WI - Italian Ethiopia?

I'm pretty sure it was just Mussolini as I doubt most Italians even cared about Ethiopia prior to 1935. I'm not completely sure but Italy might have come after Ethiopia if the First World War hadn't happened or if they had remained neutral during World War 1 but I kinda doubt that as well.

Italian Eritrea was considered one of, if not the most developed European colony in Africa whose growing Italian community made up roughly 12-14% of the entire Eritrean population by the 30s-40s if Italy had been given enough time to develop. Italian settlement in Eritrea (and maybe Somaliland) is going to be popular whereas not many people are going to want to go to Ethiopia as the continued insurgency and lack of resources didn't make it appealing but you might see a significant Italian minority if the Italians somehow managed to hold onto it until the late 40s or 50s. I seriously doubt the Italians are going to be able to completely pacify Ethiopia but if it can curb the resistance to an acceptable level, the Italians might be able to bring in more settlers and develop Ethiopia's flourishing urban centers.

Yeah, the Allies are going to do anything to secure Italian neutrality during the Second World War which may include British or French Somaliland and French Tunisia being ceded to Italian control in return for no Axis Italy or a neutral Italy. The Ethiopian population was around 16-17 million and not around what, 780,000 Libyan Arabs - the Italians will not be able to push off the natives without some significant action that will inevitably lead to a boost in the numbers and popularity of the Ethiopian Patriots.

Then I tend to see Italy forgo Ethiopia and focus on the existing colonies. Mussolini had sense enough to oppose Germany in rebuilding its position and that puts him in the British camp unless they drop the ball. Ethiopia looks like a foolish Mussolini power play that can be butterflied away.

Now I am not certain the Italians push off the native Libyans without the impetus of Fascist callousness but in this era it is not overly worried about displacing natives so I leave Libya a bit vague. But I concede that as the "Fourth" shore it takes little to hold Italy's interest and slowly settle the coast, strategically it deserves more attention, so I will concede it is holding out until oil changes the math. Italy should be focused on Eritrea and next Somilialand, and so long as colonialism has legs Italy should hold them. And I would bet Italians swell to outnumber Libyans, at least 2 to 1, maybe 3 to 1, Libya is Algeria in reverse here, a part of Italy with a minority or the coast carved off and vassal to the South, either way Italy is in possession, maybe altering the way France reacts in North Africa.
 
A couple quick notes before I'm out the door. Italian neutrality is an immense boon for the Allies. Empire shipping now goes through the Med, unhindered, vice either fighting its way through or having to go around Africa. This alone is a tremendous boost for the Allies. I believe it highly likely the UK will no longer have any sort of economic embargo on Italy. The RN can now sufficiently reinforce the forces in Singapore that the IJN is going to have to rethink its options. While some ships will remain in the Med, it will be far fewer. Bismarck and other raiders will have the undivided attention of more of the RN, with the results we all know will occur. As to less experience from fighting in NA, that cuts both ways, and the gains in shipping more than make up for that. Considering how upset Mussolini was with Hitler over the abrogation of the Anti-Comintern pact and launching WWII three years earlier than he'd been promised, not to mention Austria, it is not a stretch to attain Italian neutrality. It also isn't beyond the realm of possibility that at some point, Allied sweet talking and bribes might convince Mussolini to enter the war on the Allied side. My guess is that Italy keeps just enough troops in its African colonies to keep the lid on and puts the majority of its forces along their Northern border. At the same time, if the UK and US will give some industrial/economic aid to Italy, it gives a better ability for them to keep Germany out. I am not one of those who holds the opinion that the Italian Military were hopelessly incompetent. That means Germany will need to keep at least some forces on the southern border, and no Italian troops in Russia means they will need more German troops. I've not had time to think about how Italian neutrality affects Eastern European nations and their actions.
To figure out how Ethiopia fares ITTL, we need to look at other Italian colonies. What were they like before the Italians, and how developed were they after? Were they in some ways better off than before? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions. If the populace can be convinced there are benefits to having the Italians, and this can be done in Ethiopia, the population may be more amenable to coming to an accommodation with the Italian occupiers. It instantly or completely stop unrest, but it might be the beginning of some form of peace.
I don't have a link, but i have been told that the allies offered Mussolini Tunisia, that counts as a bribe to me.
 
