Italy and the WWI settlement

betgo · Aug 30, 2024

When Italy entered the war, it was promised neighboring Austrian territory, Albania, and part of Croatia. It only got the Austrian territory it already occupied. Its contribution to victory may not have been that much, but it did take territory in Austria. Serbia did expand, and Britain and France divided Ottoman territory in the mideast. German overseas territory was divided between Britain, France, and Japan. The US was could have gotten some territory, but instead supported the break up of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires into smaller states.

Britain and France could have given Italy Ottoman or German territory. Disatisfaction with the Versailles settlement helped Musilini come to power and fueled support for mostly unsuccessful Italian expansion in WWII.

AlpinLuke · Aug 30, 2024

Italy overall wanted the territories which had dominated by Venice.
That is to say a large part of the Balkan coasts of the Adriatic Sea.

In September 1919 D'Annunzio [a poet ...] organized a military expedition to occupy Fiume to force the hand to the great powers [the conference in Paris was ongoing].
An interesting aspect of that adventure was the composition of the expedition corp: followers of the ideas of Mazzini [Republicans], futurists and even revolutionary trade unionists!

It wasn't only a matter for rightists and nationalists. There was a quite diffuse sensation in Italy that the country deserved a better treatment.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · Aug 31, 2024

Italian disatisfaction doesn't make sense to me because the Italians weren't promised the partition of Austria-Hungary and hegemony in southern Europe yet they got that. They got the most valuable stuff they were promised namely the Trieste area. They also got Pola and Fiume. Italy got pretty much all of Austria-Hungarys maritime infrastructure and Austria-Hungary ceased to exist.

After centuries of bloody wars with outcomes that were relitigated every generation WW1 was the final resolution of Italys conflict with the Hapsburgs(knock on wood). This made WW1 arguably the most successful war in Italian history since Rome. And them being mad they didn't get territory in southern Croatia, so mad they wanted to redo a European order they were now on top of confuses me more and more as time passes.

EmperorPenguin · Sep 1, 2024

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:
Italian disatisfaction doesn't make sense to me because the Italians weren't promised the partition of Austria-Hungary and hegemony in southern Europe yet they got that. They got the most valuable stuff they were promised namely the Trieste area. They also got Pola and Fiume. Italy got pretty much all of Austria-Hungarys maritime infrastructure and Austria-Hungary ceased to exist.

After centuries of bloody wars with outcomes that were relitigated every generation WW1 was the final resolution of Italys conflict with the Hapsburgs(knock on wood). This made WW1 arguably the most successful war in Italian history since Rome. And them being mad they didn't get territory in southern Croatia, so mad they wanted to redo a European order they were now on top of confuses me more and more as time passes.

Did the Italians get all the territory London and Paris promised them in the Treaty of Paris? Nope, so they had greviences

More importantly, Italy had greviences with France and Brtain before the war as well. With Austria defeated, Italy could turn its attention to the generally awful treatment she had gotten during the Scramble for Africa. The same treatment that had led Italy to join the Triple Alliance in the first place.

Britain and France had basically partitioned Africa between themselves with Italy recieving the crumbs of Somalia, Eritrea and Libya. Not much compared to Egypt and Morocco, is it?

Not to mention Asia where Italy was shut out completely.

That's why San Guiliano, the Italian foreign minister at the outbreak of WWI, said the best outcome would be if France and Austria both lose

AlpinLuke · Sep 1, 2024

If I have to think to what Hitler discussed with Mussolini ...
How the winning powers managed the outcome of WWI created the context in which WWII started.

If the winning powers gave the Adriatic Sea to Italy I do doubt Mussolini would have followed Hitler.
But we cannot know.

betgo · Sep 1, 2024

It is true Italy didn't make nearly the contribution to victory that Britain and France did. However, they were promised territories when they joined. Some of what they were promised went to Serbia. Britain and France could have given Italy something in the Ottoman territories or German overseas territories.

