Italy Doesn't Join the Axis

[LordKalvan]

I was actually thinking that Italian East Africa would be likelier to stay Italian than would Libya.

East Africa didn't have a huge number of Italian settlers, though (something like 30% of the population in OTL). Nor was it considered a region of Italy instead of a colony. If there's even more Italian immigration after the discovery of oil, and the maturity of a generation of Italians born in Libya, the attachment will get even stronger, and Libyan independence that much harder.

There was no census carried out in AOI between 1936 and 1941. However, the population of European origin in 1938 was assessed between 150,000 and 200,000 (this excludes the military, and does not take into accont the temporary migrants - another 200,000 between 1934 and 1938 - who in any case were completely repatriated in 1938/39, once the road infrastructures were completed). The native population was also not censed, but the estimate was around 12 million. Therefore, the Italian settles were somehow around the 2% mark. This makes a lot of sense, given the short time available IOTL for the emigration, as well as the Italian difficulties in paying for the Abyssinian war, the infrastructures which were needed in Lybia and AOI, the intervention in Spain and the re-armament: by 1938, the original vision of AOI as a settlers colony had been shelved, and the development of economy was given to large companies, most of the times in a monopolistic environment. [if anyone is interested, this is a good and very well documented essay on Italian emigration toward AOI http://www.ilcornodafrica.it/rds-01emigrazione.pdf - unfortunately it's in Italian]

I believe that an Italy who managed to navigate WW2 and prosper might again look at AOI as a settlers colony, but the numbers could never become significant (at best, 5% of the population). Besides the huge cost involved and the lgistic problem of turning AOI into a settlers colony, there are other areas where Italian manpower will be required in very significant numbers: Lybia, Albania and the Balkans, the economic boom and full industrialisation).

Numbers in Lybia are quite similar in 1938 (20,000 colonists settled in 1938) but IMHO Lybia is going to be quite different: indigenous population is below 1 million, logistic issues can be managed much more easily, the oil industry is going to start soon after the end of WW2, and will require skilled manpower both for the oil industry and the port and road infrastructures, but will also boost the demand for foodstuff, and increase the momentum for settlers to be relocated to Lybia. I would anticipate an Italian presence in Lybia around 30-40% of the population by 1960.

Hadn't Mussolini ordered the building of Asmara to be a monument to Italian fascism? Why build such a thing in a less important Italian colony?

Actually it was Addis Ababa. The duce wanted a completely new city (or better cities: European, coptic and muslim) to be the capital of the new Italian empire. There were a lot of studies carried out, and ultimately a very attractive town plan was redacted. Then war came, and everything was shelved (but IIRC that south-africans made use of these plans later on)

 

[Antanas]

Spanish example. Mussolini rules till the death. When he dies in 196..., king Humbert II (1947-1983) restores democracy. Now Italy has king Victor Emanuel IV (1983)

 

[katanbuilder3]

I also agree that Italy could have kept its colonies. I dont see a Fascist Italy as a country that would go through the decolonization phase Britian and France went through. Italy would not have been devestated by the War as Britian and France were so the strength is still there to keep the colonies.

Even if Italy looses its East African holdings Libya would never be given independance. Italians would reach parity within the population and even probaly even a majority by the time decolonization become popular.

 

[LordKalvan]

what might be interesting would be a fascist alliance organized and led by Italy: say Italy, Spain, Portugal, Argentina for sure. Other possible candidates might be Turkey (or Greece: not both of them), Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (or portion thereof, depending what happens in WW2), Hungary.

There is enough manpower and technical skills to manage substantial economical resources (Argentina, Lybia, Angola); by 1975 the could be a serious contender.

 

[Alratan]

The whole question of decolonisation is an interesting one.

Whatever happens, with a less exhausted UK, it will go significantly slower, but this becomes far more apparent in the case where the Japanese realise that the Go South plan is impossible with the British able to deploy its full strength in Asia.

If the British stay in the profitable parts of the Asian Empire, in what became Malaysia and Burma and the NEI remains uncontested in Dutch hands, then the entire narrative of decolonisation is completely derailed. If the Japanese don't take French Indochina, then the independence movement there may never gets off the ground - few people realise how its early growth was dependent on exploiting the competition between the residual Vichy administration and the Japanese military to extract concessions. More noticably, an early defeat/withdrawl by the Japanese means that we end up with a Nationalist China, so that the routes for Communist aid and subversion in SEA are mostly blocked.

If Asian decolonisation is avoided or slowed, then the European Empires are still profitable, and that will mean they can afford to keep their African possessions. On a simple practical basis, it also becomes much harder for the USSR to supply weapons to African resistance groups.

 

[Cornelius]

Keeping the colonies would be hard. OTL most of Africa reached indipendence around the sixties (more or less) and any attempte to stop this has met with long and bloody guerilla.
I think that the AOI would be a lost cause. The huge difference between the italian colonists and the native coupled with the huge territories would spell the doom for any attempte to keep the african horn. The choice would be setting a few puppet states (keeping the right to some military bases around) or engaging in a long guerilla warfare, that could turn out to be a quagmire for the fascist Italy.
Lybia is another matter: the native element were far more sparse than in Africa and, with a steady immigration, italians could even become the main ethnic group. Besides once discovered oil the regime would be highly determinated to keep Lybia. This could lead to seriuos problems when the islamic extremism cames around. Fascist Italy could become the best european supporter for Israel...

