The future of Italy's colonies if Italy remains neutral in World War II?

I don't want to broaden the topic too severely, but since how long Italy's colonial empire would last in such a scenario would obviously depend on the postwar geopolitical situation (for instance, how much pressure the United States would put on European powers to decolonize)... how does World War II go without the Italians in the Axis? Without getting bogged down elsewhere, might the Germans do better in Eastern Europe, at least initially? Would this lead to more of Europe (say, all of Germany, which may lose less territory, Poland, Czechoslovakia, more of Southeastern Europe, etc) being in the American sphere after the war, rather than under Soviet domination?

If so, the Cold War might be somewhat lessened, at least in the Atlantic, which may mean the US applies less pressure on countries like Italy to withdraw from their colonies.

Since I think this is a critical point, I'm just making sure it doesn't get stuck on the bottom of the page.
 
To what extent could/would neutral Italy accept Jewish refugees fleeing Europe, and settle them in their colonies? (maybe coupled with a mandatory language course, a pledge of loyalty and probably a 'processing fee' as well)

After all, Mussolini seemed positively pro-Jewish at one point in the 30s, commenting how well integrated Italian Jews were, banging his Jewish mistress, having Jews like this guy in the higher echelons of power, criticizing Hitlers racist ways etc.

Settling 1-2 million Jews in Libya and East Africa would have massive implications later on.

Wouldn't Israel and the United States still be far more attractive places to immigrate to than, say, Ethiopia or Eritrea, especially in the long term? What's stopping this from essentially being an Italian version of the Soviet Union's Jewish Autonomous Oblast?

I wonder if they might make a move on Tunisia when France leaves - it had a sizable Italian population, and the possibility of linking the straights would be tempting.

I imagine that France wouldn't be very happy at all with Italy invading a country that they'd try to keep in their sphere of influence, even if it obtains formal independence.
 
Another question is, why does Mussolini remain neutral in WWII? Does he cut a deal with the WAllies? If so, what kind of deal? That could have an effect on whether or not Italy expands during the war or after it.

As for East Africa, as soon as other colonies in the region start agitating for and winning their independence, expect East Africa to follow suit. I imagine it would start with a sort of pan-African ideal across the Horn, but would soon collapse into in-fighting between Christian Abyssinia and Muslim Somalia (think Pakistan/India). If Eritrea goes, too, then there will likely be agitation for the Tigray and neighbouring regions (which Mussolini awarded to Eritrea during the Abyssinian Crisis). Then there's the Ogaden. It's important to remember that the territories Italy stripped from Abyssinia before outright annexation would be part of Abyssinia's irredenta post-independence.

Then, of course, there will be those who wish to restore the monarchy and those who wish to establish a popular republic (how this works will depend on the Cold War, and which sides will be backed by which powers).
 
Wouldn't Israel and the United States still be far more attractive places to immigrate to than, say, Ethiopia or Eritrea, especially in the long term? What's stopping this from essentially being an Italian version of the Soviet Union's Jewish Autonomous Oblast?

In the long term, yes. However, AFAIK, during the late 30s - early 40s, Germany was pushing its Jews to emigrate, only for them to find out that no place was willing to take them in anything above token numbers. Faced with the conditions in Germany/German-occupied territory at the time, I'm sure many Jews would accept going to Italian colonies, even if it wasn't their first choice.
 
The Pied-Noirs were about 10% of the Algerian population (roughly 1 million out of 10), yet we know how the French effort to keep Algeria ended.

Assuming that by 1960, thanks to energetic settlement and oil exploitation initiatives the Italian population of Libya is 30% of the total, that will be probably just 450,000 persons out of 1.5 millions. The higher percentage is offset by the smaller actual number.

Italy will surely wish to retain Libya. The problem is that it will become a guerrilla sore. It's out of the NATO/OTAN sphere, so when the Egyptians and Soviets start sending stuff and advisors and the Tunisians and Algerians start sending volunteers, it will be a bad place where to be Italian.
Libya is closer to Italy than Angola to Portugal, but in the long term I don't see a different outcome.
 
