Massive European Immigration To Africa?

[WolfNeuron]

The climate and habitat would be serious issues though. Colonies in the tropics don't have a history of attracting a lot of European settlers and immigrants. I can see them going to Algeria but not too much going to French West Africa and/or Equatorial Africa.

By 1900 the climate is incredibly hot, but vaccines and medicine make diseases far less of a problem, almost insignificant by 1900. I agree that vaccines would have to be offered alongside free passage. Also, the ability to gain 500 acres of land for growing cocoa, bananas etc for a large market northwards in France would allow for a poor family could become wealthy. Yes, tropical climates are tough, but at the end of the day hundreds of thousands of Brits moved to the West Indies in the 17th century. Of course they died because of malaria and yellow fever, but they still lived there.

But I definitely agree that even without the diseases, air conditioning would be a great help. However with a huge market of 150 million French people by 1900, Europe's population would be 25% larger, and I would imagine many more scientists too. With all that I can very well see air conditioning becoming commonplace in the 1930s instead of the 1960s, created partially by demand from French Africans. Considering the first air conditioner was invented in 1902 IOTL, I can imagine this happening and massively helping immigration after that.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

By 1900 the climate is incredibly hot, but vaccines and medicine make diseases far less of a problem, almost insignificant by 1900. I agree that vaccines would have to be offered alongside free passage. Also, the ability to gain 500 acres of land for growing cocoa, bananas etc for a large market northwards in France would allow for a poor family could become wealthy. Yes, tropical climates are tough, but at the end of the day hundreds of thousands of Brits moved to the West Indies in the 17th century. Of course they died because of malaria and yellow fever, but they still lived there.

But I definitely agree that even without the diseases, air conditioning would be a great help. However with a huge market of 150 million French people by 1900, Europe's population would be 25% larger, and I would imagine many more scientists too. With all that I can very well see air conditioning becoming commonplace in the 1930s instead of the 1960s, created partially by demand from French Africans. Considering the first air conditioner was invented in 1902 IOTL, I can imagine this happening and massively helping immigration after that.

Of course that would require major persuasion to get them there. Like high pay and free land and immunization and what not. They’d still be a minority no matter what.

 

[WolfNeuron]

Of course that would require major persuasion to get them there. Like high pay and free land and immunization and what not. They’d still be a minority no matter what.

Of course that would require major persuasion to get them there. Like high pay and free land and immunization and what not. They’d still be a minority no matter what.

I’m not sure about ‘major persuasion.’ IOTL millions were happy to move to the US even after free land had dried up. I’d imagine ITTL free land and a vaccine shot would be enough to get hundreds of thousands of people to migrate there.

I wouldn’t be so sre about the minority part either. To expand on the scenario, let’s also say that the world wars are avoided, so the US passes an immigration bill in 1918 rather than 1924, so that by 1920 the largest destination for Italian and other Europeans is removed.

As for French Africa, after this I would expect around 75% of all French emigration after this to French Africa, which is truly insane numbers. For example if in 1920 1,000,000 French emigrate, we’re looking at 750,000 French folks arriving in Africa. Assuming modest growth rates of 1% per year, by 2020 their descendants will number 2,000,000, half of the total Afrikaner population from one year of emigration.

In plantation colonies, I’d expect the colonists to become between 10%-20% of the population by around 1930, with small urban communities. However around 1930 immigration would increase as air conditioning would become commonplace, and since technology in some areas is ahead of OTL, let’s say that oil technology by 1930 is around the levels of OTL 1950s.

This would lead to an enormous boom in immigration in several areas. Take Gabon for example. IOTL 1960, the population was around 500,000. So let’s say that by 1930 when natural gas reserves are discovered, Europeans are 50,000 people, of whom around 40,000 are French (low estimates) and their economy is based around exporting crops to France, in everything from rubber to bananas.

