Es Geloybte Aretz - a Germanwank

[wietze]

THey aren't, and it does rankle with quite a few people. Of course they will get significant amounts of money (not to mention warships) out of it, but that's not the same thing. The big problem is that Russia has no colonies to take away, and the Netherlands aren't well placed to act as ptotector to 'independent states' in Eastern Europe. You could offer them Novaya Zemlya of Franz-Joseph-Land, but that would most likely be seen as an insult rather than compensation.

this is why i suggested Spitsbergen, at this point in time it is not assigned to norway yet, and the netherlands sure would have interested in it (due to whaling)
from the wiki on it

On 9 February 1920, following the Paris Peace Conference, the Svalbard Treaty was signed, granting full sovereignty to Norway.

so a peace conference following this war could assign it to the Netherlands

 

[Gonzaga]

this is why i suggested Spitsbergen, at this point in time it is not assigned to norway yet, and the netherlands sure would have interested in it (due to whaling)
from the wiki on it


so a peace conference following this war could assign it to the Netherlands

Wouldn't it cause protests from Norway (that could have the backing of Sweden)? After all, the land didn't belong to Russia to be given as war spoils.

 

[Athelstane]

If I remember correctly, TTL, the French and Italians had the Ottomans over a barrel, and took Libya without a war. The biggest difference is the fact that with no ww1, there are massively more funds, resources and population available to put into the colonization efforts. The Ottomans are in no position to oppose whatever policy the Italians decide, especially given that Italy will have the full support of the French.

Not to mention the fact that Italy acquired Libya nearly a decade earlier and so can start on all her colonization efforts sooner.

Yes, this is my read, too. Italy now faces less obstacles to colonizing Libya in this timeline.

Notwithstanding the reprieve they now have from the Russian Bear and the German "alliance," Turkey is still in a poor position. Even if Germany can keep the French and Italian jackals at bay, the internal centrifugal forces remain - in the Balkans, greedy young Balkan states and lots of Ottoman Christians who no longer wish to be Ottoman. It will be interesting to see how Germany navigates these difficulties to avoid an ugly war and engineer a settlement that most parties can tolerate. It wants Turkey as an intact partner of sorts for now, but Turkish rule over the rest of the Balkans is not really tenable. But that can happen in some ways more messy than others.

The Arabs, Armenians and Kurds are not going anywhere, either; but their loss might be another generation away or more.

 

[Athelstane]

Nah. The Austrians want an independent Volhynia much more than they do a chunk of the Arctic, and the Russians wouldn't think of offering it. Really, not many people care about the Arctic Ocean (yet)

Oh, undoubtedly.

They'll regret in a couple generations from now, perhaps; but western Ukraine has vastly more strategic significance - a necessary buffer and vassal state.

They will want to carve out a couple more 'independent' states. THe war in the Caucasus isn't over yet. It won't end with the treaty.

Yes: Like Austria, Turkey wants as much buffer between it and a revanchist Russia as it can get. This will be interesting. I'm sure Constantinople would love to be the protector of an independent Azerbaijan, among other things. It might even enable the Young Turks to pretend that the Empire has a real future - well, for a little while.

THey aren't, and it does rankle with quite a few people. Of course they will get significant amounts of money (not to mention warships) out of it, but that's not the same thing. The big problem is that Russia has no colonies to take away, and the Netherlands aren't well placed to act as ptotector to 'independent states' in Eastern Europe. You could offer them Novaya Zemlya of Franz-Joseph-Land, but that would most likely be seen as an insult rather than compensation.

Well, really, what is there to give to the Netherlands? Raw materials, maybe. But there's no way to reward them with any territory worth anything. If they had just won a war with France or Portugal, it would be a different story.

Not extreme, though higher than anticipated. Sweden mobilised its regular army and reserves and had casualties in the tens of thousands, had two capital ships badly damaged (not sunk) and expended serious amounts of money. but they got the Alands and get to be the 'protector' to Finland, so this does not look entirely disproportionate.

So what does Sweden's "Protector" status consist of, exactly? Do they have a right to garrison troops? Trade rights?

AS of right now, the Italians have no plans to settle Libya. This will change, but only after it is clear that they can hide behind the French fleet if the Ottomans get upset. The French, on the other hand, have major renovation plans for l'Ouest d'Afrique aka Francafrique, their future frontier and cradle of two hundred million white Frenchmen ... yes, this will suck for everyone and end in tears and disappointment. Dakar is NOT like Kansas City.

