AHC: with an 1890s PoD, Italy doesn’t try to conquer Abyssinia

[raharris1973]

There have been a few times we have discussed on this board Italy winning at Adua instead of losing, and not carrying a shameful memory to ‘avenge’ in the 20th century as a result. We’ve generally concluded that the Italian campaign as planned and organized and executed in 1896 was very likely to fail.

I would like to turn this question around for a change. Your challenge is to have Italy never try to invade Abyssinia in the first place and never intend to subjugate it, so that the Adua defeat does not happen and does not become a lasting shame haunting Italy into the 20th century.

Here is the hard part, I am putting on conditions so you cannot diverge too ‘big’ or too ‘early’ from OTL. So Italian and European and colonial history must go like OTL through at least 1890. Italy can’t be satisfied/pacified by getting Tunis or Egypt instead of France or Britain, and Italy must have territorial interests/protectorates in the Horn of Africa, in Eritrea or Somalia or both.

 

[Evil Crusader]

1890 is probably just too late, coming after theTreaty of Wuchale that forces Italy and Etiopia on a showdown (unless you want to cop out with Menelik failing and Italy being able to creep southwards over a divided Etiopia that ends up as a true protectorate). Even without, it's in Ethiopia's every interest (especially according to contemporary understanding of geopolitics) to gain uncontested access to the sea, which again pits it against Italy and its need for colonies in order to be understood as a true Great Power (again, a pretty standard part of contemporary geopolitics). This is relevant because they'll still end up struggling over Eritrea, and it's pretty much guaranteed that a subjugation attempt fails or a colonial skirmish goes wrong, leading to a desire for vengeance.

By 1890 though Italy has asserted itself as a regional power, so if you can accelerate the downfall of Crispi, the main architect of Italian expansion there, it's quite possible his successors bide their time and avoid having a huge defeat to avenge. Still, the aforementioned reasons to engage remain, and need a huge distraction elsewhere to keep sparks limited in the popular imagination of a nation that sees itself as Great and thus only accepting defeat from peers.

 

[raharris1973]

1890 is probably just too late, coming after theTreaty of Wuchale that forces Italy and Etiopia on a showdown (unless you want to cop out with Menelik failing and Italy being able to creep southwards over a divided Etiopia that ends up as a true protectorate). Even without, it's in Ethiopia's every interest (especially according to contemporary understanding of geopolitics) to gain uncontested access to the sea, which again pits it against Italy and its need for colonies in order to be understood as a true Great Power (again, a pretty standard part of contemporary geopolitics). This is relevant because they'll still end up struggling over Eritrea, and it's pretty much guaranteed that a subjugation attempt fails or a colonial skirmish goes wrong, leading to a desire for vengeance.

By 1890 though Italy has asserted itself as a regional power, so if you can accelerate the downfall of Crispi, the main architect of Italian expansion there, it's quite possible his successors bide their time and avoid having a huge defeat to avenge. Still, the aforementioned reasons to engage remain, and need a huge distraction elsewhere to keep sparks limited in the popular imagination of a nation that sees itself as Great and thus only accepting defeat from peers.

So, probably too late, you need to contrive circumstances on one or both sides to keep the countries distracted from confrontation with each other.

What if I give you any time from 1885 onward?

 

[Evil Crusader]

So, probably too late, you need to contrive circumstances on one or both sides to keep the countries distracted from confrontation with each other.

What if I give you any time from 1885 onward?

1885 is fine, as the Mahdist War is still in its earlier stages. From there, we can have two possible outcomes that respect the AHC:

- the Mahdis do better than OTL, Italy is invited by Britain to come earlier, the Sudan becomes an Anglo-Italian condominium and Italian public opinion, thus assuaged and likely distracted by the "Sudanese ulcer", cares much less about Ethiopian violations or belligerence.
- the Italians do worse or focus more on Somalia, Menelik thus sells his Tigray rivals to Britain, creating a scenario where Ethiopia still borders Somalia and a smaller, but extant Eritrea; however circumstances make it aim at retaking Djibouti as their favored sea outlet, it may well be that the Fashoda expedition gets fired upon by the Ethiopians themselves, and thus Italo-Ethiopian relations stay decent and even warm.