WI: Colonialism without ww1

[Otto Kretschmer]

How would it fare?

I think it's agreed upon that it'd have lasted longer than OTL - but how much longer? And would the colonized countries actually be better off?

(My ideas?
1. The colonialism would last roughly until the 1980s instead of 1960s. 
2. The exploitation of the colonies would continue. So at least until independence the countries would be no better off than OTL
3. No ww1 means no October Revolution so no communism including in Africa and no West East rivalry. This should reduce the incidence of civil wars and increase the levels of democracy in the region - since the US/UK/France would no longer need to prop up dictators to guard against Soviet influence.
4. Without ww1 and it's demographic drain there would be more white migration to the colonies but migration from colonies to the metropolies would have been larger as well.

[lordroel]

Jul 17, 2024 15:42:45 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

How would it fare?

I think it's agreed upon that it'd have lasted longer than OTL - but how much longer? And would the colonized countries actually be better off?

More question than your own opinion, i know you can do it, see you other threads that have more than this.

Edit your first post and i will keep it open, if not i close it 24 hours from now.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Jul 17, 2024 15:46:58 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 17, 2024 15:42:45 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

How would it fare?

I think it's agreed upon that it'd have lasted longer than OTL - but how much longer? And would the colonized countries actually be better off?

More question than your own opinion, i know you can do it, see you other threads that have more than this.

Edit your first post and i will keep it open, if not i close it 24 hours from now.

Edited ;

[stevep]

Jul 17, 2024 15:42:45 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

How would it fare?

I think it's agreed upon that it'd have lasted longer than OTL - but how much longer? And would the colonized countries actually be better off?

(My ideas?
1. The colonialism would last roughly until the 1980s instead of 1960s. 
2. The exploitation of the colonies would continue. So at least until independence the countries would be no better off than OTL
3. No ww1 means no October Revolution so no communism including in Africa and no West East rivalry. This should reduce the incidence of civil wars and increase the levels of democracy in the region - since the US/UK/France would no longer need to prop up dictators to guard against Soviet influence.
4. Without ww1 and it's demographic drain there would be more white migration to the colonies but migration from colonies to the metropolies would have been larger as well.

  A lot would depend on the details.  For instance what prevents OTL WWI and would this mean a continuation of tension between alliances, the collapse of one power/bloc or what?  I think implicitly there is the suggestion that no great continental size war will occur in the 1st half of the 20thC, or even to the end of colonialism in the generally accepted meaning of the word.

  On the points:

1)  Probably the bulk of decolonization will be delayed until ~1980s/1990's.

2) Probably but not certainly.  It would depend a lot on what social changes occurs without the world wars which would be pretty much impossible to know.

3)  You won't get a communist regime in the Russian empire in the short term no but such is likely to occur somewhere if not in Russia during this period.  Its a fairly popular idea and with widespread inequalities there will be attempt to try out such ideas somewhere or other until at least one succeeds and shows how flawed such ideas often become.  If it doesn't happen in the developed world - albeit that Imperial Russia was on the fringe of that status in the 1910's - it could well turn up in one or more colonial conflict as rebels against a colonial power seeks to avoid internal say tribal/religious divisions among the rebels. Also once some sort of extreme communist dictatorship occurs - or possibly even moderate democratic forms of socialism - is likely to trigger more extreme nationalist/conservative reactions, whether this is fascism as we're familiar with or something different.

  Also depending on the international situation one colonial power could easily decide its worthwhile encouraging/aiding rebels in colonies of political/economic rivals.

4)  Without WWI there will be a lot more people, especially in Europe, which means they will be overwhelmingly white.  How big a factor that would be and how it might affect colonial situations where white settlements occurred would depend on the circumstances.  In most colonies outside temperate areas white settlement was relatively small in proportion to the overall native population and the latter were often seen as cheap labour rather than an unwanted population to be displaced.  It would take a lot for this viewpoint to be replaced in most cases and such would be likely to be very bad for the natives, as well as culturally for the colonists.