The Pied-Noirs were about 10% of the Algerian population (roughly 1 million out of 10), yet we know how the French effort to keep Algeria ended.

Assuming that by 1960, thanks to energetic settlement and oil exploitation initiatives the Italian population of Libya is 30% of the total, that will be probably just 450,000 persons out of 1.5 millions. The higher percentage is offset by the smaller actual number.

Italy will surely wish to retain Libya. The problem is that it will become a guerrilla sore. It's out of the NATO/OTAN sphere, so when the Egyptians and Soviets start sending stuff and advisors and the Tunisians and Algerians start sending volunteers, it will be a bad place where to be Italian.
Libya is closer to Italy than Angola to Portugal, but in the long term I don't see a different outcome.

No, it will be a very very bad place to be an arab, the last time something like this happen the consequences were that the local population don't even tried to look the italian funny for a couple of generation; not only that but unlike Portugal Italy is one of the big guys ITTL and this mean that cannot be isolated as Spain or get weapon embargoes like Portugal plus she had a lot more capacity. The other arab nations can help, but this not only mean that Rome will become very very friendly with Israel but that Algeria and Egypt will probably face the periodic visit of italian jet and troops to stop the flux and too drill to the arab nationalist how little wise is supporting the libyan rebels (anybody in charge of Tunisia, if he had a functional brain will not even think about giving significan support to the rebels as they are to a too short distance with Sicily and the bases of Regia Marina and the Royal
Finally, controlling the city (aka the place were the great majority of the italians will be greatly outnumbering the locals) mean leaving the rest of the arab population the not so friendly desert and knowing the fascist leaderships they will prefer evict the entire arab population than leave Libya.
 
The Pied-Noirs were about 10% of the Algerian population (roughly 1 million out of 10), yet we know how the French effort to keep Algeria ended.

Assuming that by 1960, thanks to energetic settlement and oil exploitation initiatives the Italian population of Libya is 30% of the total, that will be probably just 450,000 persons out of 1.5 millions. The higher percentage is offset by the smaller actual number.

Italy will surely wish to retain Libya. The problem is that it will become a guerrilla sore. It's out of the NATO/OTAN sphere, so when the Egyptians and Soviets start sending stuff and advisors and the Tunisians and Algerians start sending volunteers, it will be a bad place where to be Italian.
Libya is closer to Italy than Angola to Portugal, but in the long term I don't see a different outcome.

The Italians were willing to be quite brutal unfortunately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_concentration_camps_in_Libya
 
No, it will be a very very bad place to be an arab, the last time something like this happen the consequences were that the local population don't even tried to look the italian funny for a couple of generation; not only that but unlike Portugal Italy is one of the big guys ITTL and this mean that cannot be isolated as Spain or get weapon embargoes like Portugal plus she had a lot more capacity.

Yeah. So what about that other big guy in TTl and OTL, France? How did it go with its wars to keep Indochina and Algeria? What about the biggest guy, the USA? How did their Vietnam war end?

Bombing the Egyptians with jets? You do remember that they will have MiGs and SA-2s, right?

The Italians were willing to be quite brutal unfortunately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_concentration_camps_in_Libya

Yeah. Brutality doesn't stop guerrilla, short of the total depopulation of wide areas. Cutting outside help usually does the trick, but this is not going to happen here.
 
Yeah. Brutality doesn't stop guerrilla, short of the total depopulation of wide areas. Cutting outside help usually does the trick, but this is not going to happen here.

In this case, they did both (brutality and depopulation), and as far as I can tell, it seemed to have worked.

They also threw in a few carrots like this:
In 1939 some Libyans were granted special (though limited) Italian citizenship by Royal Decree No. 70 on 9 January 1939. This citizenship was necessary for any Libyan with ambitions to rise in the military or civil organizations. The recipients were officially referred to as Moslem Italians.
 
In this case, they did both (brutality and depopulation), and as far as I can tell, it seemed to have worked.

How can you tell it wasn't the lack of outside help that worked? As mentioned above. Cutting outside help works. In TTL, postwar, the Libyan rebels get outside help.
 
Yeah. So what about that other big guy in TTl and OTL, France? How did it go with its wars to keep Indochina and Algeria? What about the biggest guy, the USA? How did their Vietnam war end?

