Why did Italy under Mussolini invade Ethiopia? Is there are recourse that they could control or was it a strategic position? Or did it just look good on the map and one of the last uncolonized regions of Africa.
why Ethiopia?
- Thread starter Mr.brightside
- Start date
In the Berlin Conference Italy was supposed to be given Ethiopia, but when the Italian first invaded, the Ethiopians were able to repel them. You can see how that would be an embarrassment, a European power getting beaten back by uncivilized Africans, so Mussolini sought to fix that and make Ethiopia his, and succeeded, for a time.
So it was basically flexing his muscles as well as a matter of pride.
So it was basically flexing his muscles as well as a matter of pride.
It didn't even look good on a map. It was simply the only thing left to colonize, and well everyone else looked so cool when they got their empires Italy might as well also try it. Also Italy had attempted to take over Ethiopia earlier but where beaten so it had some nationalist value to take it then.
Well, Ethiopia did have some strategic value - it sat between Eritrea and Italian Somaliland, connecting the two and allowing the building of a railroad tying Italian East Africa together into one unit. Not saying that's necessarily why they did it, just that Ethiopia did have a degree of strategic value.
Tying one mostly useless prestige colony to another mostly useless prestige colony, potentially at great cost, is not all that strategically valuable.
Delta Force
Banned
It was either Ethiopia or Liberia, and Liberia is solidly within America's sphere of influence. The fact that Ethiopia remained independent for as long as it did speaks to its cost/benefit ratio of it as a potential colony.
I don't know; Ethiopia seems pretty civilized to me. Yes, I know what you mean about any European nation not wanting to be beaten by Africans.
At least Libya could have potentially been useful, if for nothing else than to relieve population pressure at home.Well that can be applied to all Italian colonies
Delta Force
Banned
Libya is almost entirely desert. I think the only industry in that area before the discovery of petroleum and the underground aquifers was some marginal agricultural production and fishing l.
I was not arguing that Libya still had a lot of unused potential in 1935 (from an evil imperialist perspective), I was merely saying that Libya is an example that not all Italian colonies were totally useless.
Although I suppose if Italy stays out of the war and manages to resist pressure to decolonize into the 1960s, they might have even gotten some oil out of it.
In 1939, Libya was home to over 108,000 Italian colonists. That may not sound like a lot, but I am only arguing against the post that said (admittedly, as a joke) that all Italian colonies were completely useless pretige projects. I think providing homes for over 108,000 Italian settlers was useful from the perspective of Italian imperialists.
Edit: While obviously nothing excuses imperialism, I think it is important to remember that the idea of an overpopulated homeland and rapidly growing home population was an important motive for Italian colonization throughout the 1920s and 1930s (as indeed Manchuria did for Miltarist Japan). It is worth noting that the Italian government tried to sell Libya in the 1930s as 'the new America'...
Last edited:
Delta Force
Banned
I wouldn't be surprised if that many Italians emigrated every year. The presence of 100,000 Italian settlers in Libya is significant because of the effects on Libya itself (which had only 900,000 people in 1939), not for any major change to Italian population patterns.
It comes down to pride, I think.
Given that Italy's previous attempts to conquer Ethiopia were failures, it seemed like a good idea.
From a practical standpoint, it was a damn failure.
Few resources to use, no one really wanted to go there, and expensive to maintain.
Given that Italy's previous attempts to conquer Ethiopia were failures, it seemed like a good idea.
From a practical standpoint, it was a damn failure.
Few resources to use, no one really wanted to go there, and expensive to maintain.
But the question I was trying to answer was not 'did holding Libya make a huge and lasting difference to Italy", but rather 'were any of the Italian colonies even worth anything more than mere prestige'. It doesn't matter for this purpose if Italian Libya only served as an outlet for a quite small number of Italian settler colonists,, I was trying to answer if they did anything at all of value, ever. I think holding even one year's worth of emigrees within the empire might have been of some value.