Italy without 2nd Ethiopian war?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What would get Italy to not invade Ethiopia in the 1930s and what would Italy/Mussolini do without that colonial project? Perhaps France and Britain forcefully discouraged Italy from escalating the war, which then makes them and the LoN look more powerful in the 1930s. Italy is still then alienated from the Allies as a result, but avoids the war and the expense, plus the need to garrison and invest in Ethiopia. What happens with Italian foreign policy thereafter?
 

Deleted member 1487

Italy may get a border change with Ethiopia to playcate them. Then Italy can invest more into Libya and supporting the LofN to the detriment of Germany.
In the case of avoiding alienation with the Allies, how does Italy respond then to the AGNA and resulting fallout between Britain and France? Or Japan's Chin invasion? Or the start of the Spanish Civil War?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If Mussolini has stick-to-it-ivity he still runs a proxy war in Spain. And perhaps he signals a willingness for Anschluss a little earlier or on time.

He could enter the war as a scavenger in 1940 as in OTL.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In the case of avoiding alienation with the Allies, how does Italy respond then to the AGNA and resulting fallout between Britain and France? Or Japan's Chin invasion? Or the start of the Spanish Civil War?

Anglo-German Naval Agreement? Was that 35 though, or in 34?

An unestranged Italy possibly by trying to mediate the Franco-British dispute, or by aligning closer to one or the other. If Italy lines up more with France, perhaps it joins the Stalin-Laval Pact. If so, both Rome and Moscow avoid taking opposite sides in Spain.

A linear projection of Italy's pre-Anti-Comintern Pact policy would suggest the Italians react to the Japanese invasion of China by denouncing the Japanese attack. Perhaps Italian "volunteers" continue to "help" the Chinese air force. We don't have the situation of OTL where the Italian air force advisors to China depart the country and share all their info with the Japanese.
 

Deleted member 1487

Anglo-German Naval Agreement? Was that 35 though, or in 34?
June 1935:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement

An unestranged Italy possibly by trying to mediate the Franco-British dispute, or by aligning closer to one or the other. If Italy lines up more with France, perhaps it joins the Stalin-Laval Pact. If so, both Rome and Moscow avoid taking opposite sides in Spain.

A linear projection of Italy's pre-Anti-Comintern Pact policy would suggest the Italians react to the Japanese invasion of China by denouncing the Japanese attack. Perhaps Italian "volunteers" continue to "help" the Chinese air force. We don't have the situation of OTL where the Italian air force advisors to China depart the country and share all their info with the Japanese.
If Mussolini wants to keep up the anti-German line they side with France, but if they stick with their traditional pro-British attitudes they stick with Britain and moderate on Germany, keeping with the more anti-Soviet line. I'm guessing the latter is probably more up Mussolini's alley, because they cannot stand the USSR, it is their core ideological enemy, so likely France's pro-Soviet stance alienates them. In Spain Italy would without a doubt support the nationalists if for no other reason than their pro-clericalism, pro-monarchism, and anti-communism. They are a Latin Fascist spiritual ally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#Italy
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
France's pro-Soviet stance alienates them.

They might consider stuff the French have to be easier pickings than anything the British have also. Italy can also tell itself its in a comparable naval weight class with France, but not Britain.
 
What would get Italy to not invade Ethiopia in the 1930s and what would Italy/Mussolini do without that colonial project? Perhaps France and Britain forcefully discouraged Italy from escalating the war, which then makes them and the LoN look more powerful in the 1930s. Italy is still then alienated from the Allies as a result, but avoids the war and the expense, plus the need to garrison and invest in Ethiopia. What happens with Italian foreign policy thereafter?

what if Britain offered huge loans to Italy? or financed their coal deliveries on very favorable terms? (may feel they could pacify them for long term?)

read how expensive Italian East Africa project was

"Ethiopia proved to be extremely expensive to maintain, as the budget for the fiscal year 1936-37 had been set at 19.136 billion lira to create the necessary infrastructure for the colony. At the time, Italy's entire yearly revenue was only 18.581 billion lira." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa#Economic_development

can imagine a lot of infrastructure built up in Libya? absent their East Africa adventure.
 
In Spain Italy would without a doubt support the nationalists if for no other reason than their pro-clericalism, pro-monarchism, and anti-communism. They are a Latin Fascist spiritual ally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#Italy

Mussolini offered the Republicans support (I believe equipment and blockading Nationalist-held ports mainly) first in return for a naval base in the Canaries and some other bits and pieces. They turned him down.
 
Maybe the H-L pact it's implemented, with Benny being less indecisive and more prone to end a costly adventure; this while not really sour relations between Italy and the Entente as OTL...will create some serious attrition and the LoN while not discredited like our will end with her reputation seriously damaged.
On the italian side, things will be good, the colonial adventure was a very costly vanity project for Benny and between the war, the pacification and the money wasted in grandiose idea of developement it was a serious waste for the not florid finance of the Kingdom; so there will be more money for the modernisation of the armed forces and for other civilian project, plus there will be no or at least a much reduced attachment towards the German economy making us much less dependent of Hitler and co. Not only that but the sanctions created serious problem to the italian economy...even if in an indirect manner, as Mussolini started seriously is autarchy project so in little time many higher quality foreign product were substitued by lower quality local (and the same goes for much of the raw material).
Finally the colonial war and the following sanctions were a political treasure for Mussolini, with the italian people greatly supporting him and allowing to start both the autarchy but also a much quicker fascistization of the entire society...basically it was the zenith of his power and internal support, without that he will be a (little) diminished and better remember that he never had the same power of Hitler, Franco or Stalin.
 

Deleted member 1487

what if Britain offered huge loans to Italy? or financed their coal deliveries on very favorable terms? (may feel they could pacify them for long term?)

read how expensive Italian East Africa project was

"Ethiopia proved to be extremely expensive to maintain, as the budget for the fiscal year 1936-37 had been set at 19.136 billion lira to create the necessary infrastructure for the colony. At the time, Italy's entire yearly revenue was only 18.581 billion lira." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa#Economic_development

can imagine a lot of infrastructure built up in Libya? absent their East Africa adventure.
Part