  This of course assume the demographic transition doesn't develop earlier or the additional demographic pressure prompts either new wars/conflicts or economic problems that prompts lower birth/survival rates or possibly some great pandemic.

[575]

Jul 17, 2024 18:21:25 GMT stevep said:

Jul 17, 2024 15:42:45 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

How would it fare?

I think it's agreed upon that it'd have lasted longer than OTL - but how much longer? And would the colonized countries actually be better off?

(My ideas?
1. The colonialism would last roughly until the 1980s instead of 1960s. 
2. The exploitation of the colonies would continue. So at least until independence the countries would be no better off than OTL
3. No ww1 means no October Revolution so no communism including in Africa and no West East rivalry. This should reduce the incidence of civil wars and increase the levels of democracy in the region - since the US/UK/France would no longer need to prop up dictators to guard against Soviet influence.
4. Without ww1 and it's demographic drain there would be more white migration to the colonies but migration from colonies to the metropolies would have been larger as well.

  A lot would depend on the details.  For instance what prevents OTL WWI and would this mean a continuation of tension between alliances, the collapse of one power/bloc or what?  I think implicitly there is the suggestion that no great continental size war will occur in the 1st half of the 20thC, or even to the end of colonialism in the generally accepted meaning of the word.

  On the points:

1)  Probably the bulk of decolonization will be delayed until ~1980s/1990's.

2) Probably but not certainly.  It would depend a lot on what social changes occurs without the world wars which would be pretty much impossible to know.

3)  You won't get a communist regime in the Russian empire in the short term no but such is likely to occur somewhere if not in Russia during this period.  Its a fairly popular idea and with widespread inequalities there will be attempt to try out such ideas somewhere or other until at least one succeeds and shows how flawed such ideas often become.  If it doesn't happen in the developed world - albeit that Imperial Russia was on the fringe of that status in the 1910's - it could well turn up in one or more colonial conflict as rebels against a colonial power seeks to avoid internal say tribal/religious divisions among the rebels. Also once some sort of extreme communist dictatorship occurs - or possibly even moderate democratic forms of socialism - is likely to trigger more extreme nationalist/conservative reactions, whether this is fascism as we're familiar with or something different.

  Also depending on the international situation one colonial power could easily decide its worthwhile encouraging/aiding rebels in colonies of political/economic rivals.

4)  Without WWI there will be a lot more people, especially in Europe, which means they will be overwhelmingly white.  How big a factor that would be and how it might affect colonial situations where white settlements occurred would depend on the circumstances.  In most colonies outside temperate areas white settlement was relatively small in proportion to the overall native population and the latter were often seen as cheap labour rather than an unwanted population to be displaced.  It would take a lot for this viewpoint to be replaced in most cases and such would be likely to be very bad for the natives, as well as culturally for the colonists.

  This of course assume the demographic transition doesn't develop earlier or the additional demographic pressure prompts either new wars/conflicts or economic problems that prompts lower birth/survival rates or possibly some great pandemic.

1) Agree

2) Agree - its very difficult to predict where society will move in the Colonizing countries - Britain, France, Italy, Germany, USA, Russia, Japan. However we may well see a Pandemic like the Spanish Flu during the time - global communications network on steampropelled ships being part of the driver in spreading; Australia taking the evident precausion of a 2 week quarantine of arriving ships! Or you could see some state doing a Black-death Poland. Such would also be party to societal change.

3) China and Spain (Italy?) could be other places where such may happen given right circumstances. A Japan-China war could drive such.

4) Possibly a "white" French North Algeria and Tunesia. Larger "white" settlement in suitable areas - Kenya, Southern Africa. With more "race" mixing a South America societal situation may develop in more areas in both Africa and Asia which would also affect the going of de-colonization and the following political establishment.

Guess the 80 years would still see conflict around the world including Europe just not on the Global scale.

[Max Sinister]

My first impression's too that it'd continue for longer. The big question is: Would black Africans still start uprisings, and if yes, would they be oppressed?

[ewellholmes]

Jul 17, 2024 15:42:45 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

How would it fare?

