Fascist Italy stays out of WWII, how long does the regime survive?

Zimbabwe? Yes, absolutely. I know black Zimbweans who would take Ian Smith back in a heartbeat. Mugabe's name is dirt with them. That's not a defense of everything about Smith or his regime, but a recognition of how horrific Mugabe turned out to be by comparison.
If Smith had any forsite, he would have worked with muzorewa, and chirau, sooner. The pro western ndeble, needed a stake in a democratic society.
The Assimilados in Angola, should have been rewarded, rather than infantilised. The MNR in Mozambique were split between modernists, and balkanised "Tribal" leaders, Samora Michael's heirs had all his faults, none of his goals.
But as for the others: the Portuguese were among the worst colonial rulers, hardly better than the Belgians. And yet, even so, the post-independence histories of Angola and Mozambique...are not exactly much to write home about, are they?

At any rate, Somalia was for various reasons especially badly situated for a successful existence post-independence. My point is that the Italians, unlike the Portuguese, would have made a serious investment in the colony, however self-interested their motives. It's quite possible Somalia turns out badly no matter what, but a few extra decades of Italian development couldn't help but give them a shot at improving on Siad Barre and the anarchic horror which followed him.
 
Zimbabwe? Yes, absolutely. I know black Zimbweans who would take Ian Smith back in a heartbeat. Mugabe's name is dirt with them. That's not a defense of everything about Smith or his regime, but a recognition of how horrific Mugabe turned out to be by comparison.

But as for the others: the Portuguese were among the worst colonial rulers, hardly better than the Belgians. And yet, even so, the post-independence histories of Angola and Mozambique...are not exactly much to write home about, are they?
Decades of bloody civil war (Renamo vs. Frelimo in Mozambique, MPLA vs. Unita in Angola), and after peace was achieved, they're still extremely poor even by African standards (and in Angola's case in spite of massive oil revenues).

At any rate, Somalia was for various reasons especially badly situated for a successful existence post-independence. My point is that the Italians, unlike the Portuguese, would have made a serious investment in the colony, however self-interested their motives. It's quite possible Somalia turns out badly no matter what, but a few extra decades of Italian development couldn't help but give them a shot at improving on Siad Barre and the anarchic horror which followed him.
My question is why you think Italians would have made a serious investment in the colony. Libyan oil, well, I see that, although I'm not convinced . But Somalia?
Also, at least Northern Somalia (the part which had never been Italian) has been rather stable for the past twenty years, in spite of lacking international recognition, and by far not as haunted by violence as the Southern part which the Italians had once possessed.
 
But Somalia?

The Italians had made significant investments in Mogadishu and the surrounding areas. And, as I've stated previously, the Italian plan was to make what is now Kismayo the Italian Naval Base on the Indian Ocean. Both would have involved major capital investment and immigration into the region (we can see that, while Eritrea was the #1 spot and designated East African Industrial center, Somalia was the #2 location primarily for projecting power in the region.
 
My question is why you think Italians would have made a serious investment in the colony. Libyan oil, well, I see that, although I'm not convinced . But Somalia?

Concededly, Somalia would be well down the list on Italian colonial development projects (in fact, it would be at the bottom). Somalia's chief value would be its location: able to control traffic into the Red Sea (and thus the Canal), and project force into the Indian Ocean. But one naval base (Kismayo?) suffices for that.

It might get more attention as the Italians begin to lose their grip on Ethiopia....

Also, at least Northern Somalia (the part which had never been Italian) has been rather stable for the past twenty years, in spite of lacking international recognition, and by far not as haunted by violence as the Southern part which the Italians had once possessed.

The easy answer for this is the different legacy of British colonial administration, but I hesitate to reach for the easy answer. British development of Somaliland was quite modest. It may have more to do with the differing cultural heritage of the Somali clans in each area. In truth, neither the Italians or the British left much of a footprint in the country; though some modest Italian settlement and development in the Mogadishu-Villaggio Duca degli Abruzzi in the 20's and 30's suggests potentialities for something broader in an Italian postwar Somalia.
 
@Athelstane
I would not leap at the easy answer, either. Just brought it up to say that a) Somalia's history isn't only horrible all the time and
B) I don't find it plausible that longer Italian occupation would work wonders given OTL's footprint.
 
Mussolini staying out entirely means Austria is not annexed in 1938. Italy stopped a German plan to do so in 1934 by showing up en masse at the Brenner Pass armed and ready - it is one reason Hitler took Italy seriously. Germany probably goes after Cezchloslovakia and Poland (if not Romania too) earlier, perhaps deciding that Italy will have to be dealt with eventually and planning accordingly.
 
Also, one point to Italian ambitions...

