WI: France Assimilates North Africa

[Deleted member 172985]

France doesn't undergo the demographic collapse that occurred OTL throughout the 18th and early 19th century and as a result some of these extra people go on to settle and colonise North Africa. Furthermore, because France would have a far higher population proportional to the natives they are more willing to integrate them into French society. So the territories comprising modern day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya would be part of France proper.

1801 - 29,361,000
1817 - 39,637,350
1851 - 63,419,760
1871 - 72,932,724
1914 - 123,985,630
1939 - 145,063,187
1960 - 152,316,346

During the 19th century around 5 million Germans immigrated to the United States, so one could argue that this timeline would simply result in a large dysphoria of French people across the world. However, I believe that because France already has a colonial empire these people are more likely to immigrate to different parts of the empire rather than abroad, with North Africa being far closer to the mainland then the Americas. Perhaps the French version of Manifest Destiny is to spread across the Mediterranean coast. However, I do not deny that a large part would immigrate to the Americas, just not to the extent of German immigration during the 19th century.

Algeria

During the pacification of Algeria between 1830 and 1875 around 875,000 indigenous Algerians were killed. Considering that now the French population has effectively doubled I would suggest that this conflict would be even more deadly, perhaps twice or thrice more people are killed. So, let's say that instead of there being 4 million Algerians in 1875 there is closer to 2.5 million.

Now, if we assume that the growth rate from OTL remains the same Algeria would have a population of 6,875,000 in 1960 instead of 11,000,000. Now, if we simply multiply OTL Pied Noir population by the difference between OTL 1960 France population and the French population without the demographic collapse the Pied Noir population would be 3,629,846. So the Pied Noir comprise close to 40% of Algeria's population. Likely, the Pied Noir would completely dominate the coast which would make independence impossible.

But I want to go a step further. I think the Pied Noir population would be far higher then this number I have crudely calculated. A France without a demographic collapse would have a far more robust colonial policy and an emphasis on settling the newly acquired lands, so I think that by 1960 the Algerian identity is completely destroyed with the Arabs assimilating into the dominate French culture.

Tunisia

By the time of the French acquisition of Tunisia in 1881 the Arab population of Algeria would be around 2.6 million while the Pied Noir would number around 1 million. Tunisia would simply become an extension of Algerian colonial policy. If we assume in 1881 the Tunisian population numbered 1.8 million the total Arab population in French North Africa would be 4.4 million with 1 million Pied Noir. Now, if we simply look at the jump in the French population between 1871 and 1914 we can see that there are 50 million extra Frenchmen, and I suspect the French government would rather shift a large part of them off rather than ruin the countryside.

Now in 1960 the European population of Tunisia (which was actually majority Italian) was around 260,000. The total Tunisian population was 4.1 million. If we simply use the same means we used to calculate the Pied Noir population without the demographic collapse we would arrive at 832,000. So the European population would number around 20% of Tunisia's population even ignoring the more robust colonial policy like I mentioned above, which means it is unlikely to gain independence like OTL.

But that is again another crudely calculated figure. Considering that by 1881 the Pied Noir dominate the Algerian coast it isn't hard to imagine that Tunisia would experience the same fate. I think both Algeria and Tunisia would be firmly French by 1960.

Libya

Now, Libya was not part of the French colonial empire OTL and I will be not constructing a scenario in which they do obtain it. This is because history from 1800 is entirely different due to the large French population, so we will just be talking numbers. I will use the Italian population numbers in Libya, but we can just assume these Italians would be Frenchmen in this timeline.

In 1939, Italians in Libya numbered 108,419 (12.37% of the total population). Again, by simply tripling the number like we did to calculate the Pied Noir population and European population of Tunisia, the French would take up a around 25% of Libya. Now, there were only 900,000 people in Libya in 1939 so it would be rather easy to integrate, the main challenge is probably attracting settlers. Nevertheless, Tripoli and Benghazi would likely be French cities in 1939 in this timeline.

