Libya if Italy remains neutral in World War II

[Charles EP M.]

It does basically come down to "can Italy placate enough Libyans into going I'm Fine Being A Colony/Dominion/Merged Into Italy Like Ireland In The Act Of Union before Arab nationalism, communism et al et al catches on with enough people at the same time they can get guns from abroad". And if it can't, how long does Italy want to hold on?

 

[Torten]

I reckon, for what its worth a Fascist Italy would have a fairly decent chance of holding onto Libya. Provided some level of migration continues from Italy, Tripoli and Benghazi would probably be majority Italian by the 1950's, and there would likely be a large minority of Italianised Libyan Muslims. If Italian Libya survives the 1950's, then you might see a wave of migration of Pied-Noir's from Algeria, and other newly independent african states.

Additionally, Fascist Italy killed a quarter of the population of Cyrenaica between 1923 and 1932. I suspect they would have no great problem with repeating that in the 1950's if required.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Though depending on when in the 1950s could mean running afoul of independent states on the border, like Egypt under Nasser when he's flexing his muscles and talking about Pan-Arabism. That would be a fun headache for a lot of other countries in the Cold War.

 

[Persephone]

Though depending on when in the 1950s could mean running afoul of independent states on the border, like Egypt under Nasser when he's flexing his muscles and talking about Pan-Arabism. That would be a fun headache for a lot of other countries in the Cold War.

That brings up a good question about how Italian neutrality would affect the Cold War and how World War II itself plays out. Especially when it comes to the timeline and how butterflies go. Take for example, The Footprint of Mussolini on the old country, where Italy eventually joins in on the action in response to Hitler being well...Hitler, and that drastically changes the geopolitical situation.

 

[History Learner]

That brings up a good question about how Italian neutrality would affect the Cold War and how World War II itself plays out. Especially when it comes to the timeline and how butterflies go. Take for example, The Footprint of Mussolini on the old country, where Italy eventually joins in on the action in response to Hitler being well...Hitler, and that drastically changes the geopolitical situation.

Most likely with Italy neutral, Greece and Yugoslavia remain neutral albeit Axis-leaning. It was the Italian quagmire that forced the Germans to deal with Greece and that in turn provoked the Yugoslav affair; Hitler's intentions was to tolerate them being neutral on the condition of signing the pact and continuing economic deals, as his concern was leaving his flank exposed with Greece being a blistering sore. None of that exists here, so it's likely Barbarossa can kick off in May of 1941. Worse, for the Soviets, there is no need to cancel the planned twin envelopment of Soviet armies being planned up until March of 1941, when the Balkans Crisis forced the diversion of 12th Army and thus cancelled that planned operation. Finally, in April of 1941 IOTL Stalin ordered a partial mobilization on the basis of intelligence concerning the coming Nazi attack, which ultimately led to 800,000 being called up and deployed to units in June.....just in time for the invasion. Here, the Germans are attacking as the Russians are midway through said mobilization.

All in all, it's a recipe for a knockout blow on the Soviets in 1941. That completely changes the calculus many are noting here, as there is no Anti-Axis Arab Nationalism, Communism, etc to be concerned about, nor any real patron of guns. Even if the United States attempts to step up to the plate, it's worth noting insurgencies in the 20th Century did not have a generally high success rate. There is a reason nations spend trillions collectively on defense instead of relying on militias in the modern day.

 

[Torten]

Most likely with Italy neutral, Greece and Yugoslavia remain neutral albeit Axis-leaning. It was the Italian quagmire that forced the Germans to deal with Greece and that in turn provoked the Yugoslav affair; Hitler's intentions was to tolerate them being neutral on the condition of signing the pact and continuing economic deals, as his concern was leaving his flank exposed with Greece being a blistering sore. None of that exists here, so it's likely Barbarossa can kick off in May of 1941. Worse, for the Soviets, there is no need to cancel the planned twin envelopment of Soviet armies being planned up until March of 1941, when the Balkans Crisis forced the diversion of 12th Army and thus cancelled that planned operation. Finally, in April of 1941 IOTL Stalin ordered a partial mobilization on the basis of intelligence concerning the coming Nazi attack, which ultimately led to 800,000 being called up and deployed to units in June.....just in time for the invasion. Here, the Germans are attacking as the Russians are midway through said mobilization.

All in all, it's a recipe for a knockout blow on the Soviets in 1941. That completely changes the calculus many are noting here, as there is no Anti-Axis Arab Nationalism, Communism, etc to be concerned about, nor any real patron of guns. Even if the United States attempts to step up to the plate, it's worth noting insurgencies in the 20th Century did not have a generally high success rate. There is a reason nations spend trillions collectively on defense instead of relying on militias in the modern day.

Off topic, but given how terrible Barbarossa was for the Soviets anyway I suspect the Soviet Union would manage to hold on during the winter of 1941 and through 1942.

Additionally, the British are going to be looking for something, anything to strike back at the Germans and without the North African campaign and the Med the North West Europe theatre is going to be far hotter, and I wouldn't rule out something similar to Dieppe in 1941.

 

[History Learner]

Off topic, but given how terrible Barbarossa was for the Soviets anyway I suspect the Soviet Union would manage to hold on during the winter of 1941 and through 1942.

Additionally, the British are going to be looking for something, anything to strike back at the Germans and without the North African campaign and the Med the North West Europe theatre is going to be far hotter, and I wouldn't rule out something similar to Dieppe in 1941.

Through December of 1941, the Germans kept 100,000+ stationed in France. Here, if needed, what was OTL the Afrika Korps with 80,000 men and several hundred AFVs are available as well.

 

[Ricardolindo]

If Italy holds on to Libya in the long term, do you see Islamic terrorist attacks on Italy?

 

[TheIO]

If Italy holds on to Libya in the long term, do you see Islamic terrorist attacks on Italy?

Oh without a doubt.

After all, France doesn't hold any of Algeria and still had some.

But with Italy still owning Libya you're gonna be seeing some pretty big changes in the course of Pan-arabism/political Islamism anyway.

 

[Torten]

Not massively plausible, but a democratizing Italy in the 1980's and 1990's granting Libya independence, but retaining Tripoli and Benghazi and their hinterland on the grounds the vast majority of the population is Italian or Italian speaking Libyans would be an interesting AH scenario.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Not massively plausible, but a democratizing Italy in the 1980's and 1990's granting Libya independence, but retaining Tripoli and Benghazi and their hinterland on the grounds the vast majority of the population is Italian or Italian speaking Libyans would be an interesting AH scenario.

Libya without those places would be an utterly unviable state.

 

[Delta Force]

The newly independent Egyptians and Tunisians would be willing to, though. And both the French and British (and probably US of Americans as well, judging by their actions in every part of the Middle East with significant oil reserves IOTL) would be probably be perfectly willing to finance them and sell them arms. What's to stop the Egyptians from mounting their own equivalent of the Moroccans 'Green March' into Western Sahara? And if they did, and Italy attempted to go about the 'pacification campaign' in the same way they'd taken over Cyrenaica in the first place (through ethnic cleansing and the liberal use of chemical weapons), how damaging would this be to their international reputation, and diplomatic relations? Might Mussolini (if he's still around by then) face the potential threat of being deposed over it?

Mussolini wasn't just expanding in an attempt to relive the glory of Ancient Rome, but also to acquire resources for a very resource poor Italy. Italy might be famous for its agriculture, but it is actually a major food importer. It also lacks significant mineral and energy resources. There are some coal reserves in Sardinia and hydropower potential throughout the country but there isn't enough to sustain a major economy.

If Italy stays out of World War II it would likely keep an iron grip on its colonies, especially Libya. It could become a major provider of armaments and technology to various countries that are unable or unwilling to take part in the international system dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. For example, Italy could exchange petroleum with South Africa in exchange for uranium. Italian armaments, missiles, and nuclear technology would likely be sought after by non-aligned countries. Italy could also trade with the Soviet Union to fill gaps in the economies of both countries. While the Soviet Union would be self-sufficient in many basic resources, it might be interested in Italian technology and certain products such as coffee from Italian occupied Ethiopia.

Without WWII, it likely becomes majority or plurality Italy by the 1960s. Between that and Libyans disposed to Italianization, it seems exceedingly likely the Italians will hold onto it and it will become an integrated part of Italy itself. Outside of the oil, it's also worth noting Libya has some of the largest iron ore deposits in Africa, if not the world, for further economic incentive.

Libya also has one of the world's largest fossil water aquifers (source). Italy could engage in its own version of Gaddafi's Great Man-Made River and try to once again make Libya a major breadbasket.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Libya without those places would be an utterly unviable state.

True, but I could see Italy trying to do it anyway.

 

[History Learner]

For another thing, in my personal opinion, the entrance of Italy into World War II in 1940 eliminated the last chance to maintain the British Empire as a viable great power going forward.

Without the North African front, the United Kingdom would've been able to redirect sufficient forces into Malaya and elsewhere to derail the Imperial Japanese conquest of the region. Without the disaster that was the fall of Singapore, the UK can continue to rebuff American calls for the dismantling of Imperial Preference, thus helping to keep the Dominions and Empire at large more economically (and thus politically) tied to the UK. Without the need or even opening for Operation TORCH, the UK is able to likewise cement its authority in the Middle East via the Middle Eastern Supply Centre, ultimately allowing it to displace the U.S. as the main patron of the Saudis as well as economically and politically dominate the more modern Arab sheiks. Post-War, they can also seek to enact their Greater Syria scheme under the Hashemites.

Post-War, they would then need to not get involved in the Korean conflict and preferentially enact something like Operation ROBOT to boost their exports. Between their domination of Middle Eastern oil and not taking the financial hit of losing Malaya, it's likely Britain can institute some sort of "Petro Sterling" while also avoiding the need to take the ruinous American loan in 1947. From there, Britain can enact a much more gradual, effective decolonization and follow something closer to what the French practice in terms of retaining influence and authority in many of their colonies. If Britain is able to achieve just 2% higher growth from 1945 onwards, their economy would be 148% bigger by 2019.

All this to say that you've dramatically changed the Cold War, presuming the war still goes as per OTL, but also introduced the possibility of the Anglo-French-Italians reviving the Stresa Front to maintain their power and influence vis-a-vis the the Soviets and Americans. All three together are too powerful for either of the superpowers to take on collectively, which means all-but especially the United States-must dread carefully when dealing with them. That could have serious implications on the course of decolonization and the like.

 

[Ricardolindo]

True, but I could see Italy trying to do it anyway.

@Torten, himself, said it was not very plausible.
I think Italy could have assimilated the Libyans. After 1932, their policies became much softer. Libyan children were taught Italian. Many Libyans fought for Italy in World War II. With their aggressive assimilation policies and more settlement, I see Libya being fully integrated into Italy.

 

[Torten]

@Torten, himself, said it was not very plausible.
I think Italy could have assimilated the Libyans. After 1932, their policies became much softer. Libyan children were taught Italian. Many Libyans fought for Italy in World War II. With their aggressive assimilation policies and more settlement, I see Libya being fully integrated into Italy.

Indeed. I was thinking of a cross between Palestine and Western Sahara (SADR) , both hardly successful countries.

 

[Ricardolindo]

The newly independent Egyptians and Tunisians would be willing to, though. And both the French and British (and probably US of Americans as well, judging by their actions in every part of the Middle East with significant oil reserves IOTL) would be probably be perfectly willing to finance them and sell them arms. What's to stop the Egyptians from mounting their own equivalent of the Moroccans 'Green March' into Western Sahara? And if they did, and Italy attempted to go about the 'pacification campaign' in the same way they'd taken over Cyrenaica in the first place (through ethnic cleansing and the liberal use of chemical weapons), how damaging would this be to their international reputation, and diplomatic relations? Might Mussolini (if he's still around by then) face the potential threat of being deposed over it?

Why would France support such campaigns against Italian Libya considering its own North African colonies?

 

[lerk]

That brings up a good question about how Italian neutrality would affect the Cold War and how World War II itself plays out. Especially when it comes to the timeline and how butterflies go. Take for example, The Footprint of Mussolini on the old country, where Italy eventually joins in on the action in response to Hitler being well...Hitler, and that drastically changes the geopolitical situation.

I don't know if that is such a good example. I posted a criticism on it on the thread in AH.com - I haven't posted it here because the author responded to it in a mature way and I feel like it would be slimy to continue to insult it on an entirely different site - but yeah, it's not good, even the author sort of agreed with me that the -ification process was stretching the limits of plausiblity.

In case you don't know basically Mussolini tries to separate Libya of its Arab identity and make themselves feel Phoenician. Alongside that he imports Jews there due to his newfound philo-Semitism after a Jew saves his life (the POD). I pointed out that most -ification processes have been failures and those that have succeeded took at least a century to make successful, but in FOM it only takes a few decades. I pointed this out in my critique that despite the similarities between Turks and Kurds (same religion, languages both derived from Persian in many aspects, lived in the same country for centuries etc.) Ataturk failed to get Kurds to view themselves as Mountain Turks, and with the differences between Libyan Arabs and Italians it would be even more difficult, especially since Mussolini embarks on a policy of "Kill all the Arabs" after the UAR launches a chemical attack on Israel.

 

[Persephone]

I don't know if that is such a good example. I posted a criticism on it on the thread in AH.com - I haven't posted it here because the author responded to it in a mature way and I feel like it would be slimy to continue to insult it on an entirely different site - but yeah, it's not good, even the author sort of agreed with me that the -ification process was stretching the limits of plausiblity.

In case you don't know basically Mussolini tries to separate Libya of its Arab identity and make themselves feel Phoenician. Alongside that he imports Jews there due to his newfound philo-Semitism after a Jew saves his life (the POD). I pointed out that most -ification processes have been failures and those that have succeeded took at least a century to make successful, but in FOM it only takes a few decades. I pointed this out in my critique that despite the similarities between Turks and Kurds (same religion, languages both derived from Persian in many aspects, lived in the same country for centuries etc.) Ataturk failed to get Kurds to view themselves as Mountain Turks, and with the differences between Libyan Arabs and Italians it would be even more difficult, especially since Mussolini embarks on a policy of "Kill all the Arabs" after the UAR launches a chemical attack on Israel.

I mean, that's a valid criticism, but I wasn't using that timeline as an example of a successful/plausible Italianization. I was using it as an example of a scenario where Italy (at first) remains neutral during World War II.

 

[Ricardolindo]

How benefitial would Libyan oil be to Italy? Could it have become the largest economy in Western Europe?