|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 31, 2022 23:03:23 GMT
There wasn’t anything advanced for Italy to deindustrialise, as there was no industry. Economically, it peters along at a somewhat lower but steady rate of growth. Too big for Italy to ‘develop’.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 1, 2022 3:06:10 GMT
So, why would it's economy grow at a slower rate than in OTL?
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 1, 2022 3:23:44 GMT
1.) There would be no incentive for much more than very limited steps towards (import substitution) manufacturing
2.) There would be changes to the agricultural system, but not in terms of national benefit, but efficiency of Italian profit
3.) Some probable improvements in infrastructure would be offset by insurgency and the costs to Italy of defence and administration
4.) Most of the colonial development projects of @ AOI proved to be cut much larger than Italy's purse
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 1, 2022 3:30:52 GMT
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 1, 2022 3:33:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 1, 2022 3:36:23 GMT
ty everyone
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 1, 2022 3:41:51 GMT
Also simon darkshade, can you try to answer this related question of mine. I keep on hearing that Ethiopia was the only country in Africa never to be colonized by a European power, but it was a part of the Italian colonial empire, what am I missing? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 1, 2022 3:55:05 GMT
What people mean is that it was the only one not to go in the initial Scramble for Africa. There is a differentiation between the Italian conquest of the 1930s and earlier European efforts. Comparatively speaking, the Fascist Italians barely got a chance to take their shoes off and sit down in Ethiopia before the British booted them out in 1941.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 1, 2022 3:58:39 GMT
the Fascist Italians barely got a chance to take their shoes off and sit down in Ethiopia before the British booted them out in 1941. Does this mean that they didn't colonize Ethiopia? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 1, 2022 4:28:11 GMT
They barely got a chance to do anything in real terms. 3200 colonists, or less than 10% of Mussolini's goal, represents a failure.
Even if 40,000 Italians had flocked to Ethiopia, they still would have lacked the time to get anything done. Farming is not a quick business nor a sector for swift return on investment!
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 1, 2022 4:31:35 GMT
Even if 40,000 Italians had flocked to Ethiopia, they still would have lacked the time to get anything done. Farming is not a quick business nor a sector for swift return on investment! Isn't colonization sending settlers to establish political dominance and not agricultural dominance? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 1, 2022 5:19:37 GMT
No. The political element is only one facet of it, but in terms of settler colonisation, there needs to be some basis to settle. It is fairly moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Aug 1, 2022 6:17:50 GMT
there needs to be some basis to settle wasn't the basis the fascist party wanting it? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 1, 2022 7:14:16 GMT
I’m talking about the actual viability of the land and it’s ability to support successful colonisation. That doesn’t just need will or intent, but also time, conditions and land capacity. Thus, we never saw any settler colonisation of desert or tundra, but rather of the good cropping or livestock country; preference for the first.
Ethiopia wasn’t properly subdued post 1937; had marginal available land for Italian transplants; the late 30s were hot years to boot; and there was not enough time to settle down and get a decent basis established. It had more of the characteristics of failed colonisation schemes than success. In such circumstances, all the will in the world, fascist or otherwise, doesn’t alter the fundamentals.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 1, 2022 13:52:06 GMT
I’m talking about the actual viability of the land and it’s ability to support successful colonisation. That doesn’t just need will or intent, but also time, conditions and land capacity. Thus, we never saw any settler colonisation of desert or tundra, but rather of the good cropping or livestock country; preference for the first. Ethiopia wasn’t properly subdued post 1937; had marginal available land for Italian transplants; the late 30s were hot years to boot; and there was not enough time to settle down and get a decent basis established. It had more of the characteristics of failed colonisation schemes than success. In such circumstances, all the will in the world, fascist or otherwise, doesn’t alter the fundamentals. As with most criminal imperialist ventures, the idea of taking your own citizens and sending them, wholesale, to a foreign land, settling it, and recreating your society in that place, ignores... a. there are already people there who have to live off what the land provides b. those people have their own culture and ways and beliefs. c. their economy and politics is not your economy and politics. d. they have their own interests which they think are more important than what you desire. e. and they do not like you, because you interfere with a ===> d. There is a variant called "Our burden" where a sort of "teaching mission to civilize the locals" is tacked onto the real "loot, pillage, enslave and misgovern" occupation and corruption which an invader imposes in his war of conquest. This is the reality of imperialism despite the benevolent fictions and lies created to justify it. We Americans call it, "Vietnam" or "Iraq" or "Afghanistan". |
|