Now, by the 1960s Italy planned to have half a million settlers in Libya before WW2, so French ambition for settlers would be 1.5 million. The Libyan population in 1960 was 1.45 million. Even ignoring the more aggressive colonial policy Libya by 1960 would likely be 50% French. So, just like Algeria and Tunisia Libya would also be French.

Morocco

This is probably the country hardest to turn French as it only became a French protectorate in 1912. We have already demonstrated that by 1960 Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya would likely be integrated and assimilated into Metropolitan France but Morocco is a different matter. Prior to independence, Morocco was home to half a million Europeans and had a population of 10.8 million. If we do the usual tripling nonsense the European population of Morocco would be 15% of the total population.

Even with a more aggressive colonial policy I do not think the French population could eclipse 30% of the Moroccan population by 1956. You'd likely have a scenario in which the French population of Morocco oppresses the Arab population like in Algeria OTL. The French could only be a plurality in Morocco. There could be revolts and revolutions but they wouldn't succeed.

Conclusion

Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya would all become integral parts of France. Morocco would become an apartheid state.

 

[acgoldis]

Je suis Jean-Luc.
Jean-Luc du Borg.

La resistance est futile.

 

[rfmcdonald]

During the 19th century around 5 million Germans immigrated to the United States, so one could argue that this timeline would simply result in a large dysphoria of French people across the world. However, I believe that because France already has a colonial empire these people are more likely to immigrate to different parts of the empire rather than abroad, with North Africa being far closer to the mainland then the Americas. Perhaps the French version of Manifest Destiny is to spread across the Mediterranean coast. However, I do not deny that a large part would immigrate to the Americas, just not to the extent of German immigration during the 19th century.

The argument that slow demographic growth in France hobbled a demographically more European French Algeria does not hold water when you recognize that Algeria was a territory open to immigration from across Mediterranean Europe. The Pied Noirs may have been only minority ethnically French by ancestry, with Maltese and Italian and especially Spanish immigrants coming in huge numbers. Oran's population, just across the Mediterranean from Spain, was mostly Spanish, as was the working class of Algiers.

If North Africa had actually been an objectively overwhelmingly attractive destination for European emigrants, this would surely have manifested. Why would so many Spanish and Italians have gone overseas to the Americas when Algeria was just next door? It was not as if contemporary France was not an attractive destination for migrants from those countries, or as if Algerian authorities were hostile to European immigrants. If Algeria had been attractive, then Europeans would surely have come in large numbers to this nearby promising French territory. Why go to Buenos Aires or New York when Algiers was there?

 

[Deleted member 172985]

The argument that slow demographic growth in France hobbled a demographically more European French Algeria does not hold water when you recognize that Algeria was a territory open to immigration from across Mediterranean Europe. The Pied Noirs may.have bene only minority ethnically French by ancestry, with Maltese and Italian and especially Spanish immigrants coming in huge numbers. Oran's population, just across the Mediterranean from Spain, was mostly Spanish, as was the working class of Algiers.

If North Africa had actually been an objectively overwhelmingly attractive destination for European emigrants, this would surely have manifested. Why would so many Spanish and Italians have gone overseas to the Americas when Algeria was just next door? It was not as if contemporary France was not an attractive destination for migrants from those countries, or as if Algerian authorities were hostile to European immigrants. If Algeria had been attractive, then Europeans would surely have come in large numbers to this nearby promising French territory. Why go to Buenos Aires or New York when Algiers was there?

The Spanish moved to the Americas because the countries they immigrated to spoke Spanish. Italy had a miniscule colonial Empire, but if we look at the few colonies they had we can see there was large Italian settlement of Libya, with it being considered the 'new Americas' by the Italians in the 1930s. I openly say in my post that a large part would immigrate to the Americas, but that there would be a sizeable part of the population that would move to North Africa because it's part of the colonial empire. If you look at the Algeria section for example, I tripled the number of Pied Noir because the French population had tripled which means Algeria is as attractive a place for settlement in that timeline as in OTL.

