France annexes Northwestern corner of Italy after WW2

Visions of Victory explores the views of eight war leaders of the major powers of World War II - Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Chiang Kai-shek, Stalin, Churchill, de Gaulle, and Roosevelt - and compares their visions of the future. Astonishing in its synthesis and scope, Weinberg's comparison of the individual portraits of the war-time leaders is a highly-original and compelling study of history that might have been. What emerges is a startling picture of postwar worlds: besides the extermination of the Jews, Hitler intended Germans to inhabit all of Eastern Europe. Both Mussolini and Hitler intended to have extensive colonies in Africa. Churchill hoped to see the re-emergence of the British and French empires. De Gaulle wanted to annex the northwest corner of Italy. Stalin wanted to and achieved control of Eastern Europe. Roosevelt's vision of the future was the closest to being fulfilled, including, the establishment of the United Nations.
What if he succeded and France annexed the modern italian regions of Piedmont, Aosta Valley and Liguria, what effects would it have on NATO and Frano-Italian relations?
Could we see irredentism remain strong in Italy?
 
Last edited:
What if he succeded and France annexed the modern italian regions of Piedmont, Aosta Valley and Liguria, what effects would it have on NATO and Frano-Italian relations?
Could we see irredentism remain strong in Italy?

Depending on how much was taken, it would hurt Franco-Italian relations, certainly, but it wouldn't completely cripple them. Irredentism would be stronger for a little while, but, again, relations would ultimately normalize. Think of other nations that have given up territory recently; they might have some bluster and angry speeches, but not much more than that. It'd royally piss Italy off, but politically, it'd be bad business to make a fuss. Italy wouldn't be getting that territory back, so in the long run, when it's become firmly French territory for decades, there's little reason to hurt trade. Particularly since after WW2, there were bigger threats to focus on (namely, the USSR and Communism in general).

EDIT: Actually, in retrospect, it might do more than I initially thought. I just looked at figures, and those three regions make up a tenth of Italy's population, which is a pretty large amount. It's the equivalent of Mexico taking California, and France has less historical claim to Piedmont than Mexico does to California. Italy still joins NATO, but Franco-Italian relations are very damaged. They still do business, but the Italians begin snubbing the French, giving precedence to other nations, etc.
 
Well, much like the Polish annexation of Prussia, Silesia, and Eastern Brandenburg/Pommerania, this would only be sustainable in the long run with full out ethnic cleansing. The Soviets and Poles were quite happy to ethnically cleanse the eastern Germans, but even DeGaulle might not be willing to kill/move that many Italians. And of course, no chance in hell of American/British support without some massive changes that leads to Italy being seen as the devils spawn much like Germany was.
 

Tellus

Banned
France ultimately didnt gain territory in WW2 because of her hasty defeat. Since she had to be liberated and her soldiers later fought her battles with foreign equipment, she was an indebted victor with less bargaining power at the peace table.

Indeed, as late as 1943, Churchill famously infuriated De Gaulle by refusing to promise him the territorial integrity of France - though it seems odd in retrospect, I dont see how or why the Allies could have wished to leave Alsace-Lorraine to Germany in any scenario aside from a negociated peace, which had already been ruled out by then.

It did show out little power France had, though, at the time. The way he was treated probably fostered anti-English sentiment in DeGaulle, leading to things like; his public desire to be closer to the USSR (which he kept calling Russie, to conjure positive feelings dating to the Entente days) after the Cold war began, his desire to be free of NATO influence, and maybe even his support of Québécois nationalism ;)

Anyhow, to get back on topic, I doubt London and Washington would want to sign up on this, so the French would have to conjure really surprising arguments.
 

Susano

Banned
France ultimately didnt gain territory in WW2 because of her hasty defeat.
Thats technically incorrect. France did annex a handful of Italian muncipalities in the Alps. Nothing major at all, but still, technically you are incorrect ;)

Als for all your talk about France having been week at this tiem an dhence ignroed by the allies it seems strange they nontheless got an occupation zone in Germany.
 
