A mightier (post-unification)Italy?

Faux Pas

Banned
My first post:D, I'm not sure whether its convention to introduce oneself, but I shan't bother.

It strikes me that, even following the Savoyard unification of Italy, Italy was fairly impotent by European standards. Hell, they only managed the unification with French and Geran help to begin with. Then, later on, they got beaten by Ethiopia.

Lets not even mention their awful performance in the World Wars.

As an individual of Italian descent(though not born there), I can't help but feel embarrassment by their performance. Thats where my long winding dullard of a post actually gets to the point.

How could Italy have a more succesful post-unification experience? In terms of military endeavours, territorial expansion and economic potence.
Also ideally reducing the size of the Italian Diaspora somewhat(excluding immigration to Italian controlled colonies), though I suspect a large diaspora is inevitable.
 
Welcome! :)

And you're just in time on Italy what-ifs (WI), there's been a huge spate of Italy threads lately including my own Viva Balbo [/shamelessselfplug]

Ok, as you've mentioned Italy's going to have a damned hard time of it. First, the economy isn't in good shape after years of wars and foreign occupations and the general loss of the trade monopolies that made the city-states rich in the Renaissance. The countryside, the south and islands in particular, are in very poor shape, often barely beyond feudalism by socio-economic standards. Natural resources are practically non-existent and foreign debt is a major problem. In our time line (OTL), by WWI Industry is fledgling and small. Poverty is severe and there are regions where starvation is common, height averages way below norm and aging severe. The diaspora was the major outcome of this and probably unavoidable.

Second, political and cultural unification is even today a long way off. Even Fascism at its most megalithic couldn't begin to make Italians think of the nation first. Our theoretical "Giuseppe Pesci from Napoli" likely considered himself a Pesci first, a Catholic second, a Neapolitan third and an Italian fourth.

Overcoming these barriers will be exceedingly hard and take the better part of a century or longer at minimum. In truth, Italy did a far better job overall than most of their contemporaries and socio-economic peers. Mussolini even had people convinced that Italy was a first-rate nation, up until the war showed otherwise.

Best case IMO, Giolitti stays PM in WWI, keeps Italy neutral in exchange for the south Trentino. Assuming Entente victory, maybe takes advantage of the post-war chaos to secure Istria and Trieste, maybe even Dalmatia if France doesn't stop them. If the CP wins, maybe go after Sardinia and Tunisia, even Nice or Savoy.

If the Italian liberal state can hold together (more likely without the war chaos to fuel extremism like the Fascists) they could develop at a pace at least equal to under Fascism, possibly better considering that economic growth rates under Fascism were not quite up to liberal growth rates, though it's arguable why.

If Italy can keep Libya until oil is discovered, things will change dramatically for the better.
 

Faux Pas

Banned
I suggest you hold off the welcome mat for a little bit- I'm named Faux Pas for a reason;)
Ok, as you've mentioned Italy's going to have a damned hard time of it. First, the economy isn't in good shape after years of wars and foreign occupations and the general loss of the trade monopolies that made the city-states rich in the Renaissance. The countryside, the south and islands in particular, are in very poor shape, often barely beyond feudalism by socio-economic standards. Natural resources are practically non-existent and foreign debt is a major problem. In our time line (OTL), by WWI Industry is fledgling and small. Poverty is severe and there are regions where starvation is common, height averages way below norm and aging severe. The diaspora was the major outcome of this and probably unavoidable.
Mmm. Stretching it, but whats their chance of redirecting the majority of it to colonies(which of of course leaves the neccesity of acceptable destinations- East Africa and Libya really weren't, were they?)
If Italy can keep Libya until oil is discovered, things will change dramatically for the better.
That leaves the difficult question of the native Libyans... with apologies for distastefullness, wouldn't genocide/ethnic cleansing be likely neccesary?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
That leaves the difficult question of the native Libyans... with apologies for distastefullness, wouldn't genocide/ethnic cleansing be likely neccesary?


No at the independence there was 1 million Libyans, Italians could easily become a majority, even without any nastiness.
 
Welcome on the board!

How could Italy have a more succesful post-unification experience? In terms of military endeavours, territorial expansion and economic potence.
Like Geekhis Khan wrote, a lot of the italian problems come from the poor economical situation of the pre-unification states. The lack of natural resources didn't help too.

An earlier unification could have solved in part these problems, no matter how difficult could be (though, I think that a smarter Murat could have done it). Having a different royal family would have helped, too. The Savoia were quite disappointing as rulers go and they were involved directly in several of the italian disadventures (Fascism, anyone?). Personally I find the idea of an Italy unified under the Hapsburg-Lorena quite intriguing.