 

[Gloss]

The argument that slow demographic growth in France hobbled a demographically more European French Algeria does not hold water when you recognize that Algeria was a territory open to immigration from across Mediterranean Europe. The Pied Noirs may.have bene only minority ethnically French by ancestry, with Maltese and Italian and especially Spanish immigrants coming in huge numbers. Oran's population, just across the Mediterranean from Spain, was mostly Spanish, as was the working class of Algiers.

If North Africa had actually been an objectively overwhelmingly attractive destination for European emigrants, this would surely have manifested. Why would so many Spanish and Italians have gone overseas to the Americas when Algeria was just next door? It was not as if contemporary France was not an attractive destination for migrants from those countries, or as if Algerian authorities were hostile to European immigrants. If Algeria had been attractive, then Europeans would surely have come in large numbers to this nearby promising French territory. Why go to Buenos Aires or New York when Algiers was there?

If the total amount of emigrants is larger than surely that would translate at least partially in more people going to Algeria, it would be illogical to assume that Algeria could only absorb a fixed amount of settlers and that there was a hard limit, in fact the fact that France itself was somewhat a migrant magnet points to the fact that you could even divert some Italian and Iberian migrants from going to France to Algeria.

The general Algerian population itself grew about 5 times during French rule, so certainly it's not as if there was no food there.

France doesn't undergo the demographic collapse that occurred OTL throughout the 18th and early 19th century and as a result some of these extra people go on to settle and colonise North Africa. Furthermore, because France would have a far higher population proportional to the natives they are more willing to integrate them into French society. So the territories comprising modern day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya would be part of France proper.

1801 - 29,361,000
1817 - 39,637,350
1851 - 63,419,760
1871 - 72,932,724
1914 - 123,985,630
1939 - 145,063,187
1960 - 152,316,346

During the 19th century around 5 million Germans immigrated to the United States, so one could argue that this timeline would simply result in a large dysphoria of French people across the world. However, I believe that because France already has a colonial empire these people are more likely to immigrate to different parts of the empire rather than abroad, with North Africa being far closer to the mainland then the Americas. Perhaps the French version of Manifest Destiny is to spread across the Mediterranean coast. However, I do not deny that a large part would immigrate to the Americas, just not to the extent of German immigration during the 19th century.

Algeria

During the pacification of Algeria between 1830 and 1875 around 875,000 indigenous Algerians were killed. Considering that now the French population has effectively doubled I would suggest that this conflict would be even more deadly, perhaps twice or thrice more people are killed. So, let's say that instead of there being 4 million Algerians in 1875 there is closer to 2.5 million.

Now, if we assume that the growth rate from OTL remains the same Algeria would have a population of 6,875,000 in 1960 instead of 11,000,000. Now, if we simply multiply OTL Pied Noir population by the difference between OTL 1960 France population and the French population without the demographic collapse the Pied Noir population would be 3,629,846. So the Pied Noir comprise close to 40% of Algeria's population. Likely, the Pied Noir would completely dominate the coast which would make independence impossible.

But I want to go a step further. I think the Pied Noir population would be far higher then this number I have crudely calculated. A France without a demographic collapse would have a far more robust colonial policy and an emphasis on settling the newly acquired lands, so I think that by 1960 the Algerian identity is completely destroyed with the Arabs assimilating into the dominate French culture.

Tunisia

By the time of the French acquisition of Tunisia in 1881 the Arab population of Algeria would be around 2.6 million while the Pied Noir would number around 1 million. Tunisia would simply become an extension of Algerian colonial policy. If we assume in 1881 the Tunisian population numbered 1.8 million the total Arab population in French North Africa would be 4.4 million with 1 million Pied Noir. Now, if we simply look at the jump in the French population between 1871 and 1914 we can see that there are 50 million extra Frenchmen, and I suspect the French government would rather shift a large part of them off rather than ruin the countryside.

