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

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.

Frankly, I can see at least a million Italians with oil exploitation. Italy was set to having 500k even without the oil.
 
The key word in my post is "outcome". Decolonization.
Trying to talk about the outcome of the Angolan war with out accounting for the Carnation Revolution is like trying to talk about the outcome of WWII without mentioning the Eastern Front.

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.
So your argument amounts to "muh trends"? That's a hand wave not an answer. The Libyan conflict can't become an Algerian/Vietnamese style bloody conflict, the required population simply isn't there.* The Italian economy is too large for it to spend itself to the point of revolution as Portugal did. How are the Libyan rebels going to force the Italians out?

Actually, a bloody colonial war in the 1960s might well be one factor for the passing from favor of Fascism back in Italy.
Alternatively Mussolini's valiant and efficient defence of the fourth shore takes the popularity of Fascism to new heights.

*As you mentioned before Libya's population is much smaller than Algeria, in order for the rebels to put up anywhere near the the fight that the Algerians put up, you'd need almost the entire adult male population to be in armed revolt. Given how implausible that is I think its safe to say an Algeria style blood bath isn't on the cards.
 
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.

I doubt Libya would become independent under settler rule like Rhodesia. The reason Southern Rhodesia was able to proclaim its independence was because the territory had been self-governing since 1922. Though Rhodesia was not a dominion, by the 1950s it was governed as one with its own prime minister and government, and most importantly control over its armed forces and security forces. Rhodesia even had its own High Commission in London along with consular offices abroad before UDI, so in reality it functioned as a sovereign state. By the 1960s 40% of the white population was born in Rhodesia and another 22% were born in South Africa, so the white settlers had some attachment to Rhodesia or at least Southern Africa and were willing to fight for their home. In Libya, by the 1950s and 1960s I imagine that the vast majority of adult settlers would be born in Italy and would probably still be attached to their Italian identity.

I imagine that by the 1990s, once there are 3rd generation settlers being born, that some sort of collective Italo-Libyan identity will emerge among the settlers, but close physical proximity to Italy along with the diversity of Italians from various regions might make this region have less of a regional identity than many areas in Italy itself. The large number of immigrants from the most conservative regions of Northern Italy could emerge in a settlers being very hardcore nationalists on the national level and even become an important constituency, whether or not Italy emerges as a democratic state.

Libya was governed as an internal part of Italy itself, so without their own settler government or control over internal security, it would be very difficult to proclaim independence and control the territory. The situation would be analogous to Portuguese Angola where the military officers were almost all metropolitan and almost everything was governed from Lisbon. In the end the Pieds-Noirs faced the same obstacle in Algeria where their fate was tied to the decision of the metropolitan government.
 
Alternatively Mussolini's valiant and efficient defence of the fourth shore takes the popularity of Fascism to new heights.
Yes and not even, but especially at a time when all the other colonial powers are failing to hold on to their empires. Fascism succeeded, where everybody else failed. Or that's what the gouvernment will have an easy time claiming.
Come to think of it, Fascist Italy successfully defeating an attempted native insurrection in Libya might be enough to get France to double down on Algeria, lest they loose face for failing where Italy succeeded. Yes the circumstances vary wildly, but even people here on this thread consistently ignore that even though others point them out, so as far as 99,9% of the global population at the time would be concerned, it would look like nearly identical situations.
 
The oil exploration will likely bring Italians, but I would not rule out cheaper third world workers to do the dirty work. But this is not the reason. Italians will continue to settle in the cities. The non-Italian birth rate will be suppressed via resource usage issues. And a certain percentage of non-Italian population will flip ethnic identity each generation. While I can't prove a number to you, it looks like to me you get low single digits percentages of the total minority population flip to higher status majority population per decade. Well, if allowed by the ruling class. A lot of it will be mixed marriage. If you have both Italian and North African ancestry, it will simply be more convenient to be Italian.
Italy had race laws. Mixed marriages were rare and in many cases illegal. It may change at some point ITTL, but probably would still do a lot to poison relationships.
 