Wouldn't the Allies also cede British and French Somaliland or is that too much?

They'll cede as little as possible. Mussolini has NO credibility with the Allies. At one point Ciano wrote a speech that very nearly sent the Pact of Steel off the rails. Mussolini vacillated between neutrality and DOW until after the Fall of France, and even then had some moments of doubt. Hell if a politician of some note (looking at FDR here) had actually stroked his ego enough in 39, he might well have thrown in his lot with the Allies then. He was, to say the least, mercurial. If the Allies had been able to believe him more and thought out of the box more (stroking that ego) they may have convinced him to stay out. Try to win some rights for the Ethiopians, forego the embargo, and get him into their camp as much as possible, then ceding some areas is definitely possible. How much? Just enough to keep him busy. In reality even one more colony would take some effort for them to digest, especially as he still will need to keep an army on his northern frontier against the Germans. He'd also continue with his defensive works on the northern border.
 
They'll cede as little as possible. Mussolini has NO credibility with the Allies. At one point Ciano wrote a speech that very nearly sent the Pact of Steel off the rails. Mussolini vacillated between neutrality and DOW until after the Fall of France, and even then had some moments of doubt. Hell if a politician of some note (looking at FDR here) had actually stroked his ego enough in 39, he might well have thrown in his lot with the Allies then. He was, to say the least, mercurial. If the Allies had been able to believe him more and thought out of the box more (stroking that ego) they may have convinced him to stay out. Try to win some rights for the Ethiopians, forego the embargo, and get him into their camp as much as possible, then ceding some areas is definitely possible. How much? Just enough to keep him busy. In reality even one more colony would take some effort for them to digest, especially as he still will need to keep an army on his northern frontier against the Germans. He'd also continue with his defensive works on the northern border.
Interesting. Yeah, I can see this happening.

Do you think the Italian colonial administration could be smarter than it was OTL?
 
Interesting. Yeah, I can see this happening.

Do you think the Italian colonial administration could be smarter than it was OTL?

I really can say. I simply don't know enough of how they did after the conquest, nor of how they acted in other countries they took. Was there an element of benevolence? tolerance? Did they build up infrastructure in a way to benefit the locals too? I just don't know the answers to those questions.
 
I really can say. I simply don't know enough of how they did after the conquest, nor of how they acted in other countries they took. Was there an element of benevolence? tolerance? Did they build up infrastructure in a way to benefit the locals too? I just don't know the answers to those questions.
The Italians didn't act the best in Ethiopia which is a bit obvious, especially considering the massacres and atrocities. When the Duke of Aosta became Viceroy, there was a bit of liberalization and a few resistance chiefs surrendered to the Italians - traitors - but policies in the Patriot-controlled countryside remained the same. I don't think the Italians did much to benefit the native Ethiopians - in fact, they often kicked out the wealthier Ethiopians from their big houses in Addis Ababa where the Italians took up residence.
 
Last edited:
Yep. What did they do in Libya and Italian Somaliland? Eritrea? What were their policies and actions there, and what effects did it have on the population? We know they acted awfully in Ethiopia, but the invasion was just over by a couple years and he resistance was still active. How was it in places with a longer Italian presence and lessened resistance/insurgency?
 
Yep. What did they do in Libya and Italian Somaliland? Eritrea? What were their policies and actions there, and what effects did it have on the population? We know they acted awfully in Ethiopia, but the invasion was just over by a couple years and he resistance was still active. How was it in places with a longer Italian presence and lessened resistance/insurgency?
In Libya, the Italians managed to rapidly pacify the Senussi resistance by the 30s by using the same policies they implemented in Ethiopia - they deported people, people were sent to concentration camps and there was also the death of Omar Mukhtar who was the leader of the Senussi. The thing is, there was no one concrete leader of the Patriots as there were new leaders popping up across everywhere, although you could consider Ras Abebe Aregai to be the leader of the Patriots and he managed to escape being killed by the Italians time and time again. The only places in Ethiopia with a longer Italian presence were the Italian camps, forts and bases in the larger Ethiopian population centers which they couldn't travel outside of other than by air or armoured convey which were also under constant threat of attack. If the Italians launch some kind of massive counterinsurgency offensive, the resistance might be curbed but it won't be destroyed if the Patriots flee to the mountainous provinces which were swarming with them.