And so when natural gas, diamonds and gold are discovered in 1930, alongside air conditioning being inexpensive, we’d expect to see hundreds of thousands of people arrive there. Of course many will be French people, but there will also be many Italians, Poles and Ukrainians arriving too. Without Israel and with the US closed, we’d also likely see tens of thousands of Russian Jews arrive, establishing themselves as middlemen traders in the capital of Libreville. Could they number 500,000 by 1960 and be 51% of the population? IMO yes they could.

As in the 1930s role around French Africa will undergo the process the southern US went in 1960: with air conditioning they will shift from an export poor economy to an industrial economy. Helped by relatively low populations and being in a customs union with France, French Africa will develop industry and tourism, which will prevent the insane population growths of OTL.

By those standards, I would expect the Europeans to form pluralities in most states, and outright majorities in places such as Gabon, the Congo and the Central African Republic.

 

[kreepysam]

I’m not sure about ‘major persuasion.’ IOTL millions were happy to move to the US even after free land had dried up. I’d imagine ITTL free land and a vaccine shot would be enough to get hundreds of thousands of people to migrate there.

I wouldn’t be so sre about the minority part either. To expand on the scenario, let’s also say that the world wars are avoided, so the US passes an immigration bill in 1918 rather than 1924, so that by 1920 the largest destination for Italian and other Europeans is removed.

As for French Africa, after this I would expect around 75% of all French emigration after this to French Africa, which is truly insane numbers. For example if in 1920 1,000,000 French emigrate, we’re looking at 750,000 French folks arriving in Africa. Assuming modest growth rates of 1% per year, by 2020 their descendants will number 2,000,000, half of the total Afrikaner population from one year of emigration.

In plantation colonies, I’d expect the colonists to become between 10%-20% of the population by around 1930, with small urban communities. However around 1930 immigration would increase as air conditioning would become commonplace, and since technology in some areas is ahead of OTL, let’s say that oil technology by 1930 is around the levels of OTL 1950s.

This would lead to an enormous boom in immigration in several areas. Take Gabon for example. IOTL 1960, the population was around 500,000. So let’s say that by 1930 when natural gas reserves are discovered, Europeans are 50,000 people, of whom around 40,000 are French (low estimates) and their economy is based around exporting crops to France, in everything from rubber to bananas.

And so when natural gas, diamonds and gold are discovered in 1930, alongside air conditioning being inexpensive, we’d expect to see hundreds of thousands of people arrive there. Of course many will be French people, but there will also be many Italians, Poles and Ukrainians arriving too. Without Israel and with the US closed, we’d also likely see tens of thousands of Russian Jews arrive, establishing themselves as middlemen traders in the capital of Libreville. Could they number 500,000 by 1960 and be 51% of the population? IMO yes they could.

As in the 1930s role around French Africa will undergo the process the southern US went in 1960: with air conditioning they will shift from an export poor economy to an industrial economy. Helped by relatively low populations and being in a customs union with France, French Africa will develop industry and tourism, which will prevent the insane population growths of OTL.

By those standards, I would expect the Europeans to form pluralities in most states, and outright majorities in places such as Gabon, the Congo and the Central African Republic.

750,000 immigrants a year is a lot for an underdeveloped part of the world. For context, it would equal or exceed in most cases the annual migration intake of the US during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was a truly staggering amount even for the world's largest developed economy at that point. And at any rate homesteading and land grants help a bit but a lot of immigration in the US was funnelled into the northeast and rust belt cities as opportunities were better in those places. Algeria is also a good example of what played out in many parts of Africa too - coastal enclaves with large pluralities or minorities of Europeans with significant native presence. In most of the rural areas, white planters or farmers were vastly outnumbered by intensive land-use subsistence natives.

For this to work, you'd really need an industrial belt that can be densly infilled and soak up that many people with jobs, schools, hospitals, roads, railways etc growing fast enough to keep up with the demographic boom. There aren't many places in Africa that could readily serve that role but I think at a minimum it needs to have some coal and iron nearby...

