Effects of Italian victory during First Italo–Ethiopian War?

I'm not sure how the Italians pull it off, but they do and manage to bring Ethiopia into the Italian Empire. What are the economic and social effects in Italy?
 
Part of the Italian Migration would be diverted to Africa. Leading to a solidly Italian Ethiopia.
this means more of a Italian Push into Kenya, and Italian troops in German East Africa during GW1.
If this Italy gets Libya in 1910, Then there will be a push into South Sudan [Roads, Railway etc] in order to link the two.

Without the Ethiopia debacle in the mid 30's Italy remains part of the Western Alliance, and is either part of the Allies, or Neutral in GW2.
 
I was also thinking of the effects this would have on Italy in the run up to WWI, if Italy lets say had a greater standing viva no loss of prestige for losing to Ethiopia in this TL would it be able to better negotiate alliances instead of being seen a second rate nation desperate for a stronger ally to latch on to? Also lets say this gives Italy a positive upswing in its economy between 1898-1914 could we see an Italy with a more prepared army and a more extensive rail system?
 
It may very well lead to Italy getting a more favorable settlement after World War I. With a solidly Italian Ethiopia it's plausable for German East Africa to get annexed.

Just with that positive contribution alone may give Italy grounds to annex the Adriatic coast when Austria-Hungary breaks up instead of just getting Trento. I don't see Britain allowing a land connection between Ethipoia and Libya though. Their claims to Egypt and the Sudan are pretty old.

One of Mussolini's biggest rallying cries when he siezed power was how the Allies screwed them over in the post war settlements. If Mussolini doesn't get to sieze power, then things get interesting. Hitler modeled his power grab after Mussolini.

Without that role model or another Fascist state it would take longer for Hitler to grab power. Or maybe he doesn't even manage to. Might make an interesting timeline.
 
Italian Monarchy during WW2 that supports the Allies? That would make hell for Germany if it was to happen because that would be another front to fight and Italy is not well suited to mechanized warfare.

Also a stronger better of Italy during WWI might force the Germans and Austrians to divert even more men, because lets say a more competent Iatalian Army actually manages to achive its early war goals with some ease, how would that effect the war?
 
This new Italy may well stay neutral during World War 2. Up at first it was just Germany against France and Britain. This is of course assuming the Nazi's even rise to power without Mussolini's example ten years earlier.

Italy with a Greater East Africa, and it's Adriatic colonies it saught in WW1 really has no reason to start another fight. Unless of course Hitler decides to pick a fight with them.
 
This new Italy may well stay neutral during World War 2. Up at first it was just Germany against France and Britain. This is of course assuming the Nazi's even rise to power without Mussolini's example ten years earlier.

Italy with a Greater East Africa, and it's Adriatic colonies it saught in WW1 really has no reason to start another fight. Unless of course Hitler decides to pick a fight with them.

I wonder what a post WWI world will look like with the Balkans firmly in Italys sphere of influence?
 
Well if Italy is firmly in charge of the area, there really wouldn't be a need for a Yugoslavian nation. I could see Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia all independant after the war, albeit they'd all be landlocked.

It'd be interesting to see which groups Italy favors because ultamitely they'd be the ones deciding who was on top and who wasn't when the inevitable feuding starts.

It's also be interesting to see how Italian-Greek relations progressed.
 
Part of the Italian Migration would be diverted to Africa. Leading to a solidly Italian Ethiopia.

Why would it be any more successful at attracting immigrants than German East Africa, Kenya, or Rhodesia?

More importantly, who is going to pay???
Significant numbers of immigrants would require infrastructures to be built.
Ethiopia is not just behind the corner: everything must be put on ships, transported through Suez and the Red sea, unloaded in Erythrea and then transported to Ethiopia.

The Ethiopian highlands are certainly no prime agricultural lands: if one wants a settler colony in th centre of Africa, better to make an agreement with the British for a joint development of Rhodesia (remembering that it must be infrastructured, and the produce must be transported to the market)
An even smarter idea would be to provide a stake to migrants going to selected destinations (Argentina? Brasil? USA?)