I think it's agreed upon that it'd have lasted longer than OTL - but how much longer? And would the colonized countries actually be better off?

(My ideas?
1. The colonialism would last roughly until the 1980s instead of 1960s. 
2. The exploitation of the colonies would continue. So at least until independence the countries would be no better off than OTL
3. No ww1 means no October Revolution so no communism including in Africa and no West East rivalry. This should reduce the incidence of civil wars and increase the levels of democracy in the region - since the US/UK/France would no longer need to prop up dictators to guard against Soviet influence.
4. Without ww1 and it's demographic drain there would be more white migration to the colonies but migration from colonies to the metropolies would have been larger as well.

Colonialism may never entirely end without the World Wars. Namibia, Libya, and Eritrea were heading towards European majorities, with less likely options being Algeria and South Africa, while large pluralities would exist in Rhodesia, Kenya, Ethiopia and perhaps a few more.

[stevep]

Jul 30, 2024 23:44:49 GMT ewellholmes said:

Jul 17, 2024 15:42:45 GMT Otto Kretschmer said:

How would it fare?

I think it's agreed upon that it'd have lasted longer than OTL - but how much longer? And would the colonized countries actually be better off?

(My ideas?
1. The colonialism would last roughly until the 1980s instead of 1960s. 
2. The exploitation of the colonies would continue. So at least until independence the countries would be no better off than OTL
3. No ww1 means no October Revolution so no communism including in Africa and no West East rivalry. This should reduce the incidence of civil wars and increase the levels of democracy in the region - since the US/UK/France would no longer need to prop up dictators to guard against Soviet influence.
4. Without ww1 and it's demographic drain there would be more white migration to the colonies but migration from colonies to the metropolies would have been larger as well.

Colonialism may never entirely end without the World Wars. Namibia, Libya, and Eritrea were heading towards European majorities, with less likely options being Algeria and South Africa, while large pluralities would exist in Rhodesia, Kenya, Ethiopia and perhaps a few more.

  Possibly in the short term but its going to be difficult to stop both the demographic transition towards smaller families in the developed world and also the expansion of population in the 3rd world as medical and other improvement reduce infant mortality. 

  In places in British east Africa such as Rhodesia and Kenya British settlement was larger of the farming and mining type with small numbers of a white elite reliant on black labour for many day to day operation, in agriculture, mining and domestic work.  You would need some big changes to encourage widespread white settlement to replace those black workers, not to mention the question of what was to happen with the latter?  I know less about non-British colonies but suspect things could end up similar there.  You might get white majorities in thinly populated areas like Libya and Namibia but how viable would they be when neighbouring larger nations become independent?  Even if with full democracy in such states their going to be unpopular with the mass of black African states I suspect.

[ewellholmes]

Jul 31, 2024 7:21:40 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly in the short term but its going to be difficult to stop both the demographic transition towards smaller families in the developed world and also the expansion of population in the 3rd world as medical and other improvement reduce infant mortality.

Presuming one million Italians had settled in Libya, it would still be majority Italian to this day given the historical fertility patterns of Italian settlers. Likely the same with Eritrea, given the native populations would also be effected by the demographic transition just the same as the Italians given their earlier development.

In places in British east Africa such as Rhodesia and Kenya British settlement was larger of the farming and mining type with small numbers of a white elite reliant on black labour for many day to day operation, in agriculture, mining and domestic work.  You would need some big changes to encourage widespread white settlement to replace those black workers, not to mention the question of what was to happen with the latter?  I know less about non-British colonies but suspect things could end up similar there.  You might get white majorities in thinly populated areas like Libya and Namibia but how viable would they be when neighbouring larger nations become independent?  Even if with full democracy in such states their going to be unpopular with the mass of black African states I suspect.

As I said, I doubt those other areas would ever become majority European, but would contain large populations. Without the demographic impacts of two World Wars, large scale immigration to Africa would continue. By the time Colonialism does end, places like Namibia and Libya will be established facts accepted in Africa that are accepted by the locals whom have no means of changing that status quo anyway.

