What does Africa look like in a world without WW2?

The United Arab Republic, a Soviet backed secular nationalist state. Or did you think the USSR would do nothing in this period? Or that the

Nobody seems to be thinking that the USSR will also not have lost tens of millions of people as well, and have not lost a decade of economic growth.

And the US is out there. Its first involvement in Saudi Arabia dates to the 1930s.

Faaelin, there is no UAR, Syria it will be still under french rule, Nasser the moment he try to do something will be arrested by the british force.
The USA in this moment (pre WWII) don't depend in foreign oil and it's very isolationist apart the Monroe doctrine, so i don't see them do anything, maybe some protest or word of condemnation, but nothing who impair their lucrative business with UK, France or Italy, who by the way now they are not rebuilding nations depending on the Marshall Plan, but still great power.
Sure the URSS still there, and probably Stalin will try to foment revolt in the colonies but, at least until he obtain nuclear weapons, must limit what he can do if he wont face a war against the rest of the european empire (Stalin was crazy not stupid and caution was his second name)

So now the UK and Germany are going to go along with watching the Libyans be oppressed and ethnically cleansed, when opposing it and harassing Italy is a great way to win PR?

The Answer is...yeah, in OTL nobody say anything. The other colonial power don't want any independent arab nation, and frankly without the nazi the attitude regarding the native will continue as usual...translated: who give a damn. This is not our political correct time, is more 'white man burden' territory

The French economy quadrupled between 1950 and 1985 OTL. A fourfold increase.

the UK's GDP also increased between 1940 and 1960. So again, what has changed from OTL?

Million of dead averted, famine averted, massive reconstruction of infrastructure averted, heavily indebtment with anyone averted, mass psycological trauma averted, mass displacement of people averted, reconstruction of house in enormous scale averted, must continue? It's not a simple matter of GDP, rationing, house crisis, famine was rampant in all continent, as my grandfather say in that time there was very few cat and dog in the street...if you understand what i mean.


Why does it not lose the will in an ATL? Why would public services not come first ATL?

Maybe they will but much later then in OTL, probably around the '80

Pan Arabism was already stirring; the Egyptian uprisings against Britain in 1920 and 1921 happened already. The Iraqi army revolted in WW2; the egyptians were on the fence. And there are several great powers who would like to see these exclusive empires crash and burn.

Yes and they were crushed, the iraqy revolted only with the UK occupied in Europe.
 
I may be wrong but are you referring to the Marshall Plan?

No, just economic growth. People like to talk about how Europe was exhausted by WW2, but they ignore that 20 years later Europe was far richer than it was in 1939. East and West.


Faaelin, there is no UAR, Syria it will be still under french rule, Nasser the moment he try to do something will be arrested by the british force.

There is no UAR in 1944. There will be pan arab nationalism backed by the USSR. Or are the Europeans somehow so awesome that they can win every colonial conflict when they lost all of them OTL? I

The USA in this moment (pre WWII) don't depend in foreign oil and it's very isolationist apart the Monroe doctrine,

American isolationism is a myth. The US was vigorously expanding financially, setting up oil deals in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, financing German reparations, using fiscal influence to get the French out of the Ruhr, etc.

so i don't see them do anything, maybe some protest or word of condemnation, but nothing who impair their lucrative business with UK, France or Italy, who by the way now they are not rebuilding nations depending on the Marshall Plan, but still great power.

And so major trade rivals. Cordell Hull saw Britain, and not Nazi Germany, as the biggest threat to America up until the mid 1930s.

Sure the URSS still there, and probably Stalin will try to foment revolt in the colonies but, at least until he obtain nuclear weapons, must limit what he can do if he wont face a war against the rest of the european empire (Stalin was crazy not stupid and caution was his second name)

Why would anyone go to war if he sends arms? and why are you treating Stalin in 1940 as how Stalin would respond in 1950?

Obviously in 1940 the Arab World was still under European control. In 1950 and 1960....

The Answer is...yeah, in OTL nobody say anything. The other colonial power don't want any independent arab nation, and frankly without the nazi the attitude regarding the native will continue as usual...translated: who give a damn. This is not our political correct time, is more 'white man burden' territory

Thus the reaction to Armitsar, right?

Frightfulness is not in the British pharmacopeia.

Yes and they were crushed, the iraqy revolted only with the UK occupied in Europe.

And then the did so a bit later.

The Soviets will say something about the right of the Libyans to self-determination, but they won't back significantly a religiously based, "reactionary" movement like the Libya resistance was.

The Soviets backed Chiang because he was anti-Japanese. They'll back whoever is convenient to promote their interests.
 
No, just economic growth. People like to talk about how Europe was exhausted by WW2, but they ignore that 20 years later Europe was far richer than it was in 1939. East and West

Yes but during this 20 years, India go independent ( UK promised that to obtain their cooperation during WWII), Indonesia and Vietnam succesfully revolted ( France and Netherland don't have the resource to fight it) and frankly after that carnage there were very little interest in colonial adventure or development, it was more 'our nation first' time.



There is no UAR in 1944. There will be pan arab nationalism backed by the USSR. Or are the Europeans somehow so awesome that they can win every colonial conflict when they lost all of them OTL? I

No, Europeans will not win the colonial conflict becouse of awesomess, but simple becouse this time they will not drained phisicallya and morally by a terrible war, finacialy and strategically indebted to a nation who want bring an end to their colonial empire and the URSS is more contained than in OTL, and remember their public opionion is a lot less prone to side with the rebel than our OTL



American isolationism is a myth. The US was vigorously expanding financially, setting up oil deals in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, financing German reparations, using fiscal influence to get the French out of the Ruhr, etc.

