Italy doesn't take Libya

What if, in 1911, Italy decided not to seize the provinces of Cyrenacia and Tripolitania from the Ottoman Empire, which later became the Italian Colony and later independent state of Libya?
Would the Balkan Wars still happen if the Empire had not just suffered defeat in those two provinces? What about effects on World War One, if it happens?
 
Imajin said:
What if, in 1911, Italy decided not to seize the provinces of Cyrenacia and Tripolitania from the Ottoman Empire, which later became the Italian Colony and later independent state of Libya?
Would the Balkan Wars still happen if the Empire had not just suffered defeat in those two provinces? What about effects on World War One, if it happens?

Hard to say - I suspect the Balkan Wars would still happen, but the Ottomans would have a better chance of winning.
 
Wendell said:
Actually, could the war have expanded with Libya up for grabs?

If Austria could have held the Two Siciles, an Austrian Libya would make wars more interesting.
 
Aussey said:
If Austria could have held the Two Siciles, an Austrian Libya would make wars more interesting.
True, particularly with the advent of Oil. How might an alternative power administer Cyrenaica and Tripolitania? Would the British or Fench end up with Fezzan?
 

Neroon

Banned
Aussey said:
If Austria could have held the Two Siciles, an Austrian Libya would make wars more interesting.

I'd also mean that AH would probably start WW1 with a bigger fleet given the need to protect their colony.
 
Possibly keeping the empire intact post WW1 (with MAJOR reforms) if they join their British and French allies in Europe...assuming WW1 starts differently, or Britain and/or France promise to backup Austro-Hungarian demands
 
Well, the Italians in 1940-41 wouldn't have suffered such major reverses at the hands of British Empire forces in the Western Desert under Gen O'Connor...
 
Top