Dakar is not even like Algiers!

But they'll get a longer run in Francophone Africa than they did in our timeline, barring wars as catastrophic for them. Maybe even up to the 1980's.

As for Libya: Even in our timeline, settlement of Libya - aka. "the Fourth Shore" - did not begin in earnest until the 1920's and 30's. But it will get more attractive once the Italian imperialists once they realize they're not getting anything more out of Turkey's carcass. (Which is just as well; they hardly have the resources to handle much more anyway.) Though I'm sure Ethiopia will continue to tempt.

Great updates - especially the Rathenau one. Keep up the great work.

 

[Faeelin]

their future frontier and cradle of two hundred million white Frenchmen ... yes, this will suck for everyone and end in tears and disappointment. Dakar is NOT like Kansas City..

That seems a bit different than French policy OTL, no?

 

[Stendhal]

What is the status of the Dodecanese islands ?

 

[B_Munro]

That seems a bit different than French policy OTL, no?

The term I am familiar with is "100 million Frenchmen", many of them explicitly non-white: assimilation and such. Of course, Jacques Stern was talking in the 1940s, in a very different world, but I'm pretty sure assimilation was a principle of French policy from early on.

 

[carlton_bach]

That seems a bit different than French policy OTL, no?

Rather. But it has arisen in a somewhat different environment, too. In this France, the concept of 'race' has much more political validity, for one thing. The law is still clear on the equal status of all French citizens, but it is equally clear that those of foreign race may become French only if their individual merits support the honour (i.e. practically never). Otherwise, they will be considered indigène, subjects of France and targets of her benevolent uplift, or primitif, something akin to protected wildlife.

Partly, this is due to the fact that France (and especially France's Republican government) has tied its fate to colonial expansion much more massively than IOTL. Africa is sold as more important than Alsace-Lorraine, as the great chance for the French to remain a world power. That idea is very much alive: to be of global significance, a world power needs a resource and population base. Britain has Canada and Australia/New Zealand, even if India one day goes its own way, Russia has Siberia, the USA have the West, and France has its own frontier in Africa now. Obviously, the visions that fuel this expansion differ. Clemenceau genuinely wishes to uplift most of the local population and make them into Frenchmen eventually - in a few generations. But in the meantime, even he is OK with taking land for settlement in payment of the improvements that the locals will be grateful for later. Most colonial administrators are less scrupulous.

And then, there is a much more acute sense of rivalry with the English-speaking world, owners of successful settlement colonies. The French model is more like Latin America than the USA or Australia, but they see the basic principle as unchangeable.

 

[B_Munro]

It still seems bizarre: France was only able to grow its (white) population by about 40% during the 19th century. How is colonizing Africa going to lead to a 500% growth? You can after all only bring in so many Latin Americans and Italians and such before the basic Frenchness of the colonial effort dissipates. (Latin America? Well, the black Africans aren't going to die off in droves due to European diseases, and Latin America didn't become a massive pool of hispanics until after Spain lost it: white and "mixed" population was still lower than that of Spain proper as late as 1820, after 300 years of colonization).

 

[Kvasir]

It still seems bizarre: France was only able to grow its (white) population by about 40% during the 19th century. How is colonizing Africa going to lead to a 500% growth? You can after all only bring in so many Latin Americans and Italians and such before the basic Frenchness of the colonial effort dissipates. (Latin America? Well, the black Africans aren't going to die off in droves due to European diseases, and Latin America didn't become a massive pool of hispanics until after Spain lost it: white and "mixed" population was still lower than that of Spain proper as late as 1820, after 300 years of colonization).

The fertility rate of a country depends on many variables. One suspects France is going to see a higher fertility rate because couples will see more oppotunities for themselves and their offspring.

I also suspect we will see the fertility rate of Africans fall with Africa getting more attention and support from central France, and then there will be massacres.

 

[lukedalton]

AS of right now, the Italians have no plans to settle Libya. This will change, but only after it is clear that they can hide behind the French fleet if the Ottomans get upset. The French, on the other hand, have major renovation plans for l'Ouest d'Afrique aka Francafrique, their future frontier and cradle of two hundred million white Frenchmen ... yes, this will suck for everyone and end in tears and disappointment. Dakar is NOT like Kansas City.