If you prefer to stick more closely to OTL, I would suggest to avoid completely any colonial adventure. Colonies for Italy were only a huge waste of money and men, which both of them could have found a better employement in the homeland.

Avoiding that useless abattoir of WW1 would have been another good coice, but I'm afraid that resisting the pressures from the entente would have been nearly impossible. So basically you have two choices: supporting the central powers in 1914, enhancing considerably the CP chances to win, or try to delay the entry into war for the entente as much as possible, with 1917 being ideal.

For the post WW1 period a series of liberal goverments could consolidate the economy and the society. In the evenience of an entente victory, the best course for italian politic is to be as close as possible to France and Great Britain. Together these nations won't have many problems dealing with Germany. Hitler's plans would have been utterly crushed probably when attermpting the anschluss or, at worse, during the Czech crisis.

If the CP wins, maybe go after Sardinia and Tunisia, even Nice or Savoy.
Geekhis, Sardinia was already italian! What do you think Balbo would say, if he could hear you! :D

That leaves the difficult question of the native Libyans... with apologies for distastefullness, wouldn't genocide/ethnic cleansing be likely neccesary?
Necessary not, since the libyan population was, and still is, quite low. With a steady immigration, italians could have outnumbered the natives easily. Coupled with a policy of "forced assimilation", there would have been no necessity of an ethnic cleansing. Of course, this doesn't mean that there could have been one anyway...
 
Greetings! Here in AH.Com, we often have threads seeking to wank out Italy (mostly neutrality in either WWs). To see a good timeline about stronger Italy, visit my TL in my sig! *plug and elbow on Geekhis:)*

Well, most of the time simply having cleverer leaders could benefit Italy a lot. Charles Albert taking advantage of the 1848 revolutions (pre Unification, I know), Cavour surviving longer, neutrality in either WW, and of course the long time 'Mussolini was shrewder'.

Any of these could lead to a much mightier Italy.
 
Geekhis, Sardinia was already italian! What do you think Balbo would say, if he could hear you! :D

Oh damnation! :mad: I keep confusing Corsica and Sardinia for some reason. And I've actually BEEN to Sardinia! Hell...I need more sleep. :(

Necessary not, since the libyan population was, and still is, quite low. With a steady immigration, italians could have outnumbered the natives easily. Coupled with a policy of "forced assimilation", there would have been no necessity of an ethnic cleansing. Of course, this doesn't mean that there could have been one anyway...

Balbo was actually quite close to pulling this off OTL as Gov. An Italian majority Libya by 1965 is quite plausible if Italy holds on. Still, might see terrorism appear among a minority of Libyan nationalists and pan-Arabists.

And Faux...the actual hope for Libya was to be a "fourth shore" to divert some of the diaspora and hopefully reattract expats from abroad, so yeah.
 

Eurofed

Banned
A rather effective and plausible way to improve Italy's post-unification might is to accelerate its industrial development and to increase its great power influence vs. France and Austria both. IMO one of the best ways to accomplish this objective is Italy developing a strong long-term strategic economic-military partnership with a mighty unified Germany as its main "sidekick" (a previous worthy alternative would have been Napoleonic France, but it's outside the bounds stated by the OP). Historically Italy's breakthrough economic and industrial development in the 20th century occurred by means of strong integration with the German economy.

Possible ways to do so: (Hohenzollern-led or Habsburg-led) Greater Germany and Italy unify in 1848 (they would be natural partners with Hungary vs. France, Britain, and Russia); Bismarck and Willy make a stable and eventually victorious Triple Alliance with Germany, Italy, and Russia or Britain, forsaking Austria; Italy sides with the CPs during WWI, they win, after the war the Habsburg Empire collapses as result of the war stress, and is partitioned among Germany, Italy, and Hungary.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Like Geekhis Khan wrote, a lot of the italian problems come from the poor economical situation of the pre-unification states. The lack of natural resources didn't help too.

Indeed.

An earlier unification could have solved in part these problems, no matter how difficult could be (though, I think that a smarter Murat could have done it).

Very true, and I seize the opportunity to shamelessly pimp my own Ameriwank TL, which includes a much more successful Murat in the last update.

Having a different royal family would have helped, too. The Savoia were quite disappointing as rulers go and they were involved directly in several of the italian disadventures (Fascism, anyone?).

True, although I think that even a Savoia-led Italian unification in 1848, if the 1848 liberal-national revolutions in Germany, Italy, and the Habsburg Empire had been successful, would have been a rather better headstart for Italy than OTL.

Personally I find the idea of an Italy unified under the Hapsburg-Lorena quite intriguing.

