Split Libya

One of the many issues that the WWII victors had to deal with was the fate of Libya. The British wanted to make Idris as-Senussi ruler over the whole country (which they eventually got), the first step to which was making him Emir of Cyrenaica. The French wanted to annex the Fezzan, which is why they ended up with its administration before the kingdom was declared. The Italians wanted a trusteeship over all or part of Libya, as they were to obtain in the former Italian Somaliland. Finally, the Soviets asked for a trusteeship over Tripolitania.

So let's assume that these conflicting interests lead to an agreement that goes as follows: (1) Idris receives Cyrenaica as a British protectorate, (2) Fezzan passes to France and is incorporated into either Chad or the Southern Territories (Algerian Sahara), and (3) Tripolitania is made a trust territory of Italy (an option which Stalin backs in the hope of Italy going communist) and granted independence at some point in 1955-60.
 

Thande

Donor
I was pondering this the other day, it is rather interesting.

I haven't heard that the Soviets wanted a trusteeship over Tripolitania though :eek:
 
Considering that, historically, Benghazi and Tripoli were both heads of separate states prior to the Imperialistic period, I think a divided Libya would be a more "natural" development than OTL's Libya.
 
I haven't heard that the Soviets wanted a trusteeship over Tripolitania though :eek:

Yeah, Stalin was interested in getting into the Med; he also asked for a Soviet role in the administration of Tangier (still under Spanish occupation for a few months after V-E Day). Don't know how seriously he took it all, but he also supported putting Eritrea under the trusteeship of Italy on at least one occasion on the assumption that it could go red soon, hence that comment for (3). Stalin was an opportunist, so Tripolitania was probably one of his maximal demands in the crafting of the postwar order - great if it would succeed, no big tragedy if it failed. The official justification, to which there was probably some truth, was providing the Soviet merchant marine with a Mediterranean base IIRC.

Considering that, historically, Benghazi and Tripoli were both heads of separate states prior to the Imperialistic period, I think a divided Libya would be a more "natural" development than OTL's Libya.

Actually, the Ottomans had already tied Benghazi to Tripoli back in the 16th century.
 
One of the many issues that the WWII victors had to deal with was the fate of Libya. The British wanted to make Idris as-Senussi ruler over the whole country (which they eventually got), the first step to which was making him Emir of Cyrenaica. The French wanted to annex the Fezzan, which is why they ended up with its administration before the kingdom was declared. The Italians wanted a trusteeship over all or part of Libya, as they were to obtain in the former Italian Somaliland. Finally, the Soviets asked for a trusteeship over Tripolitania.

So let's assume that these conflicting interests lead to an agreement that goes as follows: (1) Idris receives Cyrenaica as a British protectorate, (2) Fezzan passes to France and is incorporated into either Chad or the Southern Territories (Algerian Sahara), and (3) Tripolitania is made a trust territory of Italy (an option which Stalin backs in the hope of Italy going communist) and granted independence at some point in 1955-60.

Actually there was a British plan to return Tripolitania to Italy as a trusteeship in 1949:

http://countrystudies.us/libya/26.htm

Idris had returned to Libya to a tumultuous welcome in 1944, but he declined to take up residence there until satisfied that all constraints of foreign control not subject to his agreement had been removed. At British urging, he resumed permanent residence in Cyrenaica in 1947; in 1949, with British backing, he unilaterally proclaimed Cyrenaica an independent amirate.

In the meantime, Britain and Italy had placed the Bevin-Sforza plan (after Ernest Bevin and Carlo Sforza, foreign ministers of its respective sponsors) before the UN for its consideration. Under this plan, Libya would come under UN trusteeship, and responsibility for administration in Tripolitania would be delegated to Italy, in Cyrenaica to Britain, and in Fezzan to France. At the end of ten years, Libya would become independent. Over Libyan protests, the plan was adopted by the UN Political Committee in May 1949, only to fall short by one vote of the twothirds majority required for adoption by the General Assembly. No further proposals were submitted, but protracted negotiations led to a compromise solution that was embodied in a UN resolution in November 1949. This resolution called for the establishment of a sovereign state including all three historic regions of Libya by January 1952.