Now in 1960 the European population of Tunisia (which was actually majority Italian) was around 260,000. The total Tunisian population was 4.1 million. If we simply use the same means we used to calculate the Pied Noir population without the demographic collapse we would arrive at 832,000. So the European population would number around 20% of Tunisia's population even ignoring the more robust colonial policy like I mentioned above, which means it is unlikely to gain independence like OTL.

But that is again another crudely calculated figure. Considering that by 1881 the Pied Noir dominate the Algerian coast it isn't hard to imagine that Tunisia would experience the same fate. I think both Algeria and Tunisia would be firmly French by 1960.

Libya

Now, Libya was not part of the French colonial empire OTL and I will be not constructing a scenario in which they do obtain it. This is because history from 1800 is entirely different due to the large French population, so we will just be talking numbers. I will use the Italian population numbers in Libya, but we can just assume these Italians would be Frenchmen in this timeline.

In 1939, Italians in Libya numbered 108,419 (12.37% of the total population). Again, by simply tripling the number like we did to calculate the Pied Noir population and European population of Tunisia, the French would take up a around 25% of Libya. Now, there were only 900,000 people in Libya in 1939 so it would be rather easy to integrate, the main challenge is probably attracting settlers. Nevertheless, Tripoli and Benghazi would likely be French cities in 1939 in this timeline.

Now, by the 1960s Italy planned to have half a million settlers in Libya before WW2, so French ambition for settlers would be 1.5 million. The Libyan population in 1960 was 1.45 million. Even ignoring the more aggressive colonial policy Libya by 1960 would likely be 50% French. So, just like Algeria and Tunisia Libya would also be French.

Morocco

This is probably the country hardest to turn French as it only became a French protectorate in 1912. We have already demonstrated that by 1960 Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya would likely be integrated and assimilated into Metropolitan France but Morocco is a different matter. Prior to independence, Morocco was home to half a million Europeans and had a population of 10.8 million. If we do the usual tripling nonsense the European population of Morocco would be 15% of the total population.

Even with a more aggressive colonial policy I do not think the French population could eclipse 30% of the Moroccan population by 1956. You'd likely have a scenario in which the French population of Morocco oppresses the Arab population like in Algeria OTL. The French could only be a plurality in Morocco. There could be revolts and revolutions but they wouldn't succeed.

Conclusion

Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya would all become integral parts of France. Morocco would become an apartheid state.

While the logic might be sound I think the premise that the French population could grow this much needs to be analyzed, could such a French population even maintain itself at any given point in time?

Also I imagine conquering Algeria a century earlier might help with this AHC.

 

[Deleted member 172985]

If the total amount of emigrants is larger than surely that would translate at least partially in more people going to Algeria, it would be illogical to assume that Algeria could only absorb a fixed amount of settlers and that there was a hard limit, in fact the fact that France itself was somewhat a migrant magnet points to the fact that you could even divert some Italian and Iberian migrants from going to France to Algeria.

The general Algerian population itself grew about 5 times during French rule, so certainly it's not as if there was no food there.

While the logic might be sound I think the premise that the French population could grow this much needs to be analyzed, could such a French population even maintain itself at any given point in time?

Also I imagine conquering Algeria a century earlier might help with this AHC.

I'm not suggesting that France would reach that population, but that the number of people of French descent would reach that number. Likely lots would move out of France to the Americas. But France itself would be far more populated in this timeline.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The Spanish moved to the Americas because the countries they immigrated to spoke Spanish. Italy had a miniscule colonial Empire, but if we look at the few colonies they had we can see there was large Italian settlement of Libya, with it being considered the 'new Americas' by the Italians in the 1930s. I openly say in my post that a large part would immigrate to the Americas, but that there would be a sizeable part of the population that would move to North Africa because it's part of the colonial empire. If you look at the Algeria section for example, I tripled the number of Pied Noir because the French population had tripled which means Algeria is as attractive a place for settlement in that timeline as in OTL.

