Could The Fourth Shore actually work?

Italy had annexed Libya. This is the whole point.

Also the Arabs have a perfectly good reason to rebel: the Italians ahve invaded their country, kille dthousands of their people, and are driving them out of their lands.

Like hell is fascist Italy going to give out autonomy. Mussolini's official stance when he wasn't murdering them were that they were "Muslim Italians".

Italy had not annexed Libya. They conquered it, and subjected it to their absolute rule. Libya was a colony. By annex I mean include in Italy proper. Libyand will be able to participate in Italian elections and the like.

Mussolini may have said that, but he was no fool. He knew the truth. If he was a little kinder and shrewder he would give arabs in the colony more autonomy.
 
Italy had not annexed Libya. They conquered it, and subjected it to their absolute rule. Libya was a colony. By annex I mean include in Italy proper. Libyand will be able to participate in Italian elections and the like.

That's to integrate into the metropole. Which the Italians had rather done. The Libyan Arabs lacked rights, but te settlers had them. Nobody could vote because Italy was a fascist dictatorship.

Mussolini may have said that, but he was no fool. He knew the truth. If he was a little kinder and shrewder he would give arabs in the colony more autonomy.

Mussolini was neither kind nor shrewd and even before hime the Italian had murdered thousands of people.
 
That's to integrate into the metropole. Which the Italians had rather done. The Libyan Arabs lacked rights, but te settlers had them. Nobody could vote because Italy was a fascist dictatorship.

I guess the Italians had unofficially integrated some of Libya. But they did not reach near 50% and, AFAIK, did not annex any part of Libya.
They were no elections at that time, youre right. It slipped my mind as I was trying to think further in time when the Fascists would not be in power. They cant stay in power forever, after all. You know what I mean, Italians in Tripoli would have the same status as Italians in Milan, for example. If it already was like that then Ive never heard it.


Mussolini was neither kind nor shrewd and even before hime the Italian had murdered thousands of people.

Unfortunately, every colonial power is like that. Before this turns into another colonial argument, I still think that the Fourth Shore would work.
 
Whithout alliance with germans in wwII italian regime will stay in power at least as long as falangist regime in Spain... and if fascist Italy demostrate his usefulness in cold war it could have free hand in Lybia.

libian population was far less numerous than algerian, the colonial rule will not be as flebilized ad the "free Franch" one, the oil discovered in the '50 will give Italy (untouched by the war) both reasons and resources to clear any rebellion...
 
wiki says this

During the Fascism many Italians moved to Libya and colonized the coastal areas. In 1940 the Libyan Italians were nearly 110,000, or 12% of the total population of Libya. The governor Italo Balbo developed the Italian Libya from 1934 to 1940, creating a huge infrastructure (from 4,000 km of roads to 400 km of narrow gauge railways to new industries and to dozen of new agricultural villages).
 
That would explain the enormous popularity of pacifism, the Oxford Union resolution, and the policy of appeasement. Because war was a wonderful thing.
Well maybe this is valid for UK,but i fear that all this pacifism is not share from the most of the nations at the time.
The UK peoples is very civilized,despite that UK is the country with the larger number of the intervention in wars in XX century.


And while racism may have a longer accpeted existence, one can be a filthy racist and still not happy at sending one's sons to have their heads blown off in the arse-end of a colonial jungle.
This is an anachronistic "after Vietnam" thought.



A bloody and savage repression will be tried. A bloodier and savager repression will be tried. It won't work. As I said, Algeria is a pattern that cna be repeated. I think you overestimate the moderating influence of the war (bombing Dresden made us less brutal?). Some of the colonial wars were pretty nauseating as it was, and they still didn't succeed becuase, in the long term, this was impossible.
I have fear that in another international scenario,and with the hands totally free (no cold world,no international interference,different sensibility of the pubblic opinion) talk about of "bloodier and savager repression" for Algeria was an euphemism.


Cirmcumstances were very, very differant. I'm going by the evidence: just read up on the activities of Congress, and the opinions of people in Britain, before the war.



Sopiffing post, and assuming no Soviet spanners in any works I think your scenario is very plausible. One little problem: a Little Englander (which I described myself as) is basically a patriotic Briton who thinks that colonialism is wrong and harmful to everybody concerned and that we should stick to our island, lovely island that it is. They'd be the first to sign anyway India.
Well,but UK had a chance:transform the Empire in an true federation of Dominions.
But maybe in late 30s was very late for this.
 
Ahh, but without the Third Reich, there are very good chances that WWII still occurs a few years later, but as "everybody gangpiles rabid dog Stalin" instead of "everyone gangpiles rabid dog Hitler". In such a case, the USSR shall be in no condition to stir up trouble in the Third World when the dust settles. And without the Holocaust, Europe shall have few qualms at keep using the gloves-off methods (mass deportations and executions) it used in Libya and Iraq in the 1920s to quell the colonial insurgencies, and worked fine.

Why would the West attack Stalin? I think your statement is also incorrect; Japan was anti-colonial; so was China; and Britain had already recognized it couldn't keep its empire indefinitely.
 
2) Egypt isn't gonna stay a compliant puppet forever. Sans the Third Reich, my guess is everyone looks to Moscow.
Egypt will move into the Italian orbit. It was moving that way pre WW 2, with several of the Kings advisors being Italians.

I think the 4th shore could have worked - provided the 50% goal is met.
It almost worked in Eritrea.
 
Gents,

Anyone happen to remember Portugal and her African colonies in the OTL?

We've a third or fourth rate power who managed to hold on to quite substantial chunks of Africa until the mid-1970s without anywhere near the "white" colonial population being suggested for TTL's Italian Libya and against Soviet supplied "rebels" with Cuban "advisers".