Honestly, I don't see Italian Fascism surviving on its own for decades. I foresee a Portugal-like situation - Italy clings to its colonies, rebellions in the colonies (IOTL there was already a non-stop guerilla war by Ethiopian partisans from 1936 on) forcing the government to send more and more troops to die in a pointless conflict that can't really be won (this won't be like 1920's Libya. I think it's gonna be much harder for the Italians to quell this movement). As a result, support at home for the war decreases, and perhaps a group of disgruntles military officers even decides to take matters into their own hands. IOTL the military and the PNF didn't always see eye-to-eye on every issue, and saw themselves as serving different ends.
As to Libya I'm not sure. I guess it shouldn't be that hard to just bring enough settlers into Libya to create an Italian majority, considering how small the native population was at that time. But something about Italian fascism tells me that mustering all the resources, organizing a huge colonization project across the sea, and focusing on this for long enough to see it through, is just not something anyone in the upper leadership of the PNF is capable of doing.
Italy might try to hold onto Libya for longer, just because it's easier and more important ideologically. But I think East Africa would be the end of fascism. I really do think a Carnation-like revolution over the failed guerilla war in Ethiopia is the most likely option.
 
I am not good on internal Italian politics. But to the integration, a lot of it is not government policy but people actions. In many Muslim countries throughout history, I can simply convert to Islam and go to Friday prayers, and I will be accepted as full member of the society. It is a big portion of why Islam was so successful. The question is the reverse true. A young, athletic Libyan Muslim dreams of being the next great general. If he convert to Catholicism and attends mass, will he have the same chance of gaining a officer commission as someone who grew up Catholic? Look at Tsarist Russia with high ranking Generals with German names. How many great German generals do you find with Slavic surnames? Or for that matter, were not Prussian nobles?

I can't prove it to you, but I strongly suspect that the Hapsburg had inherited a culture that was willing to accept in new Germans that half of the minorities in Austria-Hungary IOTL would be Germanized ITTL.

I am talking about broad trends. Over 10 centuries, the Germans under performed on assimilation. At times, Germans did ok.

A lot of people moving is economic, so a lot depends on what you think the economic policies will be. So for example, lets say that to make Albania more Italian, the Italians move much of their naval base to Albania. This act would make Albania a lot more Italian in 50 years. As would building major tourist resorts on the coast. It is just not really callable without actually writing the ATL.

Who know on Italian East Africa. IOTL, Ethiopia breaks up. Cameroon with over 300 separate languages stays together. Nigeria with over 300 languages has a north/south divide. And the Congo seems to spend more time in civil war than peace.

There's plenty of Prussian noble surnames with Slavic etymologies, and Prussian noble families with some traceable Slavic ancestry. But yes, that's germanized Slavic names we are talking about, and the people involved were long attached to a purely German identity by 1800, often very aggressively so. In contrast, the Tsarist officers you mention were usually fanatically loyal to the Russian Empire while not having to embrace a Russian ethnic identity (they remained self-consciously Germans and generally did not even have to convert to Orthodoxy). Fascism wouldn't care much about your religion, and there was somewhat of a notional soft spot in Italian colonial policy for Muslim groups (a legacy of Christian Ethiopia having been the main opponent in early Italian colonial history) as long as they knew their place (that didn't mean that Muslims weren't slaughtered when the Italian state felt they needed to). However, Fascism harbored racist views, and while these weren't as central to the ideology as they were for Nazism, they became policy. Native Libyans are unlikely to fare any better that native Algerians did in French Algeria, and probably a lot worse on average. The military may be a partial exception, but I don't see a Fascist or immediately post-Fascist Italy offering your hypothetical young Libyan any easy time, whether or not he converts.
 
You know, one of the "good" things about Fascism, it's that it basically was whatever Mussolini felt like doing at the moment.

A Mussolini that remained neutral in World War II could very well decide not to be a racist prick. Fascism, maybe as a reaction against Adolf Hitler and Nazism, could turn into some kind of equal opportunity authoritarianism: as long as you adhere to an Abrahamic religion (Mussolini didn't have anything against Jews, and liked to portray himself as a friend to those of Muslim faith, even building and/or restoring mosques in Libya), speak the tongue of Dante Alighieri, and live by the word of the regime, no one will care about the way you worship God or the colour of your skin.