I'm not sure how the Ethiopian Patriots could be pacified. The movement could be decapitated if there's a political leadership where someone like Ras Abebe Aregai was killed but I kinda doubt that.
 

Pax

Banned
Italian neutrality could go either way depending on how the Germans and Allies use it to their advantage. For the Germans no Italy means they've freed up numerous divisions for the Eastern Front. IOTL the Germans had to rush over divisions from Kursk to protect Italy after the success of the Allied Med. Campaign. No Italian partner means those divisions (and more) could be kept in Kursk, potentially providing one butterfly there. However it goes further than that. No Axis Italy likely means that the Germans don't get bogged down in Greece, though this is hard to say definitively; Hitler was concerned about the possibility of Greek based British bombers targeting Romanian oil fields and in the long term could have likely occupied the country eventually. Yugoslavia's tricky as well. Perhaps the Germans are less concerned about the coup ITTL, perhaps they no longer have the Italian troops to help conquer the country.

I think in regards to the Eastern Front, however, no Italy helps Germany. Not only would Germany have more men and material, but they'd also not have those weak Italian units along their flanks, likely altering the Soviet counterattacks at Stalingrad as we knew them. No Italy also means the Germans don't have to divert resources to their fledgling ally, and waste manpower deactivating the Italian army post-1943. This means more guns, more planes, more ammo, and more fuel for the Germans (possibly an alternate Bulge? No counterattacks in Hungary to secure the oil fields?)

For the Allies (non-Soviets) it would dramatically change things. No Italy means that Britain has just cleared up thousands of men for future service in France if they invade, and quicker transportation routes across the Med. It also means the Anzacs could have more men in Asia, as well as more Indian troops, which could alter the Burma campaign. However the biggest change would be that no-Italy means the Allies likely don't focus on the Med region that much in the war and dump all their stuff for a landing across the Channel. This does give them more men and material to use come invasion time, but it also makes them dramatically less experienced (as no Italy means Britain and Free France likely deal with Vichy before Torch) and more susceptible to errors and miscalculations come the Big One in France. The Allies could attempt to "practice" by landing at Norway, but that won't end well considering the poor terrain and strong German presence. Likewise the Germans likely have reduced garrisons along the Med coast, freeing up more men to station points near Normandy, Pais de Calais, etc. No Italian campaign could also pressure the Allies to open a second front sooner and thus could see them rush a landing in France in 1943, which likely won't end too well.
 
Italian neutrality could go either way depending on how the Germans and Allies use it to their advantage. For the Germans no Italy means they've freed up numerous divisions for the Eastern Front. IOTL the Germans had to rush over divisions from Kursk to protect Italy after the success of the Allied Med. Campaign. No Italian partner means those divisions (and more) could be kept in Kursk, potentially providing one butterfly there. However it goes further than that. No Axis Italy likely means that the Germans don't get bogged down in Greece, though this is hard to say definitively; Hitler was concerned about the possibility of Greek based British bombers targeting Romanian oil fields and in the long term could have likely occupied the country eventually. Yugoslavia's tricky as well. Perhaps the Germans are less concerned about the coup ITTL, perhaps they no longer have the Italian troops to help conquer the country.

I think in regards to the Eastern Front, however, no Italy helps Germany. Not only would Germany have more men and material, but they'd also not have those weak Italian units along their flanks, likely altering the Soviet counterattacks at Stalingrad as we knew them. No Italy also means the Germans don't have to divert resources to their fledgling ally, and waste manpower deactivating the Italian army post-1943. This means more guns, more planes, more ammo, and more fuel for the Germans (possibly an alternate Bulge? No counterattacks in Hungary to secure the oil fields?)

