Italo-Yugoslav war

They did try to stamp out all traces of Croats and Slovenians in areas they occupied after WWI, but Ustashe allied with them because Mussolini was the only one willing to support them. Ustashe tried to get German support as well, but they weren't interested, so they had to stick with Italians and pay the pound of flesh they demanded. It is one of the reasons why there was no widespread support for Ustashe within Croatia until creation of NDH, despite the multitude of royal idiocies to piss them off.
 
Didn't interwar Italy do ethnic clensing of Croats?
No.
Fascist Italy did discriminate Slovenians and Croatians in its own territory, and carried out the usual Kulturkampf policies (trying to suppress all non-Italian languages). But "ethnic cleansing" is entirely another kettle of fish. "Learn Italian, don't speak Croatian in public, and be aware that you're a second-class citizen" is one thing, "Run away from your home and town or you'll end up in an unmarked mass grave" is another thing.

Why would they prefer Italy over Serbia?
While Italy mistreated minorities in its own territory as mentioned above, they also supported minorities in other countries' territories, as a way to destabilize them. They provided some funding to Albanians living in the Greek border area (essentially they funded bandits), but more importantly and successfully they funded Croatians in Yugoslavia who were against the Belgrade government. Remember, the Ukrainians too weren't going to be treated better by the Germans than by the Soviets, yet there were Ukrainians who preferred Germany.
 
Yes. They went as far as changing names on tombstones into Italian ones. Their official policy was that there was never a Slavic population in these areas and people were either vigorously helped to remeber their Italian roots or forcefully encouraged to get out of the country.
 
Yes. They went as far as changing names on tombstones into Italian ones. Their official policy was that there was never a Slavic population in these areas and people were either vigorously helped to remeber their Italian roots or forcefully encouraged to get out of the country.
Ha! This is nothing short of ridiculous. "Trying to stamp out all traces" of actually living minorities is what was done during the Yugoslavian Civil Wars, and that was ethnic cleansing actually: either you ran away from your home and town, taking with you only what you could carry, or you ended in an unmarked mass grave.

What you possibly meant is that the Italians tried to "stamp out" all traces of the Croatian and Slovenian culture and language - as opposed to "stamping out" living people - which is something they indeed actually tried, and which I did not deny they did. It's not the same as murdering civilians wholesale, and chasing away any survivors.

Get the difference?

What you define as "stamping out" living people resembles a bit more what was done by the Yugoslavians to the Italians after the war, in 1945. But even in that case, even with a couple hundreds of thousands of ethnic Italians fleeing to Italy, it would still be hard to call it actual ethnic cleansing as we know it. The rate of murders and general violence never came close to what happened in the Yugoslavian Civil Wars or in Rwanda, and a sizable part (even though it would be hard to place a number) of the refugees went away more or less of their own choice, rather than in fear of being murdered in their bedrooms.

I know a thing of two about this border region's difficult history. Don't make outlandish claims, they won't float.
 
Last edited:
Yes. They went as far as changing names on tombstones into Italian ones. Their official policy was that there was never a Slavic population in these areas and people were either vigorously helped to remeber their Italian roots or forcefully encouraged to get out of the country.
They tried to Italianize the population in order to assimilate them. They didn’t kill or forcibly remove them en masses like the Germans did to the Poles in WW2. At least, not as far as I can remember. Maybe I’m wrong.
 
1v1?

Yugoslavia's tin can navy gets drop kicked into the sun, and it's WWI-vintage army doesn't hold up much better.

The Royal Yugoslav airforce however probably performs very well as even in OTL's WWII it managed to get a positive ratio against the airforces arrayed against it.
 
Now going back to the OP question, much depends on when. The window is too wide; 1922 isn't 1939.
Probably the best time for Italy would be 1934. At that time, Mussolini was feeling quite bellicose, but he had not squandered huge sums, manpower and materials in Spain and above all in Ethiopia. Yugoslavia wasn't particularly strong, either.

Even so, while obviously Yugoslavia can't win and probably can't hold an access to the sea, it's entirely possible the logistically weak and not particularly well motivated Regio Esercito gets stalemated some good long way from Belgrade. At which point, France and others are likely to weigh in, not necessarily with an actual DoW on Rome, but with a credible threat of that.

Hopefully Mussolini will be satisfied with gaining border regions, both in the North and along the Albanian border. Not much actual usefulness, of course, and plenty of restless populations to oppress; but then again, he'd be in such a war for prestige. The Serbians might be happy to unload the Slovenians and part of the Croatians, possibly, but not with losing all seaports; and one hopes the Italians aren't stupid enough to advance too far into Kosovo.
 
Ethnic cleansing =/= genocide.
Sure, although the end result of both in a specific region is the final absence of the unwanted group.

What matters here is that cultural repression and discrimination are different from ethnic cleansing, too.
 
Now going back to the OP question, much depends on when. The window is too wide; 1922 isn't 1939.
Probably the best time for Italy would be 1934. At that time, Mussolini was feeling quite bellicose, but he had not squandered huge sums, manpower and materials in Spain and above all in Ethiopia. Yugoslavia wasn't particularly strong, either.

Even so, while obviously Yugoslavia can't win and probably can't hold an access to the sea, it's entirely possible the logistically weak and not particularly well motivated Regio Esercito gets stalemated some good long way from Belgrade. At which point, France and others are likely to weigh in, not necessarily with an actual DoW on Rome, but with a credible threat of that.

Hopefully Mussolini will be satisfied with gaining border regions, both in the North and along the Albanian border. Not much actual usefulness, of course, and plenty of restless populations to oppress; but then again, he'd be in such a war for prestige. The Serbians might be happy to unload the Slovenians and part of the Croatians, possibly, but not with losing all seaports; and one hopes the Italians aren't stupid enough to advance too far into Kosovo.
Would there be any way for Yugoslavia to annex the territories it did post ww2?

And why would Yugo be happy to loose territory? Doesnt that go against the whole Yugoslavist rhetoric they've been espousing forever?
 
Would there be any way for Yugoslavia to annex the territories it did post ww2?
If things go as I guessed, no - they're the losers.

And why would Yugo be happy to loose territory? Doesnt that go against the whole Yugoslavist rhetoric they've been espousing forever?
I didn't write that the Yugoslavians would be happy to lose territory. I wrote that the Serbians might be happy to lose Slovenia and part of Croatia. That's way different, regardless of the pre- and post-war rhetoric.
 
Top