It's really a two-speed requirement - settling the land with white homesteaders secures it's use for a yeoman farming class rather than fostering a large native underclass of labourers working for a planter elite. The development of a large city or cities with industry that grows fast enough to sustain large yearly increases but not so fast that there is always a bit of a labour shortage creates a wage differential to Europe and attracts the immigrants. The displacement (via treaty or ad-hoc) of natives onto reservations through settlers locking up the land prevents a native rural proletariat from becoming an urban proletariat in search of better wages (i.e. Algiers, Johannesburg, etc).

 

[WolfNeuron]

750,000 immigrants a year is a lot for an underdeveloped part of the world. For context, it would equal or exceed in most cases the annual migration intake of the US during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was a truly staggering amount even for the world's largest developed economy at that point. And at any rate homesteading and land grants help a bit but a lot of immigration in the US was funnelled into the northeast and rust belt cities as opportunities were better in those places. Algeria is also a good example of what played out in many parts of Africa too - coastal enclaves with large pluralities or minorities of Europeans with significant native presence. In most of the rural areas, white planters or farmers were vastly outnumbered by intensive land-use subsistence natives.

For this to work, you'd really need an industrial belt that can be densly infilled and soak up that many people with jobs, schools, hospitals, roads, railways etc growing fast enough to keep up with the demographic boom. There aren't many places in Africa that could readily serve that role but I think at a minimum it needs to have some coal and iron nearby...

It's really a two-speed requirement - settling the land with white homesteaders secures it's use for a yeoman farming class rather than fostering a large native underclass of labourers working for a planter elite. The development of a large city or cities with industry that grows fast enough to sustain large yearly increases but not so fast that there is always a bit of a labour shortage creates a wage differential to Europe and attracts the immigrants. The displacement (via treaty or ad-hoc) of natives onto reservations through settlers locking up the land prevents a native rural proletariat from becoming an urban proletariat in search of better wages (i.e. Algiers, Johannesburg, etc).

I think you're spot on, and no doubt an industrial belt would be of huge importance to French West Africa. The only reason I didn't add it in is because I simply don't see industrialisation happening in Africa before air conditioning. I mean imagine trying to operate a factory designed for Paris in Dakar or Timbuktu.

For that reason, I imagined French West Africa developing much more along the lines of the American south, but frankly more of a plantocracy. For example in Guinea, I'm imagining around 25% of the land becoming reservations, meanwhile the rest is owned by Europeans. In the drier areas I'm imagining ranching becoming common, with large land grants of many hundreds of acres to raise herding animals. Meanwhile in the more tropical regions, land grants for families of around 100 acres would probably be most common, with these families likely having 5 or so 'helpers.' (Not a very pleasant TL I know) And then there would be gold mining colonies. I would actually imagine many tens of thousands of people arriving for gold mining, and ending up settling down as middle class farmers. Likely the initial gold rushes would be between 1890 and 1920.

But really I would imagine the only major city being in Conakry. Even there, I'd imagine it as more of a trading post. I'd imagine a modern port in Conakry, alongside the bare minimum number of factories needed to manage agricultural products for export to France and Europe. These factories would probably have some ingenious system of cooling down the workfloor, but as this would be expensive only the bare minimum processing would be done in French West Africa itself.

And so perhaps more realistically, I imagined the 1930s being the period of economic growth, as air conditioning is invented earlier. Using oil by the 1930s will also speed up Africa's industrialisation hugely. Early on, industry would focus on light industry, but I would imagine soon they would shift to heavy industry as some would probably move from the Metropole, and domestic markets would emerge. ITTL with no world wars, by the 1930s Russia's emigration would be even larger. Huge numbers of Jews, Poles, Ukrainians and Italians would likely arrive in Conakry, which would boom into a city in the hundreds of thousands throughout the 1930s. I can imagine by 1940 only around 50% of FWA's major cities would be Francophone, if not less. By 1940, the 'industrial belt' you described should have emerged, and it should be growing rapidly.