Neither of those points have any bearing on the realities that metropolitan France and Algeria were each widely known and major destinations for immigrants from Spain and Italy.

Pieds-noirs — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Spanish immigrants in the Oran region in the middle of the nineteenth century. Marriage, matrimonial behavior, family ties, and social bonds.

www.cairn-int.info

Diaspora espagnole en France — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Immigration italienne en France — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Moreover, this migration to North Africa from southern Europe seems to have been driven by the perceptions of southern Europeans as to the suitability of neighbouring lands. People from the Balearics specifically and from eastern Spain generally moved to Algeria, while Sicilians predominated in Tunisia and were also present in the east of Algeria. The migrants to North Africa came from regions that were not only major emigrant sources but from regions that had long been in contact.

What does it say, about the attractiveness.of Algeria specifically or North Africa generally, that despite more than a century of French rule the rapidly growing population of a southern Europe that was a leading source of emigrants worldwide rejected Algeria, preferring internal migration (to local cities, to France, etc) or to overseas destinations? Nothing good.

If the total amount of emigrants is larger than surely that would translate at least partially in more people going to Algeria, it would be illogical to assume that Algeria could only absorb a fixed amount of settlers and that there was a hard limit, in fact the fact that France itself was somewhat a migrant magnet points to the fact that you could even divert some Italian and Iberian migrants from going to France to Algeria.

This did happen OTL, though. Italian and Spanish migrants to France did often come from regions in intimate contact with Algeria and North Africa, and they chose France instead.

The general Algerian population itself grew about 5 times during French rule, so certainly it's not as if there was no food there.

The general population of Algeria, though, was quite poor, much poorer than the Pied Noir population that enjoyed living standards comparable to that of France. Southern Europe might have been relatively poor, but southern European migrants aspired to higher living standards than those enjoyed by colonized Algerians. Moreover, they could get that; they had their choice of destinations near and far where they could enjoy much higher living standards.

If we compare Algeria with South Africa, that other African settler state with a white minority and an enduring African majority, one big difference is that Algeria does not have the resources to finance a South African-style industrialization. Algeria has nothing like the relatively accessible stockpiles of gold and precious metals that helped transform South Africa into an industrial powerhouse. Colonial Algeria's main exports were agricultural, wine most notably, and colonial Algeria also had a workforce that depended on the exploitation of the colonized Algerians. There was simply no space for more European immigrants with higher skill sets and expectations of higher living standards.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I'm not suggesting that France would reach that population, but that the number of people of French descent would reach that number. Likely lots would move out of France to the Americas. But France itself would be far more populated in this timeline.

Simply having a society with a larger population does not mean that a potential destination for immigrants from that society will receive more immigrants. Everything depends on whether or not that destination actually is attractive, if migrants can reasonably expect higher living standards.

Especially considering how North Africa was not only a known potential destination for migrants from across southern Europe in OTL but was a destination that most of these rejected, simply having a France with more rapid population growth than OTL is not going to change things. You will just increase the size of the pool of southern Europeans who will decide against moving to the destination next door.

You will, instead, have to change North Africa substantially, to make it competitive with the Americas and points beyond. How this can be done I can't easily imagine.

 

[Maedrin]

If the total amount of emigrants is larger than surely that would translate at least partially in more people going to Algeria, it would be illogical to assume that Algeria could only absorb a fixed amount of settlers and that there was a hard limit, in fact the fact that France itself was somewhat a migrant magnet points to the fact that you could even divert some Italian and Iberian migrants from going to France to Algeria.

The general Algerian population itself grew about 5 times during French rule, so certainly it's not as if there was no food there.

While the logic might be sound I think the premise that the French population could grow this much needs to be analyzed, could such a French population even maintain itself at any given point in time?

Also I imagine conquering Algeria a century earlier might help with this AHC.