AlpinLuke · Sep 1, 2024

betgo said:
It is true Italy didn't make nearly the contribution to victory that Britain and France did. However, they were promised territories when they joined. Some of what they were promised went to Serbia. Britain and France could have given Italy something in the Ottoman territories or German overseas territories.

Being rational, the Italian front was limited.
At the beginning Italy was planning to face France on the Western front, but after changing side Italy had to face Austria on the Eastern Front.

Alps are not always the same.
The Eastern Alps offer a reduced reachable front [in the historical period of WWI planes were in difficult to fly over Eastern Alps].
This is the main reason why the Italian losses were "limited" [Italy lost about 650,000 soldiers].

But this probably influenced the decisions of the winning powers.
France lost more than 1,300,000 soldiers, just to say].

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · Sep 1, 2024

EmperorPenguin said:
Did the Italians get all the territory London and Paris promised them in the Treaty of Paris? Nope, so they had greviences

More importantly, Italy had greviences with France and Brtain before the war as well. With Austria defeated, Italy could turn its attention to the generally awful treatment she had gotten during the Scramble for Africa. The same treatment that had led Italy to join the Triple Alliance in the first place.

Britain and France had basically partitioned Africa between themselves with Italy recieving the crumbs of Somalia, Eritrea and Libya. Not much compared to Egypt and Morocco, is it?

Not to mention Asia where Italy was shut out completely.

That's why San Guiliano, the Italian foreign minister at the outbreak of WWI, said the best outcome would be if France and Austria both lose

Italy had existed for barely 20 years in the 1880s. Italy got the land adjacent to its country and two colonies in an incredibly valuable strategic location. What more could they realistically ask for? Italy did have a bit of leverage in the 1880s because they were playing with those Yamato guns but those guns were British made and the British could have pulled the plug on that if they really wanted to. While Italy was considered Frances equal after WW1 that was a newly won status and before the war they were usually considered the weakest great power. The idea they would expect the British and France to just hand them Egypt or Morocco and that not happening is some sort of national humilation is absurd.

Even the Roman Empire had no claims in Asia. The weaker countries claims in Asia were from the Age of the Sail when they were stronger a time Italy didn't exist. And to say Italy was shut out completley is untrue Italy got 3 foreign concessions in China 2 of which were in Chinas 5 biggest cities. None of the minor countries got 1 except Belgium and they got 1. The same amount as Germany(though theirs were bigger) and more than the United States and Austria-Hungary. They were part of the Boxer rebellion adventure. I don't see the insult here.

EmperorPenguin · Sep 1, 2024

@betgo @AlpinLuke

Italy played the decisive role in WWI. Her greatest contribution was in August 1914 when she declared neutrality and threw all of Moltke's plans astray.

First, the lack of Italian naval support kept the Austrians penned up in the Adriatic. This allowed Joffre to bring the six colonial divisions from Africa.
Second, Joffre assigned 3 territorial divisions to guard against a possible Italian landing in Southern France. He also assigned five active and one reserve division to the Army of the Alps to guard against an Italian attack. He planned to reinforce this with an additional four divisions if needed. All of these forces were recalled to Paris on August 18th and allow for the recovery at the Marne

Third, Moltke was anticipating the arrival of the 3rd Italian Army on M23 which would have freed up the Bavarians to attack across the Moselle.

Fourth, Italy's declaration of neutrality reached Romania during the meeting of the Crown council. It killed what little possibility there was of Romania joining the CPs. This freed up six Russian divisions that proved crucial in shellacking the Austrian 3rd Army

Finally, the Italians were also expected to send another corps every 5 days. They would have arrived to late to participate in the Battle of the Marne but would have been sent East rather than the two corps that Moltke actually sends

Simply put: there is no doubt that Italy's neutrality is the only thing that allowed France to survive August 1914

Italy's big mistake was to not leverage their position early. Russia was more than willing to pay whatever price was asked- especially before they got a firm commitment from Britain. If she had done that and sent the 3rd Army to Paris to help France while pinning down 10 Austrian divisions in the Alps, the war would have been radically different