Also see:

http://books.google.com.jm/books?id...Q#v=onepage&q=1949 british libya plan&f=false

Can't see Stalin backing the Italian trusteeship in hopes of Italy going communist. Maybe the other way around though. By 1949 the Italian communists had lost the 1948 Italian elections and I think it was after that point (and after France) that Stalin gave up on communist parties ever attaining power by election in western Europe. To get Stalin to support the Italian trusteeship you might need a POD where the communists don't lose popularity in Czechoslovakia (and probably one where they gained even more votes) so that you don't get a Czechoslovak coup which helps to drive some uncommitted voters towards the Christian Democrats in Italy as opposed to the Popular Democratic Front (an alliance of the communists and the socialists in Italy).

Of course this might make the British reconsider the whole idea of returning Somalia and Tripolitania to Italian rule under a trusteeship, so perhaps if the Italian popular front does better but doesn't form a government and Stalin has hopes that they might do so next election then the British might still go for the transfer if only to give support to the Christian Democratic government.

The simplest POD though might be to find out which was the "one vote" (or rather the "two votes") that prevented Tripolitania from becoming an Italian trusteeship and getting those votes changed in a TL.
 
Actually there was a British plan to return Tripolitania to Italy as a trusteeship in 1949:

http://countrystudies.us/libya/26.htm

Similar to what I had in mind, and I probably read about it at some point, except I want to make that division permanent.

Can't see Stalin backing the Italian trusteeship in hopes of Italy going communist. Maybe the other way around though. By 1949 the Italian communists had lost the 1948 Italian elections and I think it was after that point (and after France) that Stalin gave up on communist parties ever attaining power by election in western Europe.

That's if the decision is made in 1948-49. I'm talking 'bout it being made in 1945-47.
 

Cook

Banned
I haven't heard that the Soviets wanted a trusteeship over Tripolitania though



Stalin wanted air and sea bases there. There was no way the British were going to go along with it and even Truman woke up to how dangerous it would have been. Why Stalin, who knew how sensitive Greece was to the British because of its proximity to the sae lanes to the Suez canal, would have ever imagined for a second that Britain would ever allow potentially hostile forces in Tobruk or Benghazi is anyone’s guess and probably the result of one too many late night vodkas.

The problem with the Italians returning is that they were hated by the Libyan population.
 

Thande

Donor



Stalin wanted air and sea bases there. There was no way the British were going to go along with it and even Truman woke up to how dangerous it would have been. Why Stalin, who knew how sensitive Greece was to the British because of its proximity to the sae lanes to the Suez canal, would have ever imagined for a second that Britain would ever allow potentially hostile forces in Tobruk or Benghazi is anyone’s guess and probably the result of one too many late night vodkas.


Probably gotten used to FDR letting him have his way on absolutely everything?
 
That's if the decision is made in 1948-49. I'm talking 'bout it being made in 1945-47.

Not possible unless you have the Italians first agree to renounce their colonies before 1947. The 1947 peace treaty in which Italy renounced all claims and rights to the colonies and various other areas is what allowed Britain to come forward with the idea of handing over parts of former Italian colonies (Tripolitania and Somalia) in 1949 and 1950. If Italy hasn't renounced the colonies in 1945-47 as part of a peace treaty then (odd I know) Britain is not going to hand any of them back. Your only hope without a more radical POD involving Czechoslovakia 1945-48 or Italy from 1943 is for the decision to be made before the Italian election in 1948, although I think even that would be too soon after the 1947 peace treaty when Italy was supposed to have given the colonies up.
 



Stalin wanted air and sea bases there. There was no way the British were going to go along with it and even Truman woke up to how dangerous it would have been. Why Stalin, who knew how sensitive Greece was to the British because of its proximity to the sae lanes to the Suez canal, would have ever imagined for a second that Britain would ever allow potentially hostile forces in Tobruk or Benghazi is anyone’s guess and probably the result of one too many late night vodkas.

The problem with the Italians returning is that they were hated by the Libyan population.

Hey, nothing tried nothing gained right?
 

Cook

Banned
Probably gotten used to FDR letting him have his way on absolutely everything?

Don’t know. Stalin was by that time exercising caution on other fronts, Italy and Greece specifically.


Hey, nothing tried nothing gained right?

Stalin didn’t usually gamble; it may have been a negotiating tactic, make the demand and then magnanimously concede it in exchange for western concessions somewhere more central to his interests.
 
Top