If we can have liberal Habsburgs, I find rather more intriguing Germany, Austria, and Italy unified as a confederation under a liberal Habsburg emperor in 1848.

If you prefer to stick more closely to OTL, I would suggest to avoid completely any colonial adventure. Colonies for Italy were only a huge waste of money and men, which both of them could have found a better employement in the homeland.

If they had discovered Libyan oil in 1920s, how much false this statement would have been. :eek:

Avoiding that useless abattoir of WW1 would have been another good coice, but I'm afraid that resisting the pressures from the entente would have been nearly impossible. So basically you have two choices: supporting the central powers in 1914, enhancing considerably the CP chances to win, or try to delay the entry into war for the entente as much as possible, with 1917 being ideal.

For the purpose of making Italy mighty, far better that they enter for the CPs in 1914-15, not only they make CP victory much more likely, they net better territorial rewards this way, but they raise themselves to first-rate great powers. Neither Austria nor the Ottomans would have got nowhere the same potential to become the second most powerful member of the victorius CP alliance. Here is a discussion of how Italy may make a plausible early CP entry.

Necessary not, since the libyan population was, and still is, quite low. With a steady immigration, italians could have outnumbered the natives easily. Coupled with a policy of "forced assimilation", there would have been no necessity of an ethnic cleansing. Of course, this doesn't mean that there could have been one anyway...

Very true, although the harsh repression of Senussi insurgency in 1920s would remain, but it would happen anyway.
 
Last edited:
Libyan oil discovery before the 30's is highly unlikely without a much earlier POD than the Italo-Turkish war. Before then Mukhtar's Senusite bands pretty much controlled the areas of Fezzan where the oil is. Of course discovery assumes someone knows to look for it in the middle of the freakin' trackless desert. Dumb luck is the only realistic option before about mid to late 30's when Balbo began some half-hearted explorations near the coast.

Assuming 30's discovery by some chance encounter, the tech to get to it (deep wells) only exists in Texas, so you'd need serious US involvement. Plus consider the roads/infrastructure necessary to get to it and get it to where it can be used.

In all, getting practical oil supplies out of Libya before the war starts is extremely unlikely without some very early POD. Most likely, 1950's-1960's is more practical.
 

Faraday Cage

Figure out two rival powers, with Italy in between them, and have one help the Italians build up a mighty navy in order to create a counter against the other.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Libyan oil discovery before the 30's is highly unlikely without a much earlier POD than the Italo-Turkish war. Before then Mukhtar's Senusite bands pretty much controlled the areas of Fezzan where the oil is. Of course discovery assumes someone knows to look for it in the middle of the freakin' trackless desert. Dumb luck is the only realistic option before about mid to late 30's when Balbo began some half-hearted explorations near the coast.

Assuming 30's discovery by some chance encounter, the tech to get to it (deep wells) only exists in Texas, so you'd need serious US involvement. Plus consider the roads/infrastructure necessary to get to it and get it to where it can be used.

In all, getting practical oil supplies out of Libya before the war starts is extremely unlikely without some very early POD. Most likely, 1950's-1960's is more practical.

You make a good point. That's why I do not regard early discovery of Libyan oil, by itself, as a very good way to make Italy that much mightier, by tiself. Rather, IMO it is icing on the cake. In other words, if Italy industrializes, develops its military and conquers Libya somewhat faster, by mean s of PoD such as the ones I proposed, then discovery of Libyan oil in the 1920s-1930s becomes that much more likely and gives extra boost to booming Italian industrialization. Just like Germany, pretty much all the really good PoDs to make Italy more of a big long-term success story than OTL are pre-WWI.
 
Quote:
If you prefer to stick more closely to OTL, I would suggest to avoid completely any colonial adventure. Colonies for Italy were only a huge waste of money and men, which both of them could have found a better employement in the homeland.
If they had discovered Libyan oil in 1920s, how much false this statement would have been. :eek:

Had it been possible, I would completely agree with you :D.

Unfortunately the libyan oil fields are quite deep and a reliable way to scan them was developed only in the 50s. Before that date such deposit were discovered only by chance. Besides the technology to exploit them was known only in the USA.

Now in 1938, Ardito Desio, while scouting for water sources, found by chance one of these oil fields. Of course, since the political situation, the italians could not call an american company, while the AGIP lacked the necessary deep drills.

Now if we suppose a closer relationship between USA and Italy, you could have your oil fields working in few years. Of course in such a scenario the italian oil would be the lesser of the consequences...
 

The Sandman

Banned
Earlier and much more strict immigration quotas in the US, specifically directed against the undesirable (read: Catholic and not white enough) inhabitants of Southern and Eastern Europe could also improve Italy's situation a little.