For the Allies (non-Soviets) it would dramatically change things. No Italy means that Britain has just cleared up thousands of men for future service in France if they invade, and quicker transportation routes across the Med. It also means the Anzacs could have more men in Asia, as well as more Indian troops, which could alter the Burma campaign. However the biggest change would be that no-Italy means the Allies likely don't focus on the Med region that much in the war and dump all their stuff for a landing across the Channel. This does give them more men and material to use come invasion time, but it also makes them dramatically less experienced (as no Italy means Britain and Free France likely deal with Vichy before Torch) and more susceptible to errors and miscalculations come the Big One in France. The Allies could attempt to "practice" by landing at Norway, but that won't end well considering the poor terrain and strong German presence. Likewise the Germans likely have reduced garrisons along the Med coast, freeing up more men to station points near Normandy, Pais de Calais, etc. No Italian campaign could also pressure the Allies to open a second front sooner and thus could see them rush a landing in France in 1943, which likely won't end too well.

Where we disagree Pax is on the value of the Italians on the Eastern Front. IOTL the Germans were strong-arming other countries into accompanying them (Romania, Hungary etc) into their Anti Soviet crusade, and they were certainly no better than the Italians. If the Italians were that bad, so were the others, so why was Germany so eager to have them along?
Certainly not having to garrison Greece, Yugoslavia, etc will be a gain for the Germans, and not having the sinkhole of N. Africa will be an advantage for Germany. I just think Italy as a neutral costs them more than it saves them.
I doubt Greece will enter the war, or be invaded. A neutral Italy with no attempted invasion of Greece negates much of the rationale for the German takeover of Yugoslavia, and Greece was planning on neutrality, it was only the Italian invasion that prompted them to ask for British forces to be sent in.

A 1943 landing in France, interesting possibilities. Lack of experience against lessened German defenses and troops, most being on the Eastern front, then again, this may be offset by not having troops garrisoning the Med. and N. Africa. Add in what happens with Vichy, be an interesting exercise in figuring out what happens. But, we are wandering far afield from the POD, so I'll turn my aged mind back to the premise.
 
Where we disagree Pax is on the value of the Italians on the Eastern Front. IOTL the Germans were strong-arming other countries into accompanying them (Romania, Hungary etc) into their Anti Soviet crusade, and they were certainly no better than the Italians. If the Italians were that bad, so were the others, so why was Germany so eager to have them along?
Certainly not having to garrison Greece, Yugoslavia, etc will be a gain for the Germans, and not having the sinkhole of N. Africa will be an advantage for Germany. I just think Italy as a neutral costs them more than it saves them.
I doubt Greece will enter the war, or be invaded. A neutral Italy with no attempted invasion of Greece negates much of the rationale for the German takeover of Yugoslavia, and Greece was planning on neutrality, it was only the Italian invasion that prompted them to ask for British forces to be sent in.

A 1943 landing in France, interesting possibilities. Lack of experience against lessened German defenses and troops, most being on the Eastern front, then again, this may be offset by not having troops garrisoning the Med. and N. Africa. Add in what happens with Vichy, be an interesting exercise in figuring out what happens. But, we are wandering far afield from the POD, so I'll turn my aged mind back to the premise.
What about a landing in the Balkans? I remember one person on here, quoting about "satisfying Churchill's fetish for amphibious assaults on mountainous peninsulas.".
 
Anyway, I created this thread to focus on the topic of Italian Ethiopia or Italian East Africa (Africa Orientale Italiana) so if we could please shift the topic back to that, that would be swell! :)
 
I wonder if it is in some way possible for Mussolini to come to some sort of agreement with Selassie to end the fighting. I have serious reservations about it being possible. But hey, we're talking Mussolini here, so who knows? Is there a diplomatic way to end it?
Wars are hideously expensive, and the Italian economy isn't in great shape. However, if there is no longer an embargo due to Italian neutrality, Italy's economy will be helped. The troops sent to N. Africa can be used in Ethiopia and along the Austrian border. More troops mean the insurgency will struggle as they flood the countryside. If enough locals can be recruited, the situation gets worse for the Patriots. Italy needs to use a "Carrot and Stick" approach to make things work. Do good things in areas that aren't fighting against them. Build hospitals, schools, railways and roads, bring some type of jobs and infrastructural improvements to the area, bring in new ways of farming that fill bellies, create coffee plantations. They have to be seen to be making life better for people to take away the willingness of the people to continue fighting, and continue to do this until folks see the Patriots as bandits and bad guys standing in the way of a better way of life.
This is all off the top of my head, I am really out of my depth here. I think I'll see if I can find a decent text on Italian colonialism.
 