France was just out of WWII in Indochina and in Algeria had not the advantages that Italy will have in Libya as an enemy a tenth of the population of Algeria and at least a third of the population of italian descent...not counting that except the city that will be on italian firm hand just due to demographic the rest of the place is desert. Plus better remember that all that conflict even if ended with the rebels victory...costed them much much more dead than the colonial power and the Libyans had in total less population of even a partially mobilizated italian army.

Bombing the Egyptians with jets? You do remember that they will have MiGs and SA-2s, right?

Oh yeah...that's stopped the Isrealians from retaliate during the years or failing to do it and Italy is in another league of Israel regarding military capacity; frankly the Egyptian military position will be even worse than OTL as she will face a possible two front war or at least take it in consideration.
 
France was just out of WWII in Indochina and in Algeria had not the advantages that Italy will have in Libya as an enemy a tenth of the population of Algeria and at least a third of the population of italian descent

I count another one: if the regime is at least to some extent like the pre-ww2 one, no newspapers and voters to answer to. That could bring upon a Graziani 2.0.
 
Libya are easier to control than Algeria, lower population and 90% of the population living at the coast.
 
Another question is, why does Mussolini remain neutral in WWII? Does he cut a deal with the WAllies? If so, what kind of deal? That could have an effect on whether or not Italy expands during the war or after it.

That's something I'd like to know as well. I read here of substantial offers, but I wonder how much it would have come immediately. Or perhaps Churchill knew that decolonisation was coming sooner than later?

Also does anyone have a source on the matter?
 
So much depends on what sort of regime governs Italy in the postwar world. One scenario I can see is where Mussolini lives at least until the mid-1950s or 1960s if he's lucky and the fascist regime remains in power. By 1941, Italian East Africa had 140,000 Italians and Libya another 120,000. In Africa, only the Union of South Africa, Algeria, Tunisia and French Morocco had larger European populations.

As mentioned above, Libya's Italian population had grown rapidly during the late 1930s and the fascist regime had planned to settle half a million Italians in Libya by 1960. These were agricultural settlements, and though they were short-lived one of the interesting aspects was that the settlers came in the largest numbers, half hailed from the Veneto Region. Considered the politically right-wing region in Italy, in East Africa the largest number of settlers also came from Veneto. Its interesting that large numbers of Italians had migrated to French North Africa and Egypt during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and were almost entirely from Sicily, whereas in Libya they were only 9.49% of the sponsored settlers. I imagine that migrants from Sicily and Southern Italy would be tapped as potential settlers.

After the war a huge number of Italians emigrated, below are the numbers of emigrants from Italy postwar. It is important to note that the majority of those going to European destinations were largely temporary and the majority (71%) returned home during that period, whereas for the Americas and Oceania that number was 21%.

1946-1976
Switzerland 2,330,337
Germany 1,137,831
France 1,032,758
Argentina 500,116
USA 488,483
Canada 440,796
Benelux 381,692
Oceania (mostly Australia) 359,381
Venezuela 260,048
UK 166,402
Brazil 124,227
Other Europe 60,925
Other Americas (mostly Uruguay) 60,127

In East Africa, the majority of settlers were located in Eritrea (75,000), with 45,000 in Ethiopia, and 22,000 In Somalia. Though there were a few agricultural settlements outside of the capital Addis Abeba, the majority of Italians in Ethiopia (some 40,000) lived in the city. There was still guerrilla activity against the Italians and despite the large road building projects, I imagine that Ethiopia might eventually be abandoned. Tigray was annexed to Eritrea and the Ogaden to Somalia and the Italians might grant new states independence with those new boundaries, eventually sowing the seeds of a future conflict.