[stevep]

Aug 4, 2024 4:41:23 GMT ewellholmes said:

Jul 31, 2024 7:21:40 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly in the short term but its going to be difficult to stop both the demographic transition towards smaller families in the developed world and also the expansion of population in the 3rd world as medical and other improvement reduce infant mortality.

Presuming one million Italians had settled in Libya, it would still be majority Italian to this day given the historical fertility patterns of Italian settlers. Likely the same with Eritrea, given the native populations would also be effected by the demographic transition just the same as the Italians given their earlier development.

In places in British east Africa such as Rhodesia and Kenya British settlement was larger of the farming and mining type with small numbers of a white elite reliant on black labour for many day to day operation, in agriculture, mining and domestic work.  You would need some big changes to encourage widespread white settlement to replace those black workers, not to mention the question of what was to happen with the latter?  I know less about non-British colonies but suspect things could end up similar there.  You might get white majorities in thinly populated areas like Libya and Namibia but how viable would they be when neighbouring larger nations become independent?  Even if with full democracy in such states their going to be unpopular with the mass of black African states I suspect.

As I said, I doubt those other areas would ever become majority European, but would contain large populations. Without the demographic impacts of two World Wars, large scale immigration to Africa would continue. By the time Colonialism does end, places like Namibia and Libya will be established facts accepted in Africa that are accepted by the locals whom have no means of changing that status quo anyway.

  That would assume that Italian fertility rates in the colony stay high.  Those in Italy nowadays are pretty damned low, along with most of western and central Europe.  Also that in a largely barren/desert Libya and Eritrea there's room for all those settlers and expansion of the local popular as OTL.  Any attempt to suppress the latter is going to cause a lot of resentment.  Currently despite the chaos of the last decade or so Libya has a population of about 7.3M so your talking about probably at least 15M for a small European majority.  That's a lot of additional people in those lands.  The oil/gas industry will supply a fair amount of employment but where are the rest going to live and work?  OTL Libya is consuming its water reserves much faster than they can be replaced.  How bad would it be in your scenario?

  Places like Libya and Namibia would still be thinly populated fairly barren states surrounded by much larger black/Arab populations so whether they could sustain themselves if the neighbouring states took a racist stance against such European majority populations inside those nations could be a costly and difficult task.

  In terms of the rest of Africa how much room would there be for more white farmers and mine owners given they had already secured the bulk of the lands best suited to European settlement?  Are they going to replace the large farms worked mainly by black labourers with smaller overwhelmingly white small-holders and if so where do al the black workers go?   When independence comes with black majorities how long are a white majority going to be able to maintain possession of the majority of resources and wealth?  Unless you have major levels of ethnic cleansing - possibly up to Nazi like levels I don't see substantial white populations maintaining a dominant position in parts of the continent.

[575]

Aug 4, 2024 4:41:23 GMT ewellholmes said:

Jul 31, 2024 7:21:40 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly in the short term but its going to be difficult to stop both the demographic transition towards smaller families in the developed world and also the expansion of population in the 3rd world as medical and other improvement reduce infant mortality.

Presuming one million Italians had settled in Libya, it would still be majority Italian to this day given the historical fertility patterns of Italian settlers. Likely the same with Eritrea, given the native populations would also be effected by the demographic transition just the same as the Italians given their earlier development.

In places in British east Africa such as Rhodesia and Kenya British settlement was larger of the farming and mining type with small numbers of a white elite reliant on black labour for many day to day operation, in agriculture, mining and domestic work.  You would need some big changes to encourage widespread white settlement to replace those black workers, not to mention the question of what was to happen with the latter?  I know less about non-British colonies but suspect things could end up similar there.  You might get white majorities in thinly populated areas like Libya and Namibia but how viable would they be when neighbouring larger nations become independent?  Even if with full democracy in such states their going to be unpopular with the mass of black African states I suspect.

