• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Libya if Italy remains neutral in World War II

R

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Location
Portugal
If Italy had remained neutral in World War II, would Libya still be part of it today? It was sparsely populated and Italians were already 13% of the population. Italian settlement would certainly increase once oil was discovered. In addition, Italy was trying to assimilate the Libyans and resistance had already stopped. What would the opinion of the international community be? Would the Arab world and the Islamic world accept the loss of Libya?
 
Charles EP M. said:
Based on what happened to the rest of the European colonies (including neutral Portugal's), I really doubt it - not unless Italy can offer enough carrots to keep the Libyans happy.
Click to expand...

Libya is very close to Italy and it was one of the most sparsely populated places in the world. Italians were already 13% of the population. Once the oil was discovered, I could easily see Italians becoming a majority. Even if not, Italy's assimilation policies could produce a majority of Italians and Italianized Libyans combined.
 
Ricardolindo said:
Libya was and still is far less populated than Algeria.
Click to expand...
Thing is though, Libya was, and would still be, majority non-Italian (& non-White). And presumably, in this scenario, Italy would still be fascist. As such, one can easily envision the Italians having huge qualms about fully integrating Libya, and its inhabitants. And that they'd also find it just as hard to subdue tribal uprisings, historical claims to the territory by neighboring Arab nations, and secessionist guerilla movements, as the similarly fascist Spanish did in their efforts to hang onto even more sparsely populated Spanish Sahara (where according to the 1974 Spanish census, Spaniards had comprised more than 21% of the population). Would the abundance of oil wealth help Italy to keep hold of it, or just add fuel to the flames for the Libyan and Arab nationalist independence movements which would inevitably arise?
 
SinghSong said:
Thing is though, Libya was, and would still be, majority non-Italian (& non-White). And presumably, in this scenario, Italy would still be fascist. As such, one can easily envision the Italians having huge qualms about fully integrating Libya, and its inhabitants. And that they'd also find it just as hard to subdue tribal uprisings, historical claims to the territory by neighboring Arab nations, and secessionist guerilla movements, as the similarly fascist Spanish did in their efforts to hang onto even more sparsely populated Spanish Sahara (where according to the 1974 Spanish census, Spaniards had comprised more than 21% of the population). Would the abundance of oil wealth help Italy to keep hold of it, or just add fuel to the flames for the Libyan and Arab nationalist independence movements which would inevitably arise?
Click to expand...

By 1932, Italy crushed Libyan resistance. In addition, it pursued aggressive assimilation policies and many Libyans fought for Italy in World War II. Once oil was discovered, lots of Italians would settle in Libya. Italians may then have become the majority in Libya. Even if not, they and Italianized Libyans together could form a majority.
 
I can see Italy holding on for a while, as Portugal did, but eventually this will be a festering wound for Italy (and North Africa) unless a majority of Libyans are sold on remaining a colony, dominion, part of Italy etc. That can only happen if fascists aren't in charge.
 
Death's Companion said:
I really can't imagine the Italians succeeding where literally everyone else failed and by the time the oil wealth is a major concern the whole continent will be on fire.
Click to expand...

Charles EP M. said:
I can see Italy holding on for a while, as Portugal did, but eventually this will be a festering wound for Italy (and North Africa) unless a majority of Libyans are sold on remaining a colony, dominion, part of Italy etc. That can only happen if fascists aren't in charge.
Click to expand...

I think you overestimate the degree of Libyan resistance. One fourth of the population of Cyrenaica died by 1932. I doubt the Libyans would be willing to restart resistance.
 
Ricardolindo said:
I think you overestimate the degree of Libyan resistance. One fourth of the population of Cyrenaica died by 1932. I doubt the Libyans would be willing to restart resistance.
Click to expand...
...

Everyone else seemed happy enough to keep giving it a go. And as time goes on they will have more and more friendly states and more and more countries that previously would have been indifferent or on Italy's side that are suddenly a lot less okay with this sort of thing right around the time it becomes a lot easier for a weaker power to hurt a stronger one.


Libya will also be far from alone in this, Italy had a bunch of colonies that would probably be slipping away in the same time frame and at least in Ethiopia its not going to just walk without a fight, now that would be fairly messy, especially as the Soviets an Americans start courting different African an Arab players.

For that matter Italy was bleeding cash pretty hard in the interwar years and would probably be struggling a fair bit as it stayed neutral as the Allies correctly deduced that it was being used to funnel resources from Germany so impose a blockade on it once they're strong enough to do so with impunity and certainly won't be that fond of a lingering fascist state. They may well start courting it like they did Spain but that is a lot harder if its still right there in the heart of Europe and carrying out imperialism left an right.
 
Charles EP M. said:
But then we're saying the Libyans would be uniquely wussy compared to the Saharans, Algerians, Angolans, Cypriots etc
Click to expand...

Not uniquely wussy, I agree resistance will start again but I do think there's questions about how efficient they could be. They are very very scarce in number and up against an opposition perfectly willing and able to a) bring in settlers on a significant level and b) actively engage in genocide.

Like, there are plenty of examples of settler colonisation succeeding, from the new world, Australasia, arguably Israel, Northern ireland and parts of russia and china also can be included.

I think the Fourth Shore succeeding, at least to some extent, is far from impossible. It'd be deeply grim and would require a major armed commitment but I'd give it a better shot than German control over eastern europe.
 
Ricardolindo said:
I think you overestimate the degree of Libyan resistance. One fourth of the population of Cyrenaica died by 1932. I doubt the Libyans would be willing to restart resistance.
Click to expand...
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?
 
There are good points being raised on both sides, but I think two things that should be kept in mind is how much effort is put into properly Italianizing and integrating the Libyans into Italian society, as well as whether Italy itself gets involved in its own regional conflicts separate from WWII. As has been noted, there was a not-unsubstantial Libyan military participation in WWII, not to mention the fact that Italian colonial policy considerably softened after 1932 to be more paternalistic and focused on Italianization.

If Italy puts in the necessary effort to reconcile the Libyans and promote talented soldiers during whatever conflicts they find themselves in, I feel like they could pull it off successfully enough to weather the storm. Maybe not in Somalia or Ethiopia, but at least in Eritrea and Libya. That being said, it wouldn't be an overnight thing, it would take a long time and require significant investment into the development of Libya, but I can see it happening.

However, I'll admit that I'm slightly biased because of the fact that the idea of an alternate history vignette/setting where Gaddafi becomes a senior officer in the Royal Corps of Colonial Troops is something that I find incredibly appealing to explore.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top