Finance is one thing Faelin, directly meddling in the intern politic of an empire supporting rebel faction is another



And so major trade rivals. Cordell Hull saw Britain, and not Nazi Germany, as the biggest threat to America up until the mid 1930s.

Yes but the concept that the USA go to war...for arab or african colony is almost ASB and give the kind support that the colonies needed to overthrow the colonial empire is an act of war.


Why would anyone go to war if he sends arms? and why are you treating Stalin in 1940 as how Stalin would respond in 1950?

Obviously in 1940 the Arab World was still under European control. In 1950 and 1960....

They will still under european control full stop. And i treat Stalin in this manner, becouse without nuclear weapons a conventional war is more propable and old Joseph is know for is caution in external matter, so he will not send ton and ton of weapon to the arab rebel, URSS can be in a better shape without WWII (with him in charge is debatable but...) but Poland, Ungary, Romany, Yugoslavia (if Italy will not grab her) and Bulgaria are not under her thumb, Germany is still unite so is strategical situation is a lot worse.


Thus the reaction to Armitsar, right?

Frightfulness is not in the British pharmacopeia.

EH?...boh? Well you asked what the other empire will do in case of severe abuse and use of extreme force and tattic to put down a rebellio, you had the answer, sorry if you don't like it but frankly this is what will happen



And then the did so a bit later.

Yes, in a totally different situation, cold war, decolonization, etc. etc. Here we have simple a repeat of the show


The Soviets backed Chiang because he was anti-Japanese. They'll back whoever is convenient to promote their interests.

Soviet back whoever is convenient to promote their interests and don't cause a war with them...it's a little different, in the sense yes they give moral and logistical support to this but not so much that France or UK or even Italy can use it as a casus belli, they are expansionist not idiot
 
Coastal Libya is already (even before the POD) officially integrated into Metropolitan Italy as four provinces. Balbo (barring accident still alive) will be moving more and more Italians in, with the real possibility to outnumber the Libyans by 1965-1970. When oil is discovered the colony will pay for itself and more, and the Fascist economy might be saved from idiotic autarchic policies. The natives will remain second-class citizens and we may see terrorism appear.

Eritrea is the Crown Jewel with the most favored minority, the best infastructure investments, and will remain firmly within the Italian sphere, probably going into a Dominion- or Commonwealth-type status by 1980. Eritreans will remain "Italy's Gurkhas" for a long time to come.

Somalia will get more investment, but will remain Eritrea's "Little Brother". Fed and supported from Rome as a dependency, it probably remains in the Italian orbit vis-a-vis Eritrea.

Ethiopia will be a clusterfuck of ethic strife, insurgency, and terrorism. It'll probably remain an economic drain and I'd expect Mussie's sucessor to cut it loose sometime to descend into chaos.

The conquest of Ethiopia was a terrible,silly,error.
Also in this scenario Ethiopia before or after would be a great problem for Italy.
Without Ethiopia Italy could concentrate efforts on Lybia with the real possibility to outnumber the Libyans by early 60s.

without any massive WW2 style shocks to the system (financial, military, psychological etc) they will be able to make the inter-war colonial arrangements last for much longer

the home populations will support the above

Domestic support. Well this may be hard to judge. I don't really know what people thought about the colonial empires at the time, if they ever gave much support.

But in general, no WWII mean that all the colonial power have the money, the military, the resource and the political will to put down local rebellion and keep the colony.


The only countries where this seemed to matter were, IIRC, Turkey and Egypt. In this scenario, they will have little say,
The Soviets would likely cry "fascist murderers!"

"And then terrorism. And support for Libyan nationalism from the other Arab states".

And a lot, a very lot of dead arabs, sorry but if fascism or even a democratically elect government face terrorism in an already italianizated Lybia and face the risk to loss one of his greates resource, trust me...it will not be pretty. And for other Arab states who means? Just Egypt (nominally independent), the other are basically european protectorate
The other European power? They don't make a fuss at the italian move, they surely don't want that their population take some exaple from the lybian





"The Russians gleefully provide arms and gain a series of allies in the Middle East. No"?

What allies? All the government in the Middle East are colonial administration or equivalent. Probably some liberation front to give finance or weapon but simple just that

I think that without a WW-II and Cold war,colonialism would last much,much more.
I think that the start of decolonization process would begin not first that in 90s,at the least.
The key is that colonial powers would have the military strenght to suppress any revolt,and no limits to apply this strenght,nor by domestic public opinion,nor by USSR or USA.
Totally free hands.
 
Ethiopia will be a clusterfuck of ethic strife, insurgency, and terrorism. It'll probably remain an economic drain and I'd expect Mussie's sucessor to cut it loose sometime to descend into chaos.
The conquest of Ethiopia was a terrible,silly,error.
Also in this scenario Ethiopia before or after would be a great problem for Italy.
Without Ethiopia Italy could concentrate efforts on Lybia with the real possibility to outnumber the Libyans by early 60s.
By the late '30's Italy controled all the towns & cities and large parts of the Countryside.
Italy had no repeat problems with Terrorists in the Villages.
There are Guerrilla/Terrorists hiding in the Village -- A couple Planes fly over and drop Gas Bombs -- No more Guerrilla/Terrorists -- Problem solved.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
By the late '30's Italy controled all the towns & cities and large parts of the Countryside.
Italy had no repeat problems with Terrorists in the Villages.
There are Guerrilla/Terrorists hiding in the Village -- A couple Planes fly over and drop Gas Bombs -- more Guerrilla/Terrorists rise up -- Problem worsened.

FTFY

Also Syria, Iraq and Palestine were not part of their "claimant" empires, they were mandates, temporary protectorates with timetables to independence. Egypt was already independent in WW2 and wouldn't take more shenanigans. India will not take no for an answer if the war is not giving them an excuse to stick around a little bit more to fight.
 
Top