As you can see, French population density isn't that high. It could have sustained such a population growth, it's agricultural practices would just have needed to modernize faster under the pressure (iotl, the French agricultural landscape largely remained traditional until the end of WWII).

 

[Gloss]

What does it say, about the attractiveness.of Algeria specifically or North Africa generally, that despite more than a century of French rule the rapidly growing population of a southern Europe that was a leading source of emigrants worldwide rejected Algeria, preferring internal migration (to local cities, to France, etc) or to overseas destinations? Nothing good.

It shows that the thinly populated American countries had a more attractive prospect but insofar as more migrants exist it doesn't mean this larger migrant population would be ALL diverted to the Americas.

This did happen OTL, though. Italian and Spanish migrants to France did often come from regions in intimate contact with Algeria and North Africa, and they chose France instead.

How many people migrated to France itself compared to going to Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco?

The general population of Algeria, though, was quite poor, much poorer than the Pied Noir population that enjoyed living standards comparable to that of France. Southern Europe might have been relatively poor, but southern European migrants aspired to higher living standards than those enjoyed by colonized Algerians. Moreover, they could get that; they had their choice of destinations near and far where they could enjoy much higher living standards.

What's the source or proof that living standards were higher in the Americas?

If we compare Algeria with South Africa, that other African settler state with a white minority and an enduring African majority, one big difference is that Algeria does not have the resources to finance a South African-style industrialization. Algeria has nothing like the relatively accessible stockpiles of gold and precious metals that helped transform South Africa into an industrial powerhouse. Colonial Algeria's main exports were agricultural, wine most notably, and colonial Algeria also had a workforce that depended on the exploitation of the colonized Algerians. There was simply no space for more European immigrants with higher skill sets and expectations of higher living standards.

Where the workforce comes from is circumstantial, there was nothing that stopped the US from filling the mid-west with slaves growing all other kinds of crops but they didn't, in the advent of larger migration agricultural land might be less dominated by large landowners.

 

[Deleted member 172985]

Neither of those points have any bearing on the realities that metropolitan France and Algeria were each widely known and major destinations for immigrants from Spain and Italy.

Pieds-noirs — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Spanish immigrants in the Oran region in the middle of the nineteenth century. Marriage, matrimonial behavior, family ties, and social bonds.

www.cairn-int.info

Diaspora espagnole en France — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Immigration italienne en France — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Moreover, this migration to North Africa from southern Europe seems to have been driven by the perceptions of southern Europeans as to the suitability of neighbouring lands. People from the Balearics specifically and from eastern Spain generally moved to Algeria, while Sicilians predominated in Tunisia and were also present in the east of Algeria. The migrants to North Africa came from regions that were not only major emigrant sources but from regions that had long been in contact.

What does it say, about the attractiveness.of Algeria specifically or North Africa generally, that despite more than a century of French rule the rapidly growing population of a southern Europe that was a leading source of emigrants worldwide rejected Algeria, preferring internal migration (to local cities, to France, etc) or to overseas destinations? Nothing good.



This did happen OTL, though. Italian and Spanish migrants to France did often come from regions in intimate contact with Algeria and North Africa, and they chose France instead.



The general population of Algeria, though, was quite poor, much poorer than the Pied Noir population that enjoyed living standards comparable to that of France. Southern Europe might have been relatively poor, but southern European migrants aspired to higher living standards than those enjoyed by colonized Algerians. Moreover, they could get that; they had their choice of destinations near and far where they could enjoy much higher living standards.

If we compare Algeria with South Africa, that other African settler state with a white minority and an enduring African majority, one big difference is that Algeria does not have the resources to finance a South African-style industrialization. Algeria has nothing like the relatively accessible stockpiles of gold and precious metals that helped transform South Africa into an industrial powerhouse. Colonial Algeria's main exports were agricultural, wine most notably, and colonial Algeria also had a workforce that depended on the exploitation of the colonized Algerians. There was simply no space for more European immigrants with higher skill sets and expectations of higher living standards.

