Wouldn't be the first time colonial powers supported anti colonial struggles in a attempt to weaken rivals, British history is full of that on both using it and being in the receiving end of, combine that with the simple fact neither Britain or France liked Fascist Italy and Ethiopia having been a independent nation beforehand who stayed in it's corner and had even received some French investments before, the Brits and French are likely to make this a exception
Could fascism survive to the present without WW2?
- Thread starter TerranGames
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fascism fascism wank no ww2
Even IOTL Britain would likely have closed the Suez if it was not run by a Tory government.
Ah yes, the pact that never went anywhere exactly because it was made public and showed there was always opposition to Italy in both countries, something that further proves my argument, especially that without a Hitler to worry about, Italy will be singled out even more
Because the public cared. Not the politicians. And what happened after 1936? Decolonization is a much bigger problem for Britain and France. They'll probably be busy anyways trying to put down rebellions in their vast colonial holdings.
Still showed the politicians that decisions like that were unpopular, especially if they cared about staying in office they better start upping the anti italian rhetoric.
Plus, decolonization is something that will take longer ITTL so France and Britain can worry about that later whereas Ethiopian resistance to Italian occupation was always a given and Britain and France can simply look the other way and "lose equipment" along the border and the Italians will bankrupt themselves trying to destroy the insurgency
You didn't answer the question. What did they do after 1936? Were they sending weapons over the border? Was the Suez closed? The British definitely controlled it at that point.
There were already a lot of decolonization movements in both Empires and Mussolini isn't going to be toppled over a colonial pacification. The Italians are going to bankrupt themselves? At what point? Have you crunched some numbers?
They were more worried about Hitler and assuming no WW2 or a buildup towards it, the Anglo French alliance will try and block Italy from what they see as aggressive expansionism.
Which ones? India was ongoing but it was slow and without WW2, it's much likely to come in negotiated manner, Indochina was brewing but there was concerns about the Japanese already and the Algerian and West African ones had root in the chaos of WW2 in France and bad treatment of colonial troops. Without a ww2, France and Britain are much stronger and stable and can keep their colonies for a few decades more before needing to pull out of them.
Who ever said anything about Mussolini being toppled? I simply said that a forever war in Ethiopia that is being supplied by an hostile Anglo-French alliance won't be good for the Italian economy because they can't properly exploit the land when guerrillas keeps disrupting it, meaning Italy will be sinking man and money into a place that is giving them nothing but trouble, combine that with the inefficiency of fascist system and that Italy was no Germany and things are going to look grim for them
I seriously doubt people would base their votes on whether or not their country was sufficiently hostile towards Italy.
Maybe not in those exact words but the reaction made it clear that the population in those countries that Italy was seen as a threat, especially so in a case of no Nazi Germany to divert their attention and it would make Italy the seemingly big villain of the time