I wonder if it is in some way possible for Mussolini to come to some sort of agreement with Selassie to end the fighting. I have serious reservations about it being possible. But hey, we're talking Mussolini here, so who knows? Is there a diplomatic way to end it?
Wars are hideously expensive, and the Italian economy isn't in great shape. However, if there is no longer an embargo due to Italian neutrality, Italy's economy will be helped. The troops sent to N. Africa can be used in Ethiopia and along the Austrian border. More troops mean the insurgency will struggle as they flood the countryside. If enough locals can be recruited, the situation gets worse for the Patriots. Italy needs to use a "Carrot and Stick" approach to make things work. Do good things in areas that aren't fighting against them. Build hospitals, schools, railways and roads, bring some type of jobs and infrastructural improvements to the area, bring in new ways of farming that fill bellies, create coffee plantations. They have to be seen to be making life better for people to take away the willingness of the people to continue fighting, and continue to do this until folks see the Patriots as bandits and bad guys standing in the way of a better way of life.
This is all off the top of my head, I am really out of my depth here. I think I'll see if I can find a decent text on Italian colonialism.
Yeah, I agree with everything except Mussolini and Haile Selassie coming to an agreement. I can see Ras Imru becoming the nominal "King of Ethiopia" whereas Victor Emmanuel III becomes "Lord Protector".

What you recommend seems quite plausible if the Italians decide to be smarter in their administration and don't massacre the Ethiopian population if they recognize in advance how much it will intensify and give the Patriots a larger support base. If the Italians decide to assist the Ethiopians in development and whatnot, then the initially neutral Ethiopian populace could come to favor the Italians over the Patriots who may become nothing more actual bandits but you might still see nationalists and intellectuals support the Patriots. If the Italians do what they did in Eritrea (without too many race laws), then Ethiopia could be a more developed country upon "regaining" independence sometime in the 50s or 60s if the Italians continue to hold onto it.

A few questions - what do you think about the Italianization of the Amharic culture/people and encouraging its spread throughout Ethiopia? How about the Italians allowing the Copts and Catholics dominate their indirect rule administration (should it be implemented)?
 
Ethiopia is very different to both Libya and Somalia. I simply can't see Italy staying in Ethiopia, nor Italianization. Italy slowly goes white as the public gets pissed at Rome for wasting lives and money in the Horn of Africa till they get the hell out and never comes back. It was already an money drain as soon as 1936.
 

Pax

Banned
Anyway, I created this thread to focus on the topic of Italian Ethiopia or Italian East Africa (Africa Orientale Italiana) so if we could please shift the topic back to that, that would be swell! :)

The Italians initiated multiple "modernization" (for lack of a better word) programs in Libya, and Italian planners regarded Libya in particular in high regard for future Italian expansion (the whole "fourth shore" thing). The Italians built modern highways as well as other projects and, once oil is discovered, this kind of investment would continue to flow in. If Libya remains under Italian control until the late 60s or 70s it could end up with a plurality Italian population as well, which opens up many interesting possibilities come the 90s, 00s, and 2010s.

This likely won't be the case for Ethiopia. On the one hand Ethiopia would be lacking in significant mineral/petroleum deposits to warrant continued Italian investment like in Libya, and on another Ethiopia's larger population (who have a history of independence and have developed a national identity) and more rugged terrain would lead to problems in Italian expansion into the hinterlands. I don't think we'd see a Vietnam level conflict in the colony only because I don't see Britain or France arming rebels there for fear of the conflict spilling over into their own colonies. The US won't disturb a potential anti-Communist ally depending on how the war goes. Maybe the Soviets could arm the rebels, but again, depending on how the war goes, maybe they're too weak to really bother with Ethiopia (besides, I doubt the Ethiopian rebels would really be Communists so much as anti-fascists). I could see Mussolini trying to hang on for the rest of the 40s and maybe 50s, but once he dies the Italians probably start pulling out, de-colonizing the country sometime by the late 60s or 70s.
 
Top