EDIT: I recommend everyone in this thread head over to Timelines and Scenarios and check out Croesus' "A Fitter Italian Military". Granted, the TL is probably dead now, but what's there would be useful for this discussion.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Figure out two rival powers, with Italy in between them, and have one help the Italians build up a mighty navy in order to create a counter against the other.

Well, that's what would happened if Bismarck had not done one big glaring mistake of picking useless Austria instead of Russia as ally. Otherwise, Italy would have been the Mediterranean pillar of the Triple Alliance. Although Italy would have needed a mighty army to fight a two-fronts war against France and Austria and defend it coasts. Although, an early strong Army and Navy would have meant early conquest of Libya and disocvery of its oil, too.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Earlier and much more strict immigration quotas in the US, specifically directed against the undesirable (read: Catholic and not white enough) inhabitants of Southern and Eastern Europe could also improve Italy's situation a little.

Unlikely, emigration unloaded Italy of its excess landless peasant population and improved its economy. Again, you need a rather stronger Italian industrialization in mid-late 1800s to give them a gainful alternative employment.
 
How could Italy have a more succesful post-unification experience? In terms of military endeavours, territorial expansion and economic potence.

Simple- make sure Francesco Crispi isn't Prime Minister. Crispi's first term in office from 1887-1891 inadvertantly crippled Italy thanks to his obsessive Francophobia. By secretly joining the Triple Alliance, he ensured that the French would be furious when the news inevitably leaked out- worse, it did so during the negotiations over a renewal of the Franco-Italian trade treaty, which he subsequently walked away from. Crispi's subsequent escalation of the crisis into a full-scale trade war, which lasted a decade, was catastrophic, and essentially destroyed all realistic hope Italy had of being a 'proper' Great Power.

In 1886, almost half of Italy's exports went to France, and the French were also the single largest importer. This trade relationship was destroyed practically overnight, and did not recover until after WW2- in 1913, the equivalent export figure is only 9%. The value of trade between France and Italy fell from 444m lire in 1887 to 165m lire in 1888. Put simply, this had the effect of completely buggering the Italian economy.

This not only helped spur Italian emigration to the US (and for that matter, France), but it gutted the armed forces. In the 1880s, the Italians had a very modern and well-trained navy that was the equal of the French Mediterranean force if not slightly more powerful; by 1893 sailors were going without pay and the fleet was effectively left to rust. Lack of funds also contributed to the Adowa debacle.

Thanks to Crispi's demagogic, brutally ‘frank’ speeches, and his annual habit of orchstrating war scares, it was virtually impossible for the French Government to make concessions while he remained in power, even though he made some half-hearted efforts in that direction; he clung to office for just long enough to ensure the damage to Italy was permanent.

So, how do we get rid of Crispi? This is actually pretty easy; in 1879, his career was almost terminally damaged by the revelation that he was a bigamist. His comeback in 1887 was rather improbable and can be derailed quite easily; for the minimum number of butterflies, let's say that Giovanni Nicotera has his miraculous comeback three years earlier than OTL and supplants Crispi.

What then? Well, Italy would conclude agreements with Britain as OTL and probably flirt with the Triple Alliance, although not become a full member. Relations with France would be tense but far improved over OTL, and a renewed Franco-Italian trade treaty would probably be signed at some point or other, although it may take several torturous years of negotiation. Even if the deal falls through Italy would still be far better off ITTL.

In the long term, Abyssinia probably goes Italian, and will be heavily developed; doubtless some of OTL's emigration across the Atlantic will be diverted to the Ethiopian highlands. It's just possible that everyone gets ahead of themselves and an Italian column sets off into Equatoria to fight the Mahdi, although it's more likely that the desire to remain on good terms with the British will trump this. A bit of clever diplomacy might leave the Sudanese border rather closer to the Nile than in OTL however.

After that, we'll probably see enthusiastic interference in the Balkans and Libya ahead of schedule- maybe an Italo-Ottoman war c.1905 or so followed by the Balkan League piling on in a reversal of what we saw in 1911. Maybe a Chinese concession or two could be claimed in the wake of the Boxer rising too. In power bloc terms, a middle course between Germany and France would probably be steered, irritation at Austria gradually winning out over cordiality to Germany- perhaps an official Anglo-Italo-Japanese bloc emerges?

Either way, by the 1900s Italy is far stronger, more militarily powerful, claims a larger empire, has a larger economy, and is more self-confident. On the downside, removing the influence of Crispi may well introduce a fair bit of political instability beyond what occured OTL, but at least it removes a man who in a number of ways was the prototype Duce.
 
Top