Sure, the attempt to keep those colonies did eventually spark a revolution in Portugal, but Portugal was able to keep them for decades after our WW2 and the de-colonialism it spurred.

TTL's Italy might fare better for longer than people can imagine.


Bill
 
About the tribesmen using Soviet weapons, if the tribes are exterminated, expelled, or totally broken before the Soviet Union is in a position to interfere, that eliminates that problem.

The British managed to keep a big chunk of Ireland by driving out the native population and resettling their own people. The Italians could do much the same thing.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Why would the West attack Stalin?

Opportunistic but paranoid and greedy Stalin miscalculates the capabilities and determination of Western powers and non-Nazi Germany to contain him, and makes one aggression too many in Eastern Europe, or decides they are going to attack him eventually so makes a pre-emptive attack, and Europe close ranks and gangpiles him.
 

Eurofed

Banned
This is rather a cliche. It's not impossible, but I'd describe Stalin as less of a rabid dog and more of a prowling wolf. If he finds you wounded in the forest, shit, but he knows when not to attack.

He was also prone to make mistakes (Barbarossa, Korean War) on this, so he might easily think he can come off with an opportunistic aggression in Eastern Europe when he thinks the West is too weak/distracted, which shall unleash the wrath of Europe on him. Or alternatively, he was defintiely paranoid: he may easily decide that eventually the West shall attack him, so he may try a pre-emptive attack when he think he has the advantage.

"Worked fine"?

Worked fine in the sense of medium-term effectiveness of the counterinsurgency, of course.
 
Sure, the attempt to keep those colonies did eventually spark a revolution in Portugal, but Portugal was able to keep them for decades after our WW2 and the de-colonialism it spurred.

TTL's Italy might fare better for longer than people can imagine

I agree completely.

Let's suppose that Italy stays neutral during WW2. The outcome of the war would pretty much be similar to OTL. In the following cold war, Italy would be too important to control the mediterrean to be ignored or marginalized. To secure Mussolini collaboration, USA would have to turn a blind eye to the colonies problem. To paraphrase Kennedy, Mussoloni would be "a mean bastard, but our bastard".
Now, the subsaharian colonies would be impossible to keep, since the great disparity between the local population and the colonial one. Maybe through USA mediation they could reach independance without too much bloodshed (or maybe provoke the fall of fascim as happened in OTL Portugal).
Lybia is a different kettle since the italian element could become the majority of the population. In such a situation the fascist regime could even hold a "free plebiscite" among the population to let them decide if becoming independent or stay part of Italy. Besides fighting rebels in the desert would be easy for italians, since they enjoyed total air superiority and could control all the water sources.
The nail in arab coffin would be the italianization, with forced settlements, schooling in italian language and an assimilation of the ruling arab elites.
As for the local politic, Italy could probably attract Egypt into her orbit, but even if Nasser manages to get to power this won't automatically spell the end for italian rule in Lybia. On contrary I always had the strong impression that a fascist Italy would have partecipated to the Suez Crisis and in the end would have become the best ally in Europe for Israel. An alliance between the two would alter considerably several of the wars in the Middle East
 
Opportunistic but paranoid and greedy Stalin miscalculates the capabilities and determination of Western powers and non-Nazi Germany to contain him, and makes one aggression too many in Eastern Europe, or decides they are going to attack him eventually so makes a pre-emptive attack, and Europe close ranks and gangpiles him.

Before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, what aggressive actions had he taken in Eastern Europe?
 
Hmm, as far as I know the USSR wasnt involved in anything to big before the pact. Sure the usual support for socialist revolutionaries and whatnot but I dont recall anything else.

But thats beside the point. I doubt the absence of Italy in the eary days of WW2 would change things much for the USSR. Not having to support Italy will definetly improve Germanys logistics a bit and provide some more troops but I still dont think that would be enough to change the outcome of the war.

I am interested in how Egypt would turn out in a situation where Libya is a fourth shore of Italy. Anyone think the Algerian conflict would change in anyway?
 
Gents,

Anyone happen to remember Portugal and her African colonies in the OTL?

We've a third or fourth rate power who managed to hold on to quite substantial chunks of Africa until the mid-1970s without anywhere near the "white" colonial population being suggested for TTL's Italian Libya and against Soviet supplied "rebels" with Cuban "advisers".

Sure, the attempt to keep those colonies did eventually spark a revolution in Portugal, but Portugal was able to keep them for decades after our WW2 and the de-colonialism it spurred.

TTL's Italy might fare better for longer than people can imagine.


Bill

The Portuguese situation was alot different than the Italian situation would be. Remember the Portuguese had been in Angola and Mocambique for over 500 years. The Portuguese were dealing with colonies that spoke the same language and were Catholic.

The Portuguese treated their colonies alot differently than other europeans did, because they had such a long history of settlement and trade in the region. There was room for social advancement for Africans in their colonies while the other colonial nations were much more rascist and restrictive.

Hmm, as far as I know the USSR wasnt involved in anything to big before the pact. Sure the usual support for socialist revolutionaries and whatnot but I dont recall anything else.

But thats beside the point. I doubt the absence of Italy in the eary days of WW2 would change things much for the USSR. Not having to support Italy will definetly improve Germanys logistics a bit and provide some more troops but I still dont think that would be enough to change the outcome of the war.

I am interested in how Egypt would turn out in a situation where Libya is a fourth shore of Italy. Anyone think the Algerian conflict would change in anyway?

Even if Libya does do alot better under the Italians it would still be vulnerable to blocade. Which the superior British fleet could easily do. The Italians may be better defended in Libya but without supplies from the mainland any offensive movements would be impossible. What happened to Rommel and over extending the supply lines would occur anyways.
 
Top