German-Italian Military Relations on the Eve of World War I on JSTOR

Michael Palumbo, German-Italian Military Relations on the Eve of World War I, Central European History, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 343-371

www.jstor.org

EmperorPenguin · Sep 1, 2024

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:
Italy had existed for barely 20 years in the 1880s. Italy got the land adjacent to its country and two colonies in an incredibly valuable strategic location. What more could they realistically ask for? Italy did have a bit of leverage in the 1880s because they were playing with those Yamato guns but those guns were British made and the British could have pulled the plug on that if they really wanted to. While Italy was considered Frances equal after WW1 that was a newly won status and before the war they were usually considered the weakest great power. The idea they would expect the British and France to just hand them Egypt or Morocco and that not happening is some sort of national humilation is absurd.

Even the Roman Empire had no claims in Asia. The weaker countries claims in Asia were from the Age of the Sail when they were stronger a time Italy didn't exist. And to say Italy was shut out completley is untrue Italy got 3 foreign concessions in China 2 of which were in Chinas 5 biggest cities. None of the minor countries got 1 except Belgium and they got 1. The same amount as Germany(though theirs were bigger) and more than the United States and Austria-Hungary. They were part of the Boxer rebellion adventure. I don't see the insult here.

That's not the way the Italians saw it. French occupation of Tunis was the precipatating event that led to the Triple Alliance. The Italians also thought the British were slackers and offered no help in Abyssinia leading to Adowa.

Look at the Anglo-French Entente: France gets Morocco, Britain gets Egypt and Italy gets Libya. Yeah they had no love of Britain or France

AlpinLuke · Sep 1, 2024

EmperorPenguin said:
That's not the way the Italians saw it. French occupation of Tunis was the precipatating event that led to the Triple Alliance. The Italians also thought the British were slackers and offered no help in Abyssinia leading to Adowa.

Look at the Anglo-French Entente: France gets Morocco, Britain gets Egypt and Italy gets Libya. Yeah they had no love of Britain or France

Tunisia was a very sensitive matter for Italians.
Italians were settling in Tunisia when France decided that Tunisia was French. It was a low blow!
Still today in Tunisia you can meet well more Italians than French ...

In some way that made Italy feel to be similar to the Central Empires: great powers with a tiny [or without] colonial empire.

EmperorPenguin · Sep 1, 2024

AlpinLuke said:
Tunisia was a very sensitive matter for Italians.
Italians were settling in Tunisia when France decided that Tunisia was French. It was a low blow!
Still today in Tunisia you can meet well more Italians than French ...

In some way that made Italy feel to be similar to the Central Empires: great powers with a tiny [or without] colonial empire.

It was a very explosive matter. The French got greedy and paid a high price for it. If they had let the Italians have it, there's a good chance there never would have been the Triple Alliance we knew. It could have been France, Spain and Italy against Britain or France, Italy and Russia. Several possibilities

Italy and France would have been far better off cooperating than competing. The Italians felt they got pushed forward in Abysinnia only to have the British sell them out.

Being cut out of colonies was a way to choke off these countries growth. The Germans felt the same

KipOju · Sep 1, 2024

betgo said:
When Italy entered the war, it was promised neighboring Austrian territory, Albania, and part of Croatia. It only got the Austrian territory it already occupied. Its contribution to victory may not have been that much, but it did take territory in Austria. Serbia did expand, and Britain and France divided Ottoman territory in the mideast. German overseas territory was divided between Britain, France, and Japan. The US was could have gotten some territory, but instead supported the break up of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires into smaller states.

Britain and France could have given Italy Ottoman or German territory. Disatisfaction with the Versailles settlement helped Musilini come to power and fueled support for mostly unsuccessful Italian expansion in WWII.