How is immigration to France an indictment on Algeria as a suitable place to settle? The reason for the Spanish and Italian immigration to France is chiefly because of France's poor demographics and need for extra labour. If France did not have a demographic crisis there would be no need for the immigrants. The reason why Sicilians moved to Tunisia was because of trade between the two regions, same with the eastern Spaniards with Algeria. And we are not discussing the suitability of Algeria to Spanish and Italian people, but the French. The reason why French immigration to Algeria was low is chiefly because large swathes of France were depopulated and there was no need to immigrate to seek better opportunity. In this timeline it is not an issue.

 

[Deleted member 172985]

Simply having a society with a larger population does not mean that a potential destination for immigrants from that society will receive more immigrants. Everything depends on whether or not that destination actually is attractive, if migrants can reasonably expect higher living standards.

Especially considering how North Africa was not only a known potential destination for migrants from across southern Europe in OTL but was a destination that most of these rejected, simply having a France with more rapid population growth than OTL is not going to change things. You will just increase the size of the pool of southern Europeans who will decide against moving to the destination next door.

You will, instead, have to change North Africa substantially, to make it competitive with the Americas and points beyond. How this can be done I can't easily imagine.

Come on. You don't think the population increase of 50 MILLION between 1871 and 1914 would result in at least 2-3 million French people choosing to settle in North Africa, which is just across the sea from their homeland and part of their colonial empire?

 

[AlanJWhite]

For France to match the rate of population growth of say the UK in the period 1780-1830, it needs separately to avoid
a) the violent Revolution itself .. though many social reforms were needed
b) the Revolutionary wars of aggression
c) Bonaparte's disastrous economic and especially agrarian "reforms"
d) Bonaparte's wars with their eventual disastrous defeats and the immense disruption to economic activity due to mass conscription

all of which culminated in significant losses in both military forces and the civilian population in the range of 2-3 million out of ~ 24 million

Worse. France lost proportionally more young male citizens in this period than in the bloodletting of WW1
So much so that by 1815 the ratio of male to female had fallen from ~parity to less than 90%, of course worse in the possible parents age range.

By 1850 France had lost any demographic advantage over both the UK and Germany and simply cannot adequately repopulate NA

See many sources e.g

http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm#Napoleonic

 

[Gloss]

You will just increase the size of the pool of southern Europeans who will decide against moving to the destination next door.

Your logic is honestly very weird, if only 5% of X decides to migrate to a given region and you increase the size of X and you don't somehow assume that the percentage would decrease accordingly, then it's simply follows that the amount of people migrating to the given region WILL increase.

While I can't find the exact figures I can infer that around 10-50% of all French emigrants between 1815 and 1914 went to French colonies, so it's certainly not a negligible amount considering the overall amount of people that emigrated.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Come on. You don't think the population increase of 50 MILLION between 1871 and 1914 would result in at least 2-3 million French people choosing to settle in North Africa, which is just across the sea from their homeland and part of their colonial empire?

Simply having a territory being part of your subject colonial empire, even a nearby part, does not make that territory likely to receive more immigrants. If the territory stays the same, then the inflows will not differ

Your logic is honestly very weird, if only 5% of X decides to migrate to a given region and you increase the size of X and you don't somehow assume that the percentage would decrease accordingly, then it's simply follows that the amount of people migrating to the given region WILL increase.

While I can't find the exact figures I can infer that around 10-50% of all French emigrants between 1815 and 1914 went to French colonies, so it's certainly not a negligible amount considering the over amount of people that emigrated.

My point isn't that. My point is that, contrary to the suggestions of the OP that Algeria and North Africa were not destinations that were sufficiently well-known to potential migrants in southern Europe or that the potential source populations were stagnant, there is abundant evidence that the territories were widely known and that people from major migrant-sending areas did go. Algeria and wider North Africa were known major destinations for migrants from across southern Europe already. France never had a shortfall of potential migrants for those colonies.