If Italy remains in Libya during the 1950s it will become closer to France in an attempt to stamp out Arab Nationalism. Without World War II, King Farouk might maintain a level of respect in Egypt and as a result, Nasser may never come to power. If he does, Italy would probably back Britain and France in the Suez conflict, hoping to quash the Nasser regime along with keeping the Suez Canal open, as it is vital to Italy's maintaining control over East Africa. In Algeria, Europeans were a mere 10% of the population in 1954, but if in Libya they are already 30%, that would lead to a much more difficult decolonisation process. Additionally, when Tunisia gained independence in 1956 there were some 90,000 Italian citizens in Tunisia, and probably another 70-80,000 French citizens of Italian ancestry in the territory. If Tunisia becomes independent and at least half are welcomed into Libya, they would further boost the European population.
 
That's something I'd like to know as well. I read here of substantial offers, but I wonder how much it would have come immediately. Or perhaps Churchill knew that decolonisation was coming sooner than later?

Also does anyone have a source on the matter?

Realistically Italy will receive just what stated by Franco-Italian agreement of 1935 (put in a limbo by the invasion of Ethiopia), cultural rights in Malta (without the war italian culture and language will be still strong in the island) and preferential treatment on Suez. Churchill tried to neutralize/applease Italy offering coal supply at a bargain price and buying a lot of italian weapons...so it will not be bad for the italian industry and treasure, plus the merchant marine will be probably very used by the Wallies due to her size and for political reason.
Depending on the situation a free hand on Jugoslavia and some concession from Greece can be on the cards, but as i said much depend on how the overall situation evolve; the most important thing is that Churchill promised at Mussolini a place at the winner table if he kept neutrality and this mean post-war influence for Italy
 
Libya is closer to Italy than Angola to Portugal, but in the long term I don't see a different outcome.
So at unimaginable expense Italy's going to succeed in reducing the rebels to border raiders who spend more time fighting each other than against the colonial government, then a military coup initiates an near instantaneous decolonization? IDK man, between Italy's much larger economy (and army), Libya's much smaller population compared to Angola, and the fact that the Fascist Regime of Italy actually got along pretty well with its army (compare to Portugal where the military was one of the main sources for opposition to the Estado Novo), seems to me like things absolutely would have a different outcome.
 
So at unimaginable expense Italy's going to succeed in reducing the rebels to border raiders who spend more time fighting each other than against the colonial government, then a military coup initiates an near instantaneous decolonization? IDK man, between Italy's much larger economy (and army), Libya's much smaller population compared to Angola, and the fact that the Fascist Regime of Italy actually got along pretty well with its army (compare to Portugal where the military was one of the main sources for opposition to the Estado Novo), seems to me like things absolutely would have a different outcome.

The key word in my post is "outcome". Decolonization. Things will be different in the details in Libya than elsewhere - as they always are - and I said "in the long term" - meaning that it might take more time.

Yet, decolonization was the thing in the 1960s. Examples of colonial powers who fought a colonial war against local rebels/guerrillas and who won it in this time frame are pretty scarce. This is a powerful worldwide trend There is powerful international pressure against colonial powers who try to hang on to their colonies. There is the Soviet Union, ready and willing to send materiel, volunteers and advisors. There is the internal public opinion that is generally against this colonial thing of the past.

Actually, a bloody colonial war in the 1960s might well be one factor for the passing from favor of Fascism back in Italy.
 
Actually, a bloody colonial war in the 1960s might well be one factor for the passing from favor of Fascism back in Italy.

It very well could be, and if I had to bet money, that's where I'd put it.

HOWEVER, there is the real risk, given their OTL behaviour of not having a problem with putting almost half of Libya's Arab population in concentration camps, that there may not be all that many Libyans running around freely. After all, the British had no problem forcibly relocating half a million Malayan civilians exactly around this time, hence why I doubt they'd raise much of a fuss if the Italians are doing it as well.
 

Deleted member 94680

Libya goes independent in the mid-50s under a right-wing, hardman-led, European settler minority government. Relations with the homeland are good. East Africa and Ethiopia are running sores that consume several generations of young Italian conscripts until eventual independence in the late 60s/early 70s. Depending on the Cold War or ATL equivalent, Ethiopia may go communist in an attempt to win independence earlier resulting in American assistance to keep it in the Italian sphere. Somalia is a multi-sided quagmire with almost every conceivable creed or faction aligning, betraying and double crossing each other under the leadership of various warlords and chieftains.

Just my two pence worth.
 
Top