The Italians were planning the construction of a naval base in Chisimaio, Italian Somalia (Kismayo, Somalia today). This probably would have lead to a similar situation of Italian settlement into that region, possibly spurring a large settlement in the Southwest... Though I don't see how they become a majority even in Jubaland, much less the rest of Somalia.

I’m going to argue that in the event of a major Somalian independence movement the Italians may well decide to cut their losses and retreat to their major holdings of Mogadishu, Chisimaio, and other significant spots. Are the hinterlands really worth the effort if a large, foreign funded rebellion begins?

On a similar note, I would expect revolts in every Italian colony with widely varying success. Libya will be drowned in Italian settlers quite quickly and will probably only have to deal with the occasional terrorist attack and bad blood with the Arab League. Albania will be another hotbed of guerrilla warfare; the Italians may retreat to the coast there as well, but foreign funding will be tough given Yugoslavian animosity with the Albanians.
 
I’m going to argue that in the event of a major Somalian independence movement the Italians may well decide to cut their losses and retreat to their major holdings of Mogadishu

This is a plan dating back to the 30s, and likely would be finished by 1950 or so. This would occur prior to the event of major Somali independence movements, especially without war to disrupt the administration of the territory.
 
This is a plan dating back to the 30s, and likely would be finished by 1950 or so. This would occur prior to the event of major Somali independence movements, especially without war to disrupt the administration of the territory.

I edited the post to include Chisimaio and the other major projects the Italians made in Somalia.
 
I edited the post to include Chisimaio and the other major projects the Italians made in Somalia.

Aye, I replied a little quickly; computer was about to run out of juice.

As to that, I would expect Italians to be occupying a significant percentage of the population, all other things being equal. And the result would really depend on what type of insurrection. Is Ethiopia independent? Are they not? Have they gone communist? If so, who would be funding the rebellion? The US and the West would likely lean on the staunchly anticommunist Italians just like they did Spain, so I don't see major western pressure until much later (I would imagine Somalia would be roughly the Italian Equivalent of the Western Sahara).

As such, I really can't say anything more substantial. How much more powerful, or how much less powerful, is the decolonization movement? What is the status of the internal pressures trying to aim for release? Is it based on Ethiopian Imperial Ambitions? Pan-Somali identity? Communistic? Arabic? Does the demographic transition hit the colonies as well as the homeland, or does it only hit Italy proper? Changing Italy's position changes so much it's hard to say.
 
Mussolini staying out entirely means Austria is not annexed in 1938. Italy stopped a German plan to do so in 1934 by showing up en masse at the Brenner Pass armed and ready - it is one reason Hitler took Italy seriously. Germany probably goes after Cezchloslovakia and Poland (if not Romania too) earlier, perhaps deciding that Italy will have to be dealt with eventually and planning accordingly.

Not sure how that follows.

A decision to allow Hitler to annex Austria does not commit the Duce to war when it comes. And, in fact, it certainly did not when Hitler kicked off WW2 by invading Poland in September, 1939 (nor did the Pact of Steel!!). Mussolini certainly did not seem to see it this way.

Mussolini might even reason it out this way: "In the long term, Italy does not have the strength to keep the Germans out of Austria. If I give Hitler a formal permission now, he will be in my debt; it will buy us some forbearance, while I pick my time to intervene." Of course, Mussolini had a more immediate motivation in mind for giving Hitler a green light: he wanted German support for his consolidation of Ethiopia. Which he got.

And the truth is, Hitler really did give the Duce that forbearance, in spades. No matter how many other treaties or agreements he broke, no matter how many promises he betrayed, Hitler really did stick by Mussolini to the very end. Recall the transcript of the meeting where Mussolini, communicating through Prince Philip of Hessen, the German Ambassador at Rome, gave Hitler permission to invade Austria:

"F (Fuehrer): Then, please, tell Mussolini, I will never forget him for this.
"F: Never, never, never, whatever happens. I am still ready to make a quite different agreement with him.
"H(
Prince Hessen): Yes, I told him that, too.
"F: As soon as the Austrian affair has been settled, I shall be ready to go with him through thick and thin, nothing matters.
"H: Yes, my Fuehrer.
"F: Listen, I shall make any agreement.I am no longer in fear of the terrible position which would have existed militarily in case we had gotten into a conflict. You may tell him that I do thank him ever so much, never, never shall I forget that.
"H: Yes, my Fuehrer.
"F: I will never forget it, whatever will happen. If he should ever need any help or be in any danger, he can be convinced that I shall stick to him whatever might happen, even if the whole world were against him.


After the invasion, when in Linz, Austria, Hitler communicated his gratitude to Mussolini once more, this time by telegraph: "Mussolini, I will never forget you for this."