Especially Eritrea, since it's so close to the Ethiopian clusterfuck, could be turned into some kind of model colony, even more so than Taiwan was under Japan: after the fall of the regime (in the early 1970s, maybe) Eritrea and Libya could become full regions of Italy: Eritrea wouldn't be majority Italian, while Libya would be.

Contemporary Italy would probably be less racist, because of almost a century of contact between the peoples of the mainland and the black and/or Muslim peoples of Eritrea and Libya; it would be as easy to buy a pizza in Asmara or Tripoli as it would be to buy injera or shakshouka in Rome.

And Mussolini would be regarded as the best head of government in the country's history. :mad:

Fascism as an ideology wouldn't be discredited, either; plenty of nationalist movements, especially in the Middle East, in North Africa and in South East Asia, would unironically worship the D(o)uc(h)e. :mad:

Mussolini's anti-Semitic record is more mixed than that. His earlier articles show that he shared the doubts about Jewish national loyalty that were such a key element of modern Anti-semitism, and certainly anti-Semitic views existed within Fascism largely unopposed. It just wasn't a pivotal element of the narrative (as it was in Germany). It is worth noting that while the Fascist party had some notable Jewish adherents, most of them ultimately converted to Catholicism feeling it was more compatible with their Fascist vision. It did not do them any good, however, when Fascism shifted to a more openly racist view of nationality. This shift is likely to occur even without a close alliance with Germany: it was actually precipitated by the aftermath of the conquest of Ethiopia and the question of what to do with the millions of dark-skinned people there. Of course, Nazi influence was a factor. But while they had no inherent necessity in the Fascist systemm, it is a self-absolving historical myth to say that the race laws were merely Mussolini's whim to please Hitler.
 
I asked this some other place as well, without luck, but maybe someone here has a thought on this:

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.

Not going to happen. The point was "Italy hasn't a Jewish problem". Therefore, it was fine to leave the tiny Jewish community in Italy more or less alone, till it lasted. Taking in masses of Jewish refugees would mean, from a Fascist POV, that now Italy has a Jewish problem, and they certainly didn't want one. The likelihood of an Italy whose ruling clique had many "mild" anti-Semites in it accepting that (when Britain, the US and the Soviet Union all declined to do so) is minimal. There's an off chance they'd try to send some Jews to Ethiopia, probably not likely to end well.
 
Not going to happen. The point was "Italy hasn't a Jewish problem". Therefore, it was fine to leave the tiny Jewish community in Italy more or less alone, till it lasted. Taking in masses of Jewish refugees would mean, from a Fascist POV, that now Italy has a Jewish problem, and they certainly didn't want one. The likelihood of an Italy whose ruling clique had many "mild" anti-Semites in it accepting that (when Britain, the US and the Soviet Union all declined to do so) is minimal. There's an off chance they'd try to send some Jews to Ethiopia, probably not likely to end well.

That was the whole point of my post. Nowhere did I mention settling them in metropolitan Italy...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Italy had race laws. Mixed marriages were rare and in many cases illegal. It may change at some point ITTL, but probably would still do a lot to poison relationships.

And these law prevented one from converting to Catholicism and changing you last name? And these laws also made sex between mixed race individuals illegal? And this was enforced against Italian/Arab sex in a systematic way?
 
And these law prevented one from converting to Catholicism and changing you last name? And these laws also made sex between mixed race individuals illegal? And this was enforced against Italian/Arab sex in a systematic way?
1) no, but but did not lift discriminatory measures upon conversion.
2) Interracial marriage was illegal. Interracial sex was illegal in East Africa, not as such in the metropolis IIRC. Adultery was of course illegal.
3) Not to my knowledge, but the desire to enforce it is certainly documented. The issue however was felt in East Africa (where many Italians had local mistresses despite official disgust and prohibition) and in Italy proper (where race laws were aimed at Jews) more than in Libya, where there seems to have been little in the way of intermarriage or attempted assimilation.
 