The problem, if you want much larger European populations in North Africa, is that southern Europeans were aware of North Africa and overwhelmingly rejected it because it was unpromising for large-scale settlement. It was a region with indigenous majorities who existed in a labour market characterized by very low wages for all but the most skilled workers, with an economy that depended on agricultural exports but lacking in the obvious and readily available local resources that could drive South African-style population. Having the region taken over by a France that had strong population growth is not going to change these factors.

 

[Gloss]

The problem, if you want much larger European populations in North Africa, is that southern Europeans were aware of North Africa and overwhelmingly rejected it because it was unpromising for large-scale settlement. It was a region with indigenous majorities who existed in a labour market characterized by very low wages for all but the most skilled workers, with an economy that depended on agricultural exports but lacking in the obvious and readily available local resources that could drive South African-style population. Having the region taken over by a France that had strong population growth is not going to change these factors.

Again, do you have any source for this? You are stating it quite confidently, but where do you derive this wage data to begin with?

 

[rfmcdonald]

How do you make North Africa more attractive for southern European migrants, with a more dynamic economy capable of absorbing millions of southern European immigrants? That is the question that has to be answered. Giving North Africa to a colonizing power with different demographic dynamics, whether an alt-France or to Spain or to Italy, will not change things.

One possibility, I suppose, would be a genocide of the indigenous populations and the recreation of a new labour market where workers could enjoy much higher wages. That was hinted at by the OP. Whether or not this is practical, never mind the immorality of this, is another question.

Another route might be the wholesale assimilation of the Algerian and other populations, including them in French citizenship and giving them French educations and giving them French expectations. In that environment, it would be difficult to still have the dual-sector labour market.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Again, do you have any source for this? You are stating it quite confidently, but where do you derive this wage data to begin with?

For starters, as I pointed out Algeria and wider North Africa were well-known as potential destination for migrants OTL. France never had shortfalls of potential colonists, as evidenced by the very large numbers who came from across southern Europe. Migrants just made the rational choice not to go there, based on information that they had. They did not overlook anything.

If you are looking for data regarding per capita income and living standards, I suggest starting with the below.

https://wid.world/document/income-inequality-under-colonial-rule-evidence-from-french-algeria-cameroon-tunisia-and-vietnam-and-comparisons-with-british-colonies-1920-1960-world-inequality-lab-wp-2020-14/

It suggests that Algeria at its relative peak had a GDP per capita a third that of France, with a deep inequality that left even European settlers at best close to French living standards. Focusing solely on the economics, an average Pied Noir born in early 20th century Algiers would better themselves best by moving to Europe.

 

[rfmcdonald]

View attachment 758166

As you can see, French population density isn't that high. It could have sustained such a population growth, it's agricultural practices would just have needed to modernize faster under the pressure (iotl, the French agricultural landscape largely remained traditional until the end of WWII).

In a scenario with more rapid French population growth in the 19th century, lots of things would be different. I think partible inheritance would still limit rural population growth, but French cities would also boom.

French emigration might well also grow,.depending on what happens to the labour market. The US is an obvious destination, as is the Southern Cone. (Even OTL, there are roughly as many Argentines of French descent as there are Canadians, the difference being Rrench emigration stopped earlier and the French intermixed almost completely.) I wonder if Canada might also appear.

 

[naraic]

Ok lets make a few points.

A lot of French migration would go to somewhere other than North Africa. A portion will go to North Africa.

It suggests that Algeria at its relative peak had a GDP per capita a third that of France, with a deep inequality that left even European settlers at best close to French living standards. Focusing solely on the economics, an average Pied Noir born in early 20th century Algiers would better themselves best by moving to Europe.

I suspect that a France that doesn't have a demographic collapse will get rid of partible inheritance. Landless people from rural areas may find it advantageous to take up land grants in Algeria.

I do believe that France would be a lot better off trying to settle and assimilate Algeria rather than trying for all 4 countries unless you want a pre Napoleon POD.