It is hard to see how things would be much different in a timeline where Mussolini maintains a very actively friendly non-belligerency, acting as a conduit for all sorts of scarce resources from abroad. Not least because OKH will be more than relieved to not have to be dragged into any side escapades on behalf of the Italians, whose military effectiveness they (and indeed Hitler) did not rate highly.
 
Not sure how that follows.

A decision to allow Hitler to annex Austria does not commit the Duce to war when it comes. And, in fact, it certainly did not when Hitler kicked off WW2 by invading Poland in September, 1939 (nor did the Pact of Steel!!). Mussolini certainly did not seem to see it this way.

Mussolini might even reason it out this way: "In the long term, Italy does not have the strength to keep the Germans out of Austria. If I give Hitler a formal permission now, he will be in my debt; it will buy us some forbearance, while I pick my time to intervene." Of course, Mussolini had a more immediate motivation in mind for giving Hitler a green light: he wanted German support for his consolidation of Ethiopia. Which he got.

And the truth is, Hitler really did give the Duce that forbearance, in spades. No matter how many other treaties or agreements he broke, no matter how many promises he betrayed, Hitler really did stick by Mussolini to the very end. Recall the transcript of the meeting where Mussolini, communicating through Prince Philip of Hessen, the German Ambassador at Rome, gave Hitler permission to invade Austria:

"F (Fuehrer): Then, please, tell Mussolini, I will never forget him for this.
"F: Never, never, never, whatever happens. I am still ready to make a quite different agreement with him.
"H(
Prince Hessen): Yes, I told him that, too.
"F: As soon as the Austrian affair has been settled, I shall be ready to go with him through thick and thin, nothing matters.
"H: Yes, my Fuehrer.
"F: Listen, I shall make any agreement.I am no longer in fear of the terrible position which would have existed militarily in case we had gotten into a conflict. You may tell him that I do thank him ever so much, never, never shall I forget that.
"H: Yes, my Fuehrer.
"F: I will never forget it, whatever will happen. If he should ever need any help or be in any danger, he can be convinced that I shall stick to him whatever might happen, even if the whole world were against him.


After the invasion, when in Linz, Austria, Hitler communicated his gratitude to Mussolini once more, this time by telegraph: "Mussolini, I will never forget you for this."

It is hard to see how things would be much different in a timeline where Mussolini maintains a very actively friendly non-belligerency, acting as a conduit for all sorts of scarce resources from abroad. Not least because OKH will be more than relieved to not have to be dragged into any side escapades on behalf of the Italians, whose military effectiveness they (and indeed Hitler) did not rate highly.
while i agree with your core points and with your points and evidence. however, the statement that OKH and hitler being relieved. as too my understanding was not the case as most of italia's flaws and poor performance was not really shown until after the Greek and north Africa campaigns. where they used the Italians as a scapegoat in near their end which to be fair the Italians put in their lap. before the war the military on paper and in the eyes of most had become quite formidable. even though this might not be the case. the position is quite comparable to Austria Hungary whose many flaws were only really placed on display once the war begun. i believe without these campaigns they would still be able to power project as the many flaws would have been noticed.
 
Somalia became failed state today not because of its independence. There are various reason why it happen. Suggesting they are better off under fascist Italy is bit insulting and kinda sound like "white man's burden" crap.
Wouldn't Somalia be better off if it included the Ogaden as it briefly did under Italian rule?
 
as too my understanding was not the case as most of italia's flaws and poor performance was not really shown until after the Greek and north Africa campaigns. where they used the Italians as a scapegoat in near their end which to be fair the Italians put in their lap.

I recall some harsh remarks by the senior officers accompanying Hitler to watch Italian maneuvers in 1938, but I don't have the sources to hand.
 
I recall some harsh remarks by the senior officers accompanying Hitler to watch Italian maneuvers in 1938, but I don't have the sources to hand.
i think i know the ones you are talking about they were referring to Italians attempts at German military maneuvers. from my understanding it was them commenting on the comparable to the German maneuvers
 
And the result would really depend on what type of insurrection. Is Ethiopia independent? Are they not? Have they gone communist? If so, who would be funding the rebellion? The US and the West would likely lean on the staunchly anticommunist Italians just like they did Spain, so I don't see major western pressure until much later (I would imagine Somalia would be roughly the Italian Equivalent of the Western Sahara).
It honestly depends on what shape the Patriot movement takes - the Italian Communist Party did maintain contact with the Patriots, assisting with organization and it could potentially have an effect on what ideology becomes the forefront of the Patriot movement. I have my doubts that the Patriots would ever go Communist - maybe Socialist - when we consider that Ethiopian Patriots tended to consist of farmers and peasants that were usually conservative AFAIK.
 
Top