Ethiopia was a dumb proposition from the start, and not unsurprisingly noone had tried to set up a stake. It only made sense from a pov of national pride, but then no need to conquer it: some kind of protectorate, wasting less money and bringing in the same result, would have been much more appropriate
 
Why would it be any more successful at attracting immigrants than German East Africa, Kenya, or Rhodesia?
Because this is in the middle of the Italian Migration.
In the 1880s, they numbered 300,000; in the 1890s, 600,000; in the decade after that, more than two million. By 1920, when immigration began to taper off, more than 4 million Italians had come to the United States, and represented more than 10 percent of the nation’s foreign-born population.
While most will still go to the US or Argentinian, even a small %age of this stream would be enuff to change Italian East Africa.
And If the Italian Government gets involved It could affect the Migration.
 
The Ethiopian highlands are certainly no prime agricultural lands: if one wants a settler colony in th centre of Africa, better to make an agreement with the British for a joint development of Rhodesia (remembering that it must be infrastructured, and the produce must be transported to the market)

I'm confused. Aren't the Ethiopian Highlands precisely the best spot in Sub-Saharan Africa to grow wheat and other cereals? It also has more rivers and a colder climate than other areas in Eastern Africa, so it's probably more attractive to Europeans - at least quite more than... Lybia. Throw in an organized colonization program, a decent water supply infrastructure, and a plan to whipe out malaria and other diseases, and after some decades it might be maintaining a human population bigger than that of OTL Ethiopia today (providing the Italian Army manages to pacify completely the country).

The first important butterflies would be no assassination of Umberto I and perhaps no Italo-Turkish War to cover the shame of the defeat... thus no Balkan Wars as we know it, and who knows how much would be WW1 recognizable to us.
 
I'm confused. Aren't the Ethiopian Highlands precisely the best spot in Sub-Saharan Africa to grow wheat and other cereals? It also has more rivers and a colder climate than other areas in Eastern Africa, so it's probably more attractive to Europeans - at least quite more than... Lybia. Throw in an organized colonization program, a decent water supply infrastructure, and a plan to whipe out malaria and other diseases, and after some decades it might be maintaining a human population bigger than that of OTL Ethiopia today (providing the Italian Army manages to pacify completely the country).

The first important butterflies would be no assassination of Umberto I and perhaps no Italo-Turkish War to cover the shame of the defeat... thus no Balkan Wars as we know it, and who knows how much would be WW1 recognizable to us.

With the proper action taken Ethiopia due to its agricultural potential and surprising amount of mineral resources could be very very profitable for who ever manages to subdue the restive populace, with enough of an Italian presence viva colonists and enough infrastructure built up you could turn Ethiopia into a money maker. The initial investment will be costly but the return will far out way the initial cost.
 
Colonies give you a low return on investment. Italy would be much poorer and less powerful if they had colonies to suck up money from their industrialisation drive before WWI.
Of course, that might make them less inclined to get involved in WWI at all. That was an economic catastrophe for Italy, so an Ethiopian colony might make them better off after all.
 
With the proper action taken Ethiopia due to its agricultural potential and surprising amount of mineral resources could be very very profitable for who ever manages to subdue the restive populace, with enough of an Italian presence viva colonists and enough infrastructure built up you could turn Ethiopia into a money maker. The initial investment will be costly but the return will far out way the initial cost.

What about specialty crops? I know Ethiopia is great for coffee (it's where the original wild plant is from). Will it support any other such crops?
 
What about specialty crops? I know Ethiopia is great for coffee (it's where the original wild plant is from). Will it support any other such crops?

Its ideal for various cereals as well as pulses, oilseeds, potatoes, and sugarcane. As well as having locations ideal for raising large numbers of livestock. Ethiopia also has deposits of coal, gemstones, kaolin, iron ore, soda ash, gold, and tantalum as well though I don't know how extensive its deposits are. There is also some natural gas in eastern part of the country but I don''t really know how large it is or how signigicant that would be to the Italians in the late 19th and early 20th century. With the proper investment Ethiopia could become a agricultural money maker, in a case that Italy doesn't get involved in a WWI type conflict it could make a pretty penny selling food stuffs to both factions.
 
Top