I suggest you to look a little bit into the workings of the negotiations.
The main problem I believe were the conflicting interest between to winners of the war Italy and Yougoslavia. Italy promised territories clashed against Yougoslavia's territory.

Regarding the distribution of German colonies Italy wasn't present when it happened.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:
Italian disatisfaction doesn't make sense to me because the Italians weren't promised the partition of Austria-Hungary and hegemony in southern Europe yet they got that. They got the most valuable stuff they were promised namely the Trieste area. They also got Pola and Fiume. Italy got pretty much all of Austria-Hungarys maritime infrastructure and Austria-Hungary ceased to exist.

After centuries of bloody wars with outcomes that were relitigated every generation WW1 was the final resolution of Italys conflict with the Hapsburgs(knock on wood). This made WW1 arguably the most successful war in Italian history since Rome. And them being mad they didn't get territory in southern Croatia, so mad they wanted to redo a European order they were now on top of confuses me more and more as time passes.

Italy disatisfaction makes actually perfect sense. They were promised a bunch of territory in an international contract with Britain in order to go to war against Austria. They went to war but didn't get any territory. when the war was over.
Also you're taking as an obvious fact that Austria was Italy's nemesis, but Italy actually was in a defensive alliance with Austria before the war.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · Sep 1, 2024

EmperorPenguin said:
That's not the way the Italians saw it. French occupation of Tunis was the precipatating event that led to the Triple Alliance. The Italians also thought the British were slackers and offered no help in Abyssinia leading to Adowa.

Look at the Anglo-French Entente: France gets Morocco, Britain gets Egypt and Italy gets Libya. Yeah they had no love of Britain or France

What is your plausible alternative to this?

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · Sep 1, 2024

KipOju said:
I suggest you to look a little bit into the workings of the negotiations.
The main problem I believe were the conflicting interest between to winners of the war Italy and Yougoslavia. Italy promised territories clashed against Yougoslavia's territory.

Regarding the distribution of German colonies Italy wasn't present when it happened.

Italy disatisfaction makes actually perfect sense. They were promised a bunch of territory in an international contract with Britain in order to go to war against Austria. They went to war but didn't get any territory. when the war was over.
Also you're taking as an obvious fact that Austria was Italy's nemesis, but Italy actually was in a defensive alliance with Austria before the war.

Germanys colonies were mostly gone by the time Italy joined the war.

Yeah they were promised almost half of Turkey and most of the coast of the nation the Entente was fighting the war over. They had to realize when they were signing the deal these terms being fulfilled were far from a sure thing.

On a map Italys acquisitions look small compared to what to was promised but they acquired almost all the maritime infrastructure of Austria-Hungary with Trieste area and Pola. Its like if Belgium fought a war with the Netherlands the Netherlands broke up and the Belgians lamented "only" getting the provinces of Holland. On a map that looks like a much more reasonable greivance than it actually is.

That had much more to do with Germany then it did with Austria. The Italians owed the Germans for helping them against the Austrians.

AlpinLuke · Sep 1, 2024

KipOju said:
I suggest you to look a little bit into the workings of the negotiations.
The main problem I believe were the conflicting interest between to winners of the war Italy and Yougoslavia. Italy promised territories clashed against Yougoslavia's territory.

Regarding the distribution of German colonies Italy wasn't present when it happened.

Italy disatisfaction makes actually perfect sense. They were promised a bunch of territory in an international contract with Britain in order to go to war against Austria. They went to war but didn't get any territory. when the war was over.
Also you're taking as an obvious fact that Austria was Italy's nemesis, but Italy actually was in a defensive alliance with Austria before the war.

There were two levels: at Rome there was a Crown and a government who reasoned like powers reasoned in that historical period.
You were my enemy, but now national interests make me think that it's better to be friends.

At popular level the matter was well different: Italians fought three independence wars against the Austrians [the "occupying power"] to set North East free.
Many Italians were surprised [when not disappointed] to see Rome accepting to be ally of Vienna.