I think an important aspect is Mussolini's economic policies in the post war era. If he is like OTL's Franco and Salazar, and gives up on on autarky then I think he'll give up most of East Africa* without a fight (possibly with the governorates released as separate countries, making them all quite weak) as it's mostly just farmland, and Italy can easily just import its food needs. Should he try to dogmatically cling to autarky, a bloody drawn out war in the Ethiopian highlands becomes almost certain.

*As I previously mentioned Eritrea would likely be kept as it had a very large Italian population and much of the local population could easily be turned against independence.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
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.

Excellent and extremely detailed post, Viriato! :)

Anyway, a couple of questions:

1. Couldn't Eritrea--like Libya--permanently remain a part of Italy in this TL? The reason that I am asking is that, in 1939, Italians made up 5% of Eritrea's total population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa#Demographics

2. Are you sure that Amara, Scioa, Harrar, and Galla-Sidamo would unite to recreate Ethiopia after the Italians withdraw from there? :

http://www.scanningwwii.com/images/articlePix/italian-east-africa-101-map-01.jpg

italian-east-africa-101-map-01.jpg


3. Do you think that Libyan Arabs would become very Westernized and modernized (in terms of their mentality, outlook, views, trends, et cetera) if Libya remains Italian?

4. Do you think that Mussolini's Italy would have good relations with Israel in this TL?
 
A Mussolini that remained neutral in World War II could very well decide not to be a racist prick. Fascism, maybe as a reaction against Adolf Hitler and Nazism, could turn into some kind of equal opportunity authoritarianism...

Some years back, I read of an "anti-racist" skinhead group. Very much into fascist-style group solidarity, and also into putting the boot to anyone who tried to divide them on race grounds.
 
Some years back, I read of an "anti-racist" skinhead group. Very much into fascist-style group solidarity, and also into putting the boot to anyone who tried to divide them on race grounds.

I read about something similar, too: they were left wing, but engaged in pseudo-military activities and looked like they overdosed on testosterone.
 

Deleted member 94680

Ethiopia proved to be extremely expensive to maintain, as the budget for the fiscal year 1936-37 had been set at 19.136 billion lira to create the necessary infrastructure for the colony. At the time, Italy's entire yearly revenue was only 18.581 billion lira.

So where does Italy get all the money from to run this utopian colony?

1. Couldn't Eritrea--like Libya--permanently remain a part of Italy in this TL? The reason that I am asking is that, in 1939, Italians made up 5% of Eritrea's total population:


2. Are you sure that Amara, Scioa, Harrar, and Galla-Sidamo would unite to recreate Ethiopia after the Italians withdraw from there?

For Eritrea it depends on what the 95% want to do, surely?

Amara, Scioa, Harrar and Galla-Sidamo were Italian creations, no? Were they ethnically diverse? Held by the Ethiopians against their will? If not, any independence movement will surely aim to recreate Abyssinia within its pre-War borders.
 
Some years back, I read of an "anti-racist" skinhead group. Very much into fascist-style group solidarity, and also into putting the boot to anyone who tried to divide them on race grounds.

They was not unusual in the past, skinheads was original a style instead of a movement. But today the skinhead aesthetics have become connected to the far right.
 
Ethiopia proved to be extremely expensive to maintain, as the budget for the fiscal year 1936-37 had been set at 19.136 billion lira to create the necessary infrastructure for the colony. At the time, Italy's entire yearly revenue was only 18.581 billion lira.

So where does Italy get all the money from to run this utopian colony?

For Eritrea it depends on what the 95% want to do, surely?

Amara, Scioa, Harrar and Galla-Sidamo were Italian creations, no? Were they ethnically diverse? Held by the Ethiopians against their will? If not, any independence movement will surely aim to recreate Abyssinia within its pre-War borders.

The Eritrean fear and hate the Abyssinian than the Italian, so if independence mean getting in a 'federation' with Ethiopia like OTL it will be much less attractive...expecially if someone offer a Dominion like status for them (plus keeping Tigrai)

The rest of Abyssinia while it will be a very sore point for Italy it will be also a mess of conflictual interest and group held (more or less) together just by their hate of Italians and the (diminishing) prestige and influence of the Emperor...but once the italians go away it will be an extremely bloody civil war
 
Top