alternatehistory.com

The Allies during World War II took the official position that Austria was a victim, rather than a perpetrator, of Axis aggression. Given that (questionable) assumption, there would seem to be a plausible case for them to favor Italy returning South Tyrol/Alto Adige (roughly the area from the Brenner Pass to just south of Bozen/Bolzano) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol Atlantic Charter, self-determination (clear majority of German-speakers), etc. How likely is it that the Allies would take this position?

(1) The UK: According to Antony Evelyn Alcock, *The History of the South Tyrol Question* (1970), "The only consistently pro-Austrian line came from the British", partly because of the persistence of "the doubts expressed on the handing over of the Brenner to Italy in 1919, but which had been quelled because of the desire not to contravene the Treaty of London," partly because of fear that confining Austria to its 1938 boundaries would make it a failed state again, which would either attempt a new Anschluss or fall into the Communist sphere of influence. "The British Government only abandoned its support for Austria when it was realised that the other Powers were against a revision of the Italo-Austrian frontier, and that a more or less deep division among the victorious states would necessarily mean hindering the rapid conclusion of an Italian peace treaty, which the British Government, for various reasons, desired."

(2) I will discuss the USSR's attitude below. Basically, it would not favor Austria unless it was pretty sure it could control Austria.

(3) France: it seemed sympathetic to the Austrians but this was probably largely to exert pressure on Italy to get Briga and Tenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tende When it became clear that France would get what it wanted, it shifted to a pro-Italian position.

(4) The US: A 1944 memorandum of the Committee for Post-War Planning stated

“The Austro-Italian Frontier:—It is recommended that the frontier between Austria and Italy be rectified by cession to Austria of the Italian province of Bolzano with the provision that minor adjustments of this line may be made in accordance with the distribution of the linguistic groups.

The Committee has proposed this solution because:
a. It recognizes this area as Austrian in its history, culture and tradition, and as an area which will probably be predominantly Austrian in population at the end of the war;
b. The retrocession of this region to Austria would aid both in the political and economic reconstruction of an Austrian state;
c. The loss to Italy through this cession would be slight in comparison with the gain to Austria”.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v05/d186

What made the US change its position? In August 1945 De Gasperi wrote a letter to Secretary of State Byrnes outlining the Italian position: (1) he stressed the association of the South Tyrolese with Nazism (this was a favorite theme of the Italians, yet one would think that if they were that bad, the Italians should want to get rid of them--yet he wanted not only to keep them but offered to grant them autonomy!), (2) he also noted the importance of the hydroelectric plants in South Tyrol for Italian industry (the Austians countered by offering the Italians full use of those plants afer the transfer), (3) Austria might end up as a Soviet puppet state, which with control of the Brenner Pass could be a serious menace to Italy. "Should the Italian and Ladin minorities of the Bolzano Province and the economic interest of the whole of Italy be sacrificed to this uncertain future? And, moreover, does this precarious outlook warrant the doors of the Brenner Pass to be left wide open to a new German 'Drang nach Suden'?" Byrnes' response was non-commital, but by September 14, the fate of the area was in effect determined by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Big Four (US, USSR, UK, and France) which turned down Austria's request (without ruling out "minor territorial rectifications" in the future).

Probably the US had simply decided that Italy was much more important than Austria. A chaotic and/or Communist Italy would be a serious menace. Moreover, the Italians were already being required to renounce their African empire; they were being forced to give up territory to Yugoslavia; and to ask them to give up territory to Austria as well could fan discontent in Italy to a dangerous extent. Furthermore, there was no desire to have a quarrel with the Soviets on this question, and they were definitely pro-Italian on it. According to Alcock (p. 97), "the Soviet Union showed itself fundamentally against the transfer of the Upper Adige to Austria, either so as not to increase the the size of the German world or so as not to create a dangerous precedent that could be invoked later to create a modification of the eastern frontiers of Germany. Only for a brief time did the Soviet representatives at Vienna give the impression of supporting the Austrian requests, and this only when Stalin beleived it was possible to exert a preponderant influence on the Austrian Government. At any rate, in the final phase of the negotations, and in particular at Paris, the Soviet Union assumed an attitude clearly favouring the maintenance of the Brenner, 'exercising a decisive influence on the deliberations of the Four Powers.'" If there was ever any chance of the USSR backing Austria's claims, the very poor showing of the Communists in the Austrian legislative elections of November 1945 killed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_legislative_election,_1945

And of course there were other political considerations: I doubt that US policy makers did not consider the Italian American vote. (Indeed, there were widespread Italian American protests about the harshness of the peace treaty that was eventually arrived at in OTL, even though it backed the Italians on the South Tyrol question.) As for the Soviets, they must have realized that for them to take the Austrian side would hurt the prospects of the Italian Communist Party. It was one thing to sacrifice some potential PCI votes to help their Yugoslav comrades; why do it to help what it was becoming clear would be a bourgeois Austria?

So, all in all it seems unlikely the Allies would back Austria on this question. Which is why it's a *challenge.* But I don't think it's inconceivable, given that *originally* the US (as well as the UK) supported Austria's position.
Top