As I said, I doubt those other areas would ever become majority European, but would contain large populations. Without the demographic impacts of two World Wars, large scale immigration to Africa would continue. By the time Colonialism does end, places like Namibia and Libya will be established facts accepted in Africa that are accepted by the locals whom have no means of changing that status quo anyway.

That would certainly have pleased Il Duce who had severe problems in getting Italians settling in Libya instead of going to USA. Hitting oil in the mid-late 1940's may help but gettng the basis for achieving such numbers may be difficult.

[stevep]

Aug 4, 2024 13:10:18 GMT 575 said:

Aug 4, 2024 4:41:23 GMT ewellholmes said:

Presuming one million Italians had settled in Libya, it would still be majority Italian to this day given the historical fertility patterns of Italian settlers. Likely the same with Eritrea, given the native populations would also be effected by the demographic transition just the same as the Italians given their earlier development.

As I said, I doubt those other areas would ever become majority European, but would contain large populations. Without the demographic impacts of two World Wars, large scale immigration to Africa would continue. By the time Colonialism does end, places like Namibia and Libya will be established facts accepted in Africa that are accepted by the locals whom have no means of changing that status quo anyway.

That would certainly have pleased Il Duce who had severe problems in getting Italians settling in Libya instead of going to USA. Hitting oil in the mid-late 1940's may help but gettng the basis for achieving such numbers may be difficult.

  Well to be fair, as well as asking people to go to a hot barren land with an hostile native population and a very poor economy going to Libya meant they would still be under Mussolini's rule which is a big reason for looking elsewhere.

[Max Sinister]

Aug 4, 2024 4:41:23 GMT ewellholmes said:

Jul 31, 2024 7:21:40 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly in the short term but its going to be difficult to stop both the demographic transition towards smaller families in the developed world and also the expansion of population in the 3rd world as medical and other improvement reduce infant mortality.

Presuming one million Italians had settled in Libya, it would still be majority Italian to this day given the historical fertility patterns of Italian settlers. Likely the same with Eritrea, given the native populations would also be effected by the demographic transition just the same as the Italians given their earlier development.

Same in Somaliland, where Mogadishu (they called it Mogadiscio) already had 40% Italians.

[stevep]

Aug 6, 2024 12:14:04 GMT Max Sinister said:

Aug 4, 2024 4:41:23 GMT ewellholmes said:

Presuming one million Italians had settled in Libya, it would still be majority Italian to this day given the historical fertility patterns of Italian settlers. Likely the same with Eritrea, given the native populations would also be effected by the demographic transition just the same as the Italians given their earlier development.

Same in Somaliland, where Mogadishu (they called it Mogadiscio) already had 40% Italians.

  Its one thing in the colonial capital where there are probably relatively a lot of facilities as well as a lot of decent jobs and greater security.  In the outskirts where there's a lot less of those and also of Italian settlers which would be another negative point.

  One small point in that Somaliland is the term normally used for the northern region which was the British protectorate.  Italian Somalia was to the south of this.

[ewellholmes]

Aug 4, 2024 14:05:36 GMT stevep said:

  Well to be fair, as well as asking people to go to a hot barren land with an hostile native population and a very poor economy going to Libya meant they would still be under Mussolini's rule which is a big reason for looking elsewhere.

Living standards in the colonies were actually very high, especially in Libya and Eritrea, which is why the Italian population in those places boomed very rapidly once Rome begun opening the way for colonization schemes. In Libya, settlement was focused on the more mild coastal areas as well as Highlands which were not that barren.

Add in oil and mining, and the plausibility of a durable Italian majority is very high.

Aug 4, 2024 13:10:18 GMT 575 said:

That would certainly have pleased Il Duce who had severe problems in getting Italians settling in Libya instead of going to USA. Hitting oil in the mid-late 1940's may help but gettng the basis for achieving such numbers may be difficult.

Mussolini didn't have that problem; during his rule, there was significant re-migration from the United States. Little known fact is that 60% of Southern Italians who migrated to the U.S. returned to Italy with most doing so in this era, and it was this group (South Italians in general) who Rome was trying to encourage to move to Libya.