Well, i doubt that anyone in Regia Marina will fear that much the Ottoman Navy, the British? Naturally, the French? Healthy respect and fear...the Ottoman? No.

Any italian colony was intented as a settler colony due the simple fact that we have just three of them and greatly encourage the transfer of people her was always in the plan.
Much of the problem in OTL in the pacification of Libya was that just after the conquest some little thing called the first world war started bringing all the attention and resources possible from Rome and after the war ended there was the 'Biennio Rosso' and Mussolini take ove, when things finally settled and a retake of the colony was ordered, the Senussi were deeply entrenched and the OTL brutal effort was necessary.
ITTL without the war to distract, it's probable that the rebellion will hardly start or at least will not be widespread like OTL.

Another factor is the local population...that's low, very very low, even in the 60's it's was basically 1600000 for all the territory, so outnumber the locals it's not that hard work (reletively speaking.)

Regarding Ottoman meddling, well that much depend on how his allies allow it, the power projection of the Porte are not that much

 

[carlton_bach]

It still seems bizarre: France was only able to grow its (white) population by about 40% during the 19th century. How is colonizing Africa going to lead to a 500% growth? You can after all only bring in so many Latin Americans and Italians and such before the basic Frenchness of the colonial effort dissipates. (Latin America? Well, the black Africans aren't going to die off in droves due to European diseases, and Latin America didn't become a massive pool of hispanics until after Spain lost it: white and "mixed" population was still lower than that of Spain proper as late as 1820, after 300 years of colonization).

Much the same way the German goverment spent much of the early twentieth century fretting over the fact it did not have enough land for all the Germans who needed to become small farmers - just because an idea is nonsense doesn't mean people realise this. The English-speaking settlement colonies are 'proof' to the other European countries that the model is feasible: Give a nation room to grow, and it will. We understand the exceptional historical situation that created the USA, but to contemporaries here, it was science and European genius that conquered the 'Great American Desert' and can do the same for the jungles and deserts of Africa.

Mind, it's not an uncontroversial position. It sells, though. France can convince itself it has won the Scramble, or at least drawn level with the British.

 

[Falecius]

Well, i doubt that anyone in Regia Marina will fear that much the Ottoman Navy, the British? Naturally, the French? Healthy respect and fear...the Ottoman? No.

Any italian colony was intented as a settler colony due the simple fact that we have just three of them and greatly encourage the transfer of people her was always in the plan.
Much of the problem in OTL in the pacification of Libya was that just after the conquest some little thing called the first world war started bringing all the attention and resources possible from Rome and after the war ended there was the 'Biennio Rosso' and Mussolini take ove, when things finally settled and a retake of the colony was ordered, the Senussi were deeply entrenched and the OTL brutal effort was necessary.
ITTL without the war to distract, it's probable that the rebellion will hardly start or at least will not be widespread like OTL.

Another factor is the local population...that's low, very very low, even in the 60's it's was basically 1600000 for all the territory, so outnumber the locals it's not that hard work (reletively speaking.)

Regarding Ottoman meddling, well that much depend on how his allies allow it, the power projection of the Porte are not that much

The population of Libya is quite low for the hardly changeable fact that, as Giolitti noted IOTL before waging war to have it, the vast majority of it is unarable desert.
IOTL, and presumably ITTL, the nationalist press in Italy will amply gloss over this basic fact and try to sell the place as some sort of New Eden for poor Italian farmers, but it is hard to see much good coming out of it.
I agree that, absent WWI, Italy will be able to focus troops and money into putting down Libyan rebellions more quickly and effectively, and, likely, also with less brutality and overall loss of life on the Libyan side.
(I disagree that the brutal repression of the '20 IOTL was "necessary" in a military perspective).
The latter, ironically, would run against the goal of mass settlement relative to OTL. There will be less land "cleared" (confiscated) for white settlement in this scenario, I believe. (Note also that, ITTL, brutal excesses in managing Africa have already led to the demise of the Free State of Congo out of international intervention - the mood in such things is going to be subtly different, although being a native of Africa under European colonial rule still sucks).
So, while I have no doubts that Italy will put some effort into settling Libya eventually (and Eritrea, of course), I don't think that settlers are likely to end up outnumbering the local population.

 

[Kvasir]

The population of Libya is quite low for the hardly changeable fact that, as Giolitti noted IOTL before waging war to have it, the vast majority of it is unarable desert.
IOTL, and presumably ITTL, the nationalist press in Italy will amply gloss over this basic fact and try to sell the place as some sort of New Eden for poor Italian farmers, but it is hard to see much good coming out of it.
I agree that, absent WWI, Italy will be able to focus troops and money into putting down Libyan rebellions more quickly and effectively, and, likely, also with less brutality and overall loss of life on the Libyan side.
(I disagree that the brutal repression of the '20 IOTL was "necessary" in a military perspective).
The latter, ironically, would run against the goal of mass settlement relative to OTL. There will be less land "cleared" (confiscated) for white settlement in this scenario, I believe. (Note also that, ITTL, brutal excesses in managing Africa have already led to the demise of the Free State of Congo out of international intervention - the mood in such things is going to be subtly different, although being a native of Africa under European colonial rule still sucks).
So, while I have no doubts that Italy will put some effort into settling Libya eventually (and Eritrea, of course), I don't think that settlers are likely to end up outnumbering the local population.

I agree with the statement that the Italians will never outnumber native Libyans. however there are only really two areas that are particularly appealing to Meditarianian environments, the lands around Tripoli and Benghazi. It strikes me as not impossible that there will not be areas here where Italians will end up making up majority populations. Possibly whole settler towns majority European.

 

[Falecius]

I agree with the statement that the Italians will never outnumber native Libyans. however there are only really two areas that are particularly appealing to Meditarianian environments, the lands around Tripoli and Benghazi. It strikes me as not impossible that there will not be areas here where Italians will end up making up majority populations. Possibly whole settler towns majority European.

IOTL, Italy notionally wanted agricultural settlement, and went out of her way to support some. Didn't work out well, but there are more time, people and resources ITTL. OTOH, there are more Libyans on the ground, working the land where this agricultural colonization would be supposed to take place.
The bulk of actual Italian population in Libya went to cities despite mild official annoyance at this (compare the stated goals of the Zionist movement vs. actual patterns of Jewish settlement in Palestine at the time, which likewise proved to be majority urban).
I agree it is possible that the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, and perhaps Derna too, will be majority Italian at some point (also compare Oran in Algeria).

 

[Athelstane]

Well, i doubt that anyone in Regia Marina will fear that much the Ottoman Navy, the British? Naturally, the French? Healthy respect and fear...the Ottoman? No.

Yeah, I wondered about that.

If this timeline's navies tracks ours, The Turks basically have two obsolete Brandenburgs bought from Germany (Barbaros Hayreddin and Turgut Reis), both poorly maintained, with more important foes closer to hand. (As for smaller combatants, the story is not much better.)

The Italians have four pre-dreadnoughts, with four more Regina Elena class well under construction. Nothing terribly intimidating, but enough to keep Johnny Turk from taking Otranto or even Benghazi, even assuming they could get a task force that far without it breaking down.

In the Italo-Turkish War, the Turks never ventured beyond the Dardanelles anyway. Maybe they'll get more help from the Germans in this timeline. But even so....

Another factor is the local population...that's low, very very low, even in the 60's it's was basically 1600000 for all the territory, so outnumber the locals it's not that hard work (reletively speaking.)

Which is why, barring major extrinsic events, the Italians could make Libya into a European majority colony by the 60's, if they're really fanatical about - they could probably have done it in our timeline (they were at 13% by 1939, on track to reach a third by the 50's), had they not slit their throats by getting into World War II. Of course, that population will be almost entirely all on a thin band on the coast, with a wild expanse of desert populated by restive indigenous Arabs and Berbers....

Still, with the oil resources lurking in Cyrenaica and Fezzan, this will be a benefit to Italy by mid-century, if this enables them to hold onto Libya long-term.

 

[Athelstane]

Much the same way the German goverment spent much of the early twentieth century fretting over the fact it did not have enough land for all the Germans who needed to become small farmers - just because an idea is nonsense doesn't mean people realise this. The English-speaking settlement colonies are 'proof' to the other European countries that the model is feasible: Give a nation room to grow, and it will. We understand the exceptional historical situation that created the USA, but to contemporaries here, it was science and European genius that conquered the 'Great American Desert' and can do the same for the jungles and deserts of Africa.

Mind, it's not an uncontroversial position. It sells, though. France can convince itself it has won the Scramble, or at least drawn level with the British.

Yes, too many seemed not to understand that the "great American desert" was settled because a) it was actually good agricultural land for the most part, well drained by rivers, and b) very sparsely settled by indigenous people who might resent the newcomers.

France's difficulty is that, save for the narrow band of the Maghreb dominated by the Atlas Mountains and a few islands, almost none of its overseas colonies has the good agricultural land needed to attract those settlers. And the Maghreb DOES have plenty of those restive indigenous peoples...

Still, a France this obsessed with building its empire *might* be able to get to 50% European majority in the Atlas region with a highly aggressive settlement program (in our history they never topped 20%, with a handful of districts European majority, which is impressive, but obviously not remotely enough); but the Algerian future would still hold plenty of trouble, even so.

 

[Athelstane]

The population of Libya is quite low for the hardly changeable fact that, as Giolitti noted IOTL before waging war to have it, the vast majority of it is unarable desert.

Which is why in OTL, the Italians were all clustered on the coats, mostly around Tripoli and Benghazi.

 

[Falecius]

Which is why in OTL, the Italians were all clustered on the coats, mostly around Tripoli and Benghazi.

Exactly.
Also, most of Italians in Libya were either there in some sort of official capacity, or having jobs (in commerce and such) associated with the existence of Italian political rule and metropolitan economic needs. IIRC, about 40000 agricultural settlers were slated to till the land "vacated" by natives,* mostly in coastal Cyrenaica and around Tripoli (there was also a project in the area of Misrata). About half of them had actually arrived by the outbreak of WWII, if memory serves.
These projects only sort of worked because they were heavily subsidized by the government for political and propaganda reasons. In all likelyhood, Italian peasants were not going to settle Libya in significant numbers by their own accord. For the most part, they voted with their feet going to Argentina, Brazil, or the US.
ITTL dynamics seem to be headed toward a more peaceble Italian rule in the country, relatively speaking (not that all Libyans are going to take Italian rule lying down, obviously, but the Tripoline Republic would probably never come to existence here).
This removes much of the cover under which this limited settlement was done IOTL.


*"vacated" as in, people being forcibly deported at gunpoint under the requirements of Graziani's counterinsurgency policy, with much of those people dying in the process.

 

[Athelstane]

Exactly.
Also, most of Italians in Libya were either there in some sort of official capacity, or having jobs (in commerce and such) associated with the existence of Italian political rule and metropolitan economic needs. IIRC, about 40000 agricultural settlers were slated to till the land "vacated" by natives,* mostly in coastal Cyrenaica and around Tripoli (there was also a project in the area of Misrata). About half of them had actually arrived by the outbreak of WWII, if memory serves.
These projects only sort of worked because they were heavily subsidized by the government for political and propaganda reasons. In all likelyhood, Italian peasants were not going to settle Libya in significant numbers by their own accord. For the most part, they voted with their feet going to Argentina, Brazil, or the US.
ITTL dynamics seem to be headed toward a more peaceble Italian rule in the country, relatively speaking (not that all Libyans are going to take Italian rule lying down, obviously, but the Tripoline Republic would probably never come to existence here).
This removes much of the cover under which this limited settlement was done IOTL.


*"vacated" as in, people being forcibly deported at gunpoint under the requirements of Graziani's counterinsurgency policy, with much of those people dying in the process.

It does come down to how determined the Italians are about it.

In a hypernationalist Europe - which this is now - they might be quite determined. And the paucity of attractive arable land could be offset by the low numbers of indigenous people in pulling off a scheme to make it European majority.

But as you rightly say, it would require a massive investment by the government. Not just roads and infrastructure (and, uh, ethnic relocations), but also massive irrigation projects and agricultural subsidies, mainly in Cyrenaica. The Italian government of our time DID do quite a lot of that in the 20's and 30's. They'd have to do even more here.

And since their revanchist dreams in the Alps, the Adriatic, and the Aegean seem likely to come to nought, this may give them even more incentive to make something stick hard in Libya. Tough news for native Libyans, I'm afraid.