At the beginning of WWI, while Italy kept a neutral stance, the interventionist movement got advantage from that popular feeling.

johnincornwall · Sep 2, 2024

I haven't spent enough time looking at the Italian front in WWI. 650,000 dead is not really to be sneezed at just because it's less than others. When I've come across a Discovery programme on some aspect of this it's been quite fascinating and the horror isn't any less than France or Gallipoli.

Hemingway tells a good tale (as he did for Spain) which is quite moving around the disaster of Caporetto - I have no idea how accurate it is, but Cadorna gets a similar treatment as the French high command in 'Paths of Glory' and the British in 'Oh What a Lovely War!'.

I'd assumed this is when Austrian Hungary lost it's naval base at Trieste, that bit of Italy and Istria? Which would seem a good result (especially as they technically lost!). But that may be wrong

AlpinLuke · Sep 2, 2024

johnincornwall said:
I haven't spent enough time looking at the Italian front in WWI. 650,000 dead is not really to be sneezed at just because it's less than others. When I've come across a Discovery programme on some aspect of this it's been quite fascinating and the horror isn't any less than France or Gallipoli.

Hemingway tells a good tale (as he did for Spain) which is quite moving around the disaster of Caporetto - I have no idea how accurate it is, but Cadorna gets a similar treatment as the French high command in 'Paths of Glory' and the British in 'Oh What a Lovely War!'.

I'd assumed this is when Austrian Hungary lost it's naval base at Trieste, that bit of Italy and Istria? Which would seem a good result (especially as they technically lost!). But that may be wrong

Probably the Italian kingdom had to undergo the will of the great colonial powers who didn't see so well the possibility of a further expansion of the Italian colonial Empire.
Since Italy had fought on their side [with France and UK] they hadn't the opportunity to take over this or that piece [like they did with the German colonial Empire].
On the contrary, Italy planned to obtain a former German colony in Western Africa, but France was contrary.

I would say that Italy and Germany were the "last ones" [in fact the new colonial powers had to be happy with what was still available ... almost nothing].

EmperorPenguin · Sep 2, 2024

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:
Germanys colonies were mostly gone by the time Italy joined the war.

Yeah they were promised almost half of Turkey and most of the coast of the nation the Entente was fighting the war over. They had to realize when they were signing the deal these terms being fulfilled were far from a sure thing.

On a map Italys acquisitions look small compared to what to was promised but they acquired almost all the maritime infrastructure of Austria-Hungary with Trieste area and Pola. Its like if Belgium fought a war with the Netherlands the Netherlands broke up and the Belgians lamented "only" getting the provinces of Holland. On a map that looks like a much more reasonable greivance than it actually is.

That had much more to do with Germany then it did with Austria. The Italians owed the Germans for helping them against the Austrians.

So the Italians made a deal, the French and the British reneged on it because they thought they no longer needed the Italians, and then the Anglo-French whined when the Italians did something about it.

The stupid Italians should have known that France and Britain were liars and frauds?

Britain and France were the fools and the world paid a high price for their treachery

EmperorPenguin · Sep 2, 2024

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 said:
What is your plausible alternative to this?

Depends how far back you go. But if France hadn't taken Tunis and instead persued friendly relations with Italy, a Franco-Italian-Russian-Ottoman alignment that kicks the British out of the Mediterranean would be easy to forge

If Russia wins the Japanese war, then the Bjorko alliance of Russia and Germany is almost a given- and they'll drag France and Italy with them. The inevitable partition of the British Empire would soon follow

Search

Search

Italy and the WWI settlement

betgo

AlpinLuke

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43

EmperorPenguin

AlpinLuke

betgo

AlpinLuke

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43

EmperorPenguin

German-Italian Military Relations on the Eve of World War I on JSTOR

EmperorPenguin

AlpinLuke

EmperorPenguin

KipOju

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43

AlpinLuke

johnincornwall

AlpinLuke

EmperorPenguin

EmperorPenguin

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions