-products of that war. Prior to that, everyone was in on the action. The wars created both the (genuine) opposition to those empires as well as weakening them enough to be challenged, and so their absence makes a good POD for the continuation of French rule in North Africa.

France without the massive losses of the early 20th century would simply have continued to solidify their control over Africa for decades longer. The Maghreb certainly put up much more effective resistance than most of the rest of their Empire, but was so close to France and considered so 'integral' that actual successful expulsion or even rising above nuisance level is going to be very hard to achieve. This allows the Pied Noirs to continue to grow. They are unlikely to ever outnumber the Maghrebins in an absolute sense, but the right combination of immigration policies, local discrimination against Algerians, and most of all time, should result in large coastal areas being genuinely French. Morocco and Tunisia are harder, and probably are less attractive than pre-existing French pockets that have their own momentum.

The long-term of the colonial empires sans WW1&2 is hard to guess at, but given just how hard they died OTL the massive disparity in resources between OTL and an ATL without those wars suggests that they will be able to persist unopposed for far longer. It's not really a question of population, as France always outnumbered the individual Maghreb states enormously. It's a question of time, commitment, and resources. Though if you do want France to have a larger population, it's much easier to simply avoid the loss of A-L and conjure up a French acquisition of Wallonia during the 19th century, that would net 3-4 extra million people+a much stronger economy without needing to hand wave the birthrate issue. That and no WW1 would give France a French-speaking population of 45-50 million by mid century.

 

[rfmcdonald]

France without the massive losses of the early 20th century would simply have continued to solidify their control over Africa for decades longer. The Maghreb certainly put up much more effective resistance than most of the rest of their Empire, but was so close to France and considered so 'integral' that actual successful expulsion or even rising above nuisance level is going to be very hard to achieve.

Even if the belle époque continues uninterrupted, there is eventually going to be a population boom in North Africa among non-Muslims. When this happens, especially in Algeria, there's going to be a huge political issue. How will France integrate into itself, in Algeria, a rapidly growing population quickly coming to amount to a large proportion of the total French population?

This allows the Pied Noirs to continue to grow. They are unlikely to ever outnumber the Maghrebins in an absolute sense, but the right combination of immigration policies, local discrimination against Algerians, and most of all time, should result in large coastal areas being genuinely French.

How is this going to result in more francization than OTL? And, again, how are people going to be attracted to live in the European colonies?

The long-term of the colonial empires sans WW1&2 is hard to guess at, but given just how hard they died OTL the massive disparity in resources between OTL and an ATL without those wars suggests that they will be able to persist unopposed for far longer. It's not really a question of population, as France always outnumbered the individual Maghreb states enormously. It's a question of time, commitment, and resources.

Will they last with any better result?

 

[Dominic]

Even if the belle époque continues uninterrupted, there is eventually going to be a population boom in North Africa among non-Muslims. When this happens, especially in Algeria, there's going to be a huge political issue. How will France integrate into itself, in Algeria, a rapidly growing population quickly coming to amount to a large proportion of the total French population?

Eventually is the right word. As I said I don't think it's the most likely outcome, but in the time it takes for a North African population boom to actually have a significant impact on the balance of power France does have a chance to gain a much a stronger position along the coast. I do think though that the only way it could succeed is with some genuine brutality, not genocide or ethnic cleansing as such, but policies that are actively discriminatory. A worse outcome to OTL, to be sure.

How is this going to result in more francization than OTL? And, again, how are people going to be attracted to live in the European colonies?

Again, unlikely but I think the right combination of somewhat increased immigration and long term discrimination could push the French into being a majority along the coast, albeit a slim one.

Will they last with any better result?

Define 'better'. I think France could integrate the Algerian coast, with some luck, but I don't actually think France would be better for doing so. France would probably have to commit some major crimes to do so. They did seem reasonably willing to do so OTL; ITTL they'd at least have much more ability to do so.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Eventually is the right word. As I said I don't think it's the most likely outcome, but in the time it takes for a North African population boom to actually have a significant impact on the balance of power France does have a chance to gain a much a stronger position along the coast.

How is this the case? Even a population of five million Pied Noirs would be outnumbered substantially by the 39-odd million Algerian Muslims in Algeria now.

That five million, I would note, would be unrealistically high. The OTL population of France only grew by 45% between 1960 and now, and that growth was substantially the product of immigration from Algeria. How is a French offshoot population in a poorer territory with a much more problematic political history supposed to do better?

Again, unlikely but I think the right combination of somewhat increased immigration and long term discrimination could push the French into being a majority along the coast, albeit a slim one.

How? As I pointed out, the numbers do not work. Even if you do somehow manage to radically boost Pied Noir numbers, there are still far too many Arabs to result in any lasting francization.

Define 'better'. I think France could integrate the Algerian coast, with some luck, but I don't actually think France would be better for doing so. France would probably have to commit some major crimes to do so.

The numbers at hand would suggest France would need to engage in outright genocide of Muslims to produce any lasting transformation in population balances in Algeria.

 

[Dominic]

How is this the case? Even a population of five million Pied Noirs would be outnumbered substantially by the 39-odd million Algerian Muslims in Algeria now.

That five million, I would note, would be unrealistically high. The OTL population of France only grew by 45% between 1960 and now, and that growth was substantially the product of immigration from Algeria. How is a French offshoot population in a poorer territory with a much more problematic political history supposed to do better?



How? As I pointed out, the numbers do not work. Even if you do somehow manage to radically boost Pied Noir numbers, there are still far too many Arabs to result in any lasting francization.



The numbers at hand would suggest France would need to engage in outright genocide of Muslims to produce any lasting transformation in population balances in Algeria.

Eh, bit deterministic here given that our POD can be centuries earlier. I agree that French Algeria as it was from say, 1950, was essentially doomed. I disagree that you can make such totalistic claims about demographic trends from pre-1914. To be sure, what you've described could occur. But it's very hard to swallow that this is the *only* outcome, given that in this scenario there is nothing to preclude France from simply dialling up what they did OTL with far greater resources.

 

[Practical Lobster]

#justapartheidstatethings

 

[rfmcdonald]

Eh, bit deterministic here given that our POD can be centuries earlier. I agree that French Algeria as it was from say, 1950, was essentially doomed. I disagree that you can make such totalistic claims about demographic trends from pre-1914.

From the perspective of a century ago, the big demographic surprise in France and Algeria was not the rapid population growth of Algeria's Muslim population and substantial Muslim immigration to metropolitan France, but the revival of French population growth. Metropolitan France's population had been stable at just below 40 million for the duration of the Third Republic, while Algeria's population had nearly tripled over the same time frame.

To be sure, what you've described could occur. But it's very hard to swallow that this is the *only* outcome, given that in this scenario there is nothing to preclude France from simply dialling up what they did OTL with far greater resources.

If you're going to assume that France is a totalitarian state that will be capable of not only arranging the mass deportation and/or genocide of Algerian Muslims in Algeria, but the resettlement of European French in Algeria, sure. How likely is that to happen?

 

[Dominic]

From the perspective of a century ago, the big demographic surprise in France and Algeria was not the rapid population growth of Algeria's Muslim population and substantial Muslim immigration to metropolitan France, but the revival of French population growth. Metropolitan France's population had been stable at just below 40 million for the duration of the Third Republic, while Algeria's population had nearly tripled over the same time frame.



If you're going to assume that France is a totalitarian state that will be capable of not only arranging the mass deportation and/or genocide of Algerian Muslims in Algeria, but the resettlement of European French in Algeria, sure. How likely is that to happen?

I perhaps have a worse view of the colonial powers than you, or at least, I know that I have a very low view of the colonial powers. They demonstrated that liberal democracy can walk hand in hand with massive atrocities so long as it happens to other people. The French, British, Dutch, and all the rest demonstrated this well into the middle of the last century. They were willing to kill and destroy to maintain their empires, the continental Europeans in particular. In a world of unchallenged colonialism, or at least unchallenged until a generation after OTL, I could easily see them continuing their horrible policies much longer.

One point on the Algerian population. Like most African nations, their population boom did not begin to make itself really felt until the late 20th century. As late as 1980 it was still below 20 million, whereas France despite all its losses in the world wars was over 50. This massive growth also occurred in part due to their lower socio-economic status. These factors I think show that there is more malleability in their growth rates than OTL taken in isolation would suggest. If their boom was delayed 5-10 years, this would have major consequences during the most significant points in their struggle with France.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I perhaps have a worse view of the colonial powers than you, or at least, I know that I have a very low view of the colonial powers. They demonstrated that liberal democracy can walk hand in hand with massive atrocities so long as it happens to other people.

You are changing the argument.

Under the Third Republic, the Algerian population--including the Algerian Muslim population--grew much more quickly than the French population. This is a trend of long standing, something that would eventually undermine the ability of a colonial power to rule over a population will of the colonized.

The French, British, Dutch, and all the rest demonstrated this well into the middle of the last century. They were willing to kill and destroy to maintain their empires, the continental Europeans in particular. In a world of unchallenged colonialism, or at least unchallenged until a generation after OTL, I could easily see them continuing their horrible policies much longer.

This is completely irrelevant to the question of how you would have the European population of Algeria grow much more quickly than not only the general Algerian population, but the population of France.

One point on the Algerian population. Like most African nations, their population boom did not begin to make itself really felt until the late 20th century.

This is incorrect. As you would note from the statistics I had linked to, the Algerian population boom dates back to the late 19th century. This is what one would expect in a relatively favoured colony that had received substantial investment, frankly.

As late as 1980 it was still below 20 million, whereas France despite all its losses in the world wars was over 50. This massive growth also occurred in part due to their lower socio-economic status.

What are you talking about?

 

[Dominic]

This is completely irrelevant to the question of how you would have the European population of Algeria grow much more quickly than not only the general Algerian population, but the population of France.

This is in fact changing the argument. The question is not "make Algeria majority French", but "can France retain Algeria". Two rather different things.

This is incorrect. As you would note from the statistics I had linked to, the Algerian population boom dates back to the late 19th century. This is what one would expect in a relatively favoured colony that had received substantial investment, frankly.

"Boom" is a relative thing. It does not become an insurmountable challenge until the population has actually grown to the point that the target country can use its larger population to effectively resist its coloniser. The statistics you link demonstrate the disparity between France and Algeria remained enormous until the mid 20th century.

In any case, this has become stale. Obviously neither of us is going to agree.

 

[rfmcdonald]

This is in fact changing the argument. The question is not "make Algeria majority French", but "can France retain Algeria". Two rather different things.

You're the person who changed the terms of the debate. Above, in #24, you explicitly argued that France would be able to boost pied noir populations hugely: "The Maghreb certainly put up much more effective resistance than most of the rest of their Empire, but was so close to France and considered so 'integral' that actual successful expulsion or even rising above nuisance level is going to be very hard to achieve. This allows the Pied Noirs to continue to grow. They are unlikely to ever outnumber the Maghrebins in an absolute sense, but the right combination of immigration policies, local discrimination against Algerians, and most of all time, should result in large coastal areas being genuinely French."

They are unlikely to outnumber the Maghrebins in an absolute sense? That implies that you are suggesting the existence of a Pied Noir population hugely expanded over OTL. How can this be otherwise, if you're talking about there being enough European colonists in Algeria to make "large coastal areas [. . .] genuinely French" at the same time that the Algerian Muslim population is going to exceed 30 million people by the end of the 20th century.

In any case, this has become stale. Obviously neither of us is going to agree.

Yes. You've demonstrated that you're not aware of the actual numbers, and trends.

 

[Dominic]

Yes. You've demonstrated that you're not aware of the actual numbers, and trends.

Oh you know what, people like you who treat discussion forums as some highly competitive contest of "how much can I overawe other posters into accepting my tunnel vision" are just so clueless. This is meant to be an enjoyable experience, wherein everyone can come away being a little more knowledgeable.

As for your attempts to make me seem like I'm contradicting myself, might I remind you that there is a major functional difference between "larger population than OTL" and "majority population". It is completely acceptable to argue that a population of Pied Noirs at say, 30% of the total Algerian population would provide France with a stronger position than OTL with its smaller Pied Noirs population. You seem to only be able to view larger as "becomes the majority", which is nonsense.

The "actual numbers" and "trends" that you cite are equally meaningless. We are talking about a period of time covering up to 200 years if not more. We have an enormous amount of history to play with. Extrapolating OTL demographic trends backwards into a different history with no mind as to the myriad other changes that could occur is beyond unwieldy.

Normally I would not respond to posters intent on derailing discussions just so that they can feel big about themselves, but given that this seems your style in multiple threads combined with an unwillingness to not let things go when the other poster indicates no further interest in discussion it is worth pulling you up on your actions. Rudeness is not synonymous with being correct.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Oh you know what, people like you who treat discussion forums as some highly competitive contest of "how much can I overawe other posters into accepting my tunnel vision" are just so clueless.

Yes. Imagine that people would like to talk with others who actually know what they are talking about, and who are consistent from post to post.

 

[Socrates]

Why will French people move in such huge numbers to Algeria, even if there are more of them? Where will the sustainable economic opportunities for more French colonists come from?

Because of a combination of better weather (than the north of France), booming cities, cheap property and cheap labour. And, possibly, because the French government is actively subsidising it in order to change the demographics.

That's not at all the same thing. The Pied Noir population was growing, although not much more rapidly than the Algerian population before the Second World War. The thing is, in a very poor society with an unequal distribution of wealth, there are only so many niches for immigrants.

I don't think this is true at all. There is no real upper limit on how many manufacturing plants can be made to sell goods around the world (or at least, the upper limit for global demand for manufactured goods is far above what we would ever get to in the Maghreb) and there are plenty of skilled jobs for white people running those. In addition, services have increased and increased as a share of Western economies since the late 1800s, and now compose ~80% of GDP. There is no real upper limit to that, as every new 10,000 settlers require an extra 10,000 settler worth of new service demand.

 

[Daztur]

You need a different economic system for Algeria. Too many plantations. If you have a plantation system then there's only so many economic niches for colonizers in the economy unless you're using THEM for plantation labor.

You'd need stuff like sending land hungry peasants to Algeria and giving them each a family sized plot and kicking the locals off the land to do it. That might work but would be pretty hard.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Because of a combination of better weather (than the north of France), booming cities, cheap property and cheap labour. And, possibly, because the French government is actively subsidising it in order to change the demographics.

Why would this actually work?

The better weather is something that someone from northern France could have by going to southern France.

The booming cities is something that you're assuming will happen, not something that will be an obvious consequence.

The cheap property and the cheap labour contradict each other. Will Algerian Muslims remain in Algeria, providing an abundance of labour if a shortage of available property, or will they be expelled, providing an abundance of property if a shortage of labour?

Keep in mind that, historically, a hunger for land has not marked France. If anything, agricultural France has attracted immigrants from an early date.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Why would this actually work?

The better weather is something that someone from northern France could have by going to southern France.

The booming cities is something that you're assuming will happen, not something that will be an obvious consequence.

The cheap property and the cheap labour contradict each other. Will Algerian Muslims remain in Algeria, providing an abundance of labour if a shortage of available property, or will they be expelled, providing an abundance of property if a shortage of labour?

Keep in mind that, historically, a hunger for land has not marked France. If anything, agricultural France has attracted immigrants from an early date.

I would add that you would have to get a French government that was willing to go all out in creating opportunities for mass immigration from France to Algeria, that it would have to create a niche broader than native-using plantation. France would need to commit itself to campaigns of ethnic cleansing, if not genocide.

OTL, the French conquest under the July Monarchy was bloody enough and consequently controversial enough to make me suspicious of the idea we could get a more extreme French policy in Algeria. Who would enact it?