As for the regime survival, I think that the end could come with the decolonization wars (like Portugal) or with the death of Mussolini (like Spain). But if the fascist regime manages to survive this experiences and keep the economy strong enough, it could very well survive to today (like China).

 

[LordKalvan]

Keeping the colonies would be hard. OTL most of Africa reached indipendence around the sixties (more or less) and any attempte to stop this has met with long and bloody guerilla.
I think that the AOI would be a lost cause. The huge difference between the italian colonists and the native coupled with the huge territories would spell the doom for any attempte to keep the african horn. The choice would be setting a few puppet states (keeping the right to some military bases around) or engaging in a long guerilla warfare, that could turn out to be a quagmire for the fascist Italy.

I do agree it will be very hard (and certainly not profitable) to transform Ethipia into a settlers colony. Which is another good reason for which the conquest war was a stupid and expensive exercise.
The solution might be to keep Erythrea (or possibly just a naval base there) and set up puppet states (and Erythrean troops - ascari - could be raised to keep order). I do wonder if Somalia would come out better ITTL than IOTL (it cannot come out worse, really)

Lybia is another matter: the native element were far more sparse than in Africa and, with a steady immigration, italians could even become the main ethnic group. Besides once discovered oil the regime would be highly determinated to keep Lybia. This could lead to seriuos problems when the islamic extremism cames around. Fascist Italy could become the best european supporter for Israel...

Lybia can and must be kept. As you say, it should not be too hard. I do believe that an Italian Lybia would also help the French to stay in Algeria (or maybe would just drag out the independence war there). The idea of supporting Israel is interesting, but I still think that the focus will be on Suez and Egypt.

As for the regime survival, I think that the end could come with the decolonization wars (like Portugal) or with the death of Mussolini (like Spain). But if the fascist regime manages to survive this experiences and keep the economy strong enough, it could very well survive to today (like China).

Mussolini might last to mis '60s, but it would be the worst possible outcome. I'd rather believe that there will be a change and an internal liberalization driven by the economic boom. Maybe I'm an optimist

 

[Alratan]

Whilst I agree that sub-Saharan decolonisation is inevitable, I do think that keeping Japan out of the war and the British (and French) in the colonial game longer is the way to go.

You could see this as the second step in Italy's rehabilitation, first anti-communism and then some form of informal accord with France and the UK for mutual support in Africa. I could easily see the Italians using their influence in the Egyptian court to help the British out in return for them suppressing guerilla bases in British Somaliland, and similar deals with the French.

 

[LordKalvan]

Whilst I agree that sub-Saharan decolonisation is inevitable, I do think that keeping Japan out of the war and the British (and French) in the colonial game longer is the way to go.

You could see this as the second step in Italy's rehabilitation, first anti-communism and then some form of informal accord with France and the UK for mutual support in Africa. I could easily see the Italians using their influence in the Egyptian court to help the British out in return for them suppressing guerilla bases in British Somaliland, and similar deals with the French.

I would say that Italians might also control insurgency in Kenia and Sudan.
Maybe it would be too much to ask, but I might see hot pursuit allowed for any of the three colonial powers, and joint patrolling of coasts to prevent arms smuggling.

I do not see decolonisation in sub-saharian Africa as unavoidable, btw: a better and shorter WW2 might change the cards there; another major change might be the conservatives not loosing British elections in 1945

 

[Markus]

I was actually thinking that Italian East Africa would be likelier to stay Italian than would Libya.

What stands in the way of Italy keeping Libya? The took that place even before WW1. Legally their claim is solid.

 

[varyar]

There was no census carried out in AOI between 1936 and 1941. However, the population of European origin in 1938 was assessed between 150,000 and 200,000 (this excludes the military, and does not take into accont the temporary migrants - another 200,000 between 1934 and 1938 - who in any case were completely repatriated in 1938/39, once the road infrastructures were completed). The native population was also not censed, but the estimate was around 12 million. Therefore, the Italian settles were somehow around the 2% mark.

Just a "Wait, I posted what?" correction - the 30% in my earlier post meant Libya, not East Africa. Something went horribly wrong as I tinkered with the phrasing.

There's also the Albanian question in terms of Italian imperialism and resistance against it.

 

[Alratan]

I would say that Italians might also control insurgency in Kenia and Sudan.
Maybe it would be too much to ask, but I might see hot pursuit allowed for any of the three colonial powers, and joint patrolling of coasts to prevent arms smuggling.