Using Guinea as a fairly arbitrary example, I'd imagine by 1930 before industrialisation it would be 1/3rd Europe, which I would imagine by 1960 when it would be a modern industrial country, and immigration from Europe would have slowed down, I'd imagine it to be around 60% Europe. Just a possible outcome IMO.

 

[Copperhead]

klansmen post 1980s

Why in 1980? What happened then?

 

[Harley Davidson]

Remember, settler colonization is deeply unprofitable and you always have to wonder why folks all of a sudden want to move to a new development in, say, inner Somalia when they can just stay home.

Millions of Italians left Italy in the late 19th/early 20th century. Libya is closer than the places they mostly went to (America and Argentina)

 

[Tash]

Wasn't the Cape Colony's indigenous african population wiped out by european diseases? To compensate for the lack of population, the dutch, imported slaves from further north. I think this could be a POD. With Dutch settlement of the cape, or if the Brits seize it, a British (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) settlement.

Could you perhaps have a POD with slavery to the americas as well. If you stopped slavery to the Americas one could make a largely either european or mixed race population that could become a new source of immigrants. But then in this timeline you would have a larger african population on the continent. With this greater population, wars, starvation and turmoil could be more common occurrence among the african countries, with possible jihads from the muslims up north.

Have the French focus on settling Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as some places in north africa had been seen as parts of France. The Spanish and Portuguese in Morrocco, and scattered along the west coast. The Italians in Libya, Eritrea, and scattered around the Horn of Africa.
Could the Reconquista extend to encompass Northe Africa, with a border between Muslim Ottoman East, and Christian Latin West, being set somewhere in Libya.

A milder WW1, or no WW at all? And an integration of Imperial Federation. With British, and Anglo descendant peoples, spreading throughout the vast empire of opporotunity. Settling in other dominions, strenghtening their anglo population, but also in the lands in africa which could host white population. Similarily, other countries would try to follow this.

This scenaria interests me. So if anyone has any recommendations for books or other media on this topic, i would appreciate it.
Sorry if i made any mistakes with grammar or anything. Don't usually comment on here.

 

[Pelranius]

Wasn't the Cape Colony's indigenous african population wiped out by european diseases? To compensate for the lack of population, the dutch, imported slaves from further north. I think this could be a POD. With Dutch settlement of the cape, or if the Brits seize it, a British (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) settlement.

Could you perhaps have a POD with slavery to the americas as well. If you stopped slavery to the Americas one could make a largely either european or mixed race population that could become a new source of immigrants. But then in this timeline you would have a larger african population on the continent. With this greater population, wars, starvation and turmoil could be more common occurrence among the african countries, with possible jihads from the muslims up north.

Have the French focus on settling Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as some places in north africa had been seen as parts of France. The Spanish and Portuguese in Morrocco, and scattered along the west coast. The Italians in Libya, Eritrea, and scattered around the Horn of Africa.
Could the Reconquista extend to encompass Northe Africa, with a border between Muslim Ottoman East, and Christian Latin West, being set somewhere in Libya.

A milder WW1, or no WW at all? And an integration of Imperial Federation. With British, and Anglo descendant peoples, spreading throughout the vast empire of opporotunity. Settling in other dominions, strenghtening their anglo population, but also in the lands in africa which could host white population. Similarily, other countries would try to follow this.

This scenaria interests me. So if anyone has any recommendations for books or other media on this topic, i would appreciate it.
Sorry if i made any mistakes with grammar or anything. Don't usually comment on here.

No, there were still a decent amount of Khoikhoi hanging around the Cape.

As for the French North Africa, that was tried with Algeria and it didn't work, a large part because when push comes to shove, a lot of French didn't really want the Algerians as equals. Same problem for Spanish/Portuguese North Africa, and Italian colonies, not to mention that there's not much economic rationale for doing so. Reconquista in North Africa also runs into financial problems.

Not enough Europeans in a TL with no WW1 to settle large parts of Africa (Europeans aren't going to work at wages that were paid to the natives).