What if he succeded and France annexed the modern italian regions of Piedmont, Aosta Valley and Liguria, what effects would it have on NATO and Frano-Italian relations?
Could we see irredentism remain strong in Italy?

I think one consequence might be a communist Italy, communists would play the nationalist flute and would be popular. Now, what a communist Italy would do for the rest of the Cold War would be very interesting.
 

Tellus

Banned
Thats technically incorrect. France did annex a handful of Italian muncipalities in the Alps. Nothing major at all, but still, technically you are incorrect ;)

Als for all your talk about France having been week at this tiem an dhence ignroed by the allies it seems strange they nontheless got an occupation zone in Germany.

It was pretty much inevitable to give them an occupation zone, not to mention that this was burden-sharing just as much - nay, much more - than a privilege.

Thanks for reminding me about the tiny annexations in Italy.
 
that would be bad, really bad, Italy loses the biggest port in whole Mediterranean (Genua), two of the vercices of their "industrial triangule" (Genua and Turin)....

This will be enough to turn italian population against the allies, even to the point to side with USSR in the cold war....
as Jukra pointed out wile I was writing
 
Last edited:
In the original circumstances - it's not surprising that it didn't happen.

But in a different TL - perhaps.

Suppose, Husky didn't happen, maybe D-Day in late '43, and/or the Med route was Sardinia - Corsica - South of France. All this without Italy changing sides and/or ditching Mussolini.

In such a TL Italy may be treated more harshly!
 
It cannot happen: in the area assumed t be annexed, the french-speaking population is around 2% of the total. No state in the 20th century would be so crazy to annex a completely extraneous population.

At the peace treaty discussions, De Gaulle asked for Val d'Aosta, where the population is mostly bilingual. It was never a too serious request, though, and the American were quite hostile to it
 
It cannot happen: in the area assumed t be annexed, the french-speaking population is around 2% of the total. No state in the 20th century would be so crazy to annex a completely extraneous population.

At the peace treaty discussions, De Gaulle asked for Val d'Aosta, where the population is mostly bilingual. It was never a too serious request, though, and the American were quite hostile to it

as far as I know, Valdaostans are trilingual by choiche, having also their own language, the Patois...
 
De GAulles may have been more serious at annexing Monaco. Especially if it had been done by the Resistance without him been seing to give an order.

I was unaware he had any design on a major part of Italy ( val d'aoste aside ). Anyone has serious sources?
 

Susano

Banned
"Northwest Corner of Italy" is a pretty badly worded formulation anyways, as we dont know what thats supposed to entail. Piedmont+Liguria is the NW Corner of Italy, but in a smaller sense, so is the Aosta Valley. Maybe indeed only that region was meant?
 
This will be enough to turn italian population against the allies, even to the point to side with USSR in the cold war....

That was my first thought was the part this turn of events would play in the great game of Cold War politics. Italy almost voted in full Communist control the way things went anyway right ... seems that the Soviets could/would have played a sympathy card and received a lot of Italian support in those 50's and early 60's years. Perhaps a Tito'like' stance even? An Austria-Italy-Yugoslavian (Swiss even?)bloc?

I agree a key point for the long term consequences of the issue would be if the Italians were systematically removed or herded out like the peoples of Breslau, Konigsberg, and surrounding regions were?
 
I tend to wonder what effect this would have on historiography, this would leave a dark spot on the western Allied Powers, as a member of them engaged in ethnic cleansing, this could prove to be an important propaganda point for the Soviets and western communists.
 

Deleted member 5719

I agree a key point for the long term consequences of the issue would be if the Italians were systematically removed or herded out like the peoples of Breslau, Konigsberg, and surrounding regions were?

Ethnic cleansing of that part of the World is ASB. Firstly the people aren't different enough, same religion, same culture, same language. Dialects shade into one another on the Franco-Italian border, and the French claim to that territory would be based on the fact the Val d'Aosta and surrounding areas are actually culturally French. If you get rid of the inhabitants this argument disappears.

A plebiscite in the Val D'Aosta is a possibility, but France couldn't treat Italy as a conquered nation even if it had wanted to, Italt was an ally by the end of the war.
 
Top