Coordinated coast patrols is easy, hot pursuit is harder to get officially, but I can easily see it being done on a "nod and a wink" basis. I would certainly expect con-ordination of raids, so that hot pursuit is un-necccassary

I do not see decolonisation in sub-saharian Africa as unavoidable, btw: a better and shorter WW2 might change the cards there;

It's only a question of when rather than if IMHO. With both the USA and USSR virulently opposed to the existence of the European Empires, the tide of history is against them. The process can easily be better managed and more drawn out, but with their general poverty, Atlantic Charter and war debts hanging over the British, the British can't hold off for ever.

another major change might be the conservatives not loosing British elections in 1945

I think after the start of war, the abject discrediting of Conservative foreign policy and demonstration that state supervision of industry was effective makes Labour victory almost inevitable. I don't think the first post war government really matters to Africa, however. Both sides were generally paternalist.

On Albania, I'm unsure. In 1940 there were only 1 million Albanians and 44 million Italians, (and around 0.7 million Libyans btw), but Albania is small, and has a distinct national culture so would be very hard to assimilate/colonize . My prediction is that the post war boom would suck in large numbers of Albanians into the northern Italian cities, which could well lead to a nasty terrorist campaign in the '70s by the second generation, or it could lead to much more rapid assimilation, depending on Italian attitudes.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Germany is able to concentrate more resources on Russia but Britain has more resources available as well particularly naval forces. Japan would be facing a more formidable opponent in the far East although its air superiority would probably limit the Royal Navy's operations. Assuming it was the only major change and Japan still attacked Pearl Harbour, the allies would have no soft underbelly of Europe to invade and would probably open a second front earlier. The war would probably end sooner.

Mussolini would be regarded by history in a different light possibly as a great leader by Italians although there would be the spectre of Abyssinia hanging over him. Mussolini would probably die peacefully like Franco and Salazar and Italy would either return to democracy like Spain or totter on the verge of revolution like Portugal

 

[Herr Frage]

There has been a TL for this.

Italy: 1936 by Vincent Longobardi. It can ve viewed either at Longvin's Writing den or Changing the Times. I would recomend the Writing den because it has an extras section featuring scenes from the TL, IU newspaper articles, maps, etc.

It currently runs up to the early seventies.

 

[Wendell]

What stands in the way of Italy keeping Libya? The took that place even before WW1. Legally their claim is solid.

Nasserism and variations thereof.

There has been a TL for this.

Italy: 1936 by Vincent Longobardi. It can ve viewed either at Longvin's Writing den or Changing the Times. I would recomend the Writing den because it has an extras section featuring scenes from the TL, IU newspaper articles, maps, etc.

It currently runs up to the early seventies.

Link?

 

[Wendell]

Germany is able to concentrate more resources on Russia but Britain has more resources available as well particularly naval forces. Japan would be facing a more formidable opponent in the far East although its air superiority would probably limit the Royal Navy's operations. Assuming it was the only major change and Japan still attacked Pearl Harbour, the allies would have no soft underbelly of Europe to invade and would probably open a second front earlier. The war would probably end sooner.

Mussolini would be regarded by history in a different light possibly as a great leader by Italians although there would be the spectre of Abyssinia hanging over him. Mussolini would probably die peacefully like Franco and Salazar and Italy would either return to democracy like Spain or totter on the verge of revolution like Portugal

I wonder if Mussolini would acquire for himself the French and British Somaliland protectorates in this timeline.

 

[Herr Frage]

Nasserism and variations thereof.



Link?

In my signature. Enjoy.

 

[LordKalvan]

Nasserism and variations thereof.

ITTL Nasser might live a normal and obscure life as an officer of the kingdom of Egypt. Italy could not afford a coup in Egypt which would put in danger the oil industry in Lybia, and force them to guard Lybian eastern border (not to mention a nationalisation of the Suez canal, which might constrain the main artery to AOI

I wonder if Mussolini would acquire for himself the French and British Somaliland protectorates in this timeline.

Djibouti would be interesting: good port, nd the terminal of the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway. British Somaliland is much less attractive, mostly an empty box

 

[Fenwick]

Mussolini was never in favor of Hitler until it became clear Germany was the only ally which would ensure Italian defense. Mussolini trie dot make a coalition of nations to go agaisnt Germany when it first set its sights upon Austria. This was ruined when the UK went behind the backs of France and Italy in making the Anglo-German Naval treaty. That right there allowed the British to feel safe, and at the same time showed Italy the two other strongest nations in Western Europe would not back them up if need be.

So in this what you really need is Italy never loosing that spirit against Germany. Fascism in its original form was seen very different from what is is lumped together with Nazism today. Mussolini had many well wishers in Europe, and given that Greece, Poland, Austria, Yugoslovia, and much of Europe had a dictator it was not the line in the sand many people make Democracies and Fascism have today.

 

[MUC]

There's also the Albanian question in terms of Italian imperialism and resistance against it.

If Italy moves out of Albania, resulting in a small chaos there, expect Greece to try to grab the Southern part of Albania.



With Italy not in the war, no Northern Africa theatre and more resources for the British, South East Asia gets better fortified. This may cause troubles for the Japanese, who may indeed decide not to try Pearl Harbor, but rather focus all their effort in South East Asia solely against the British.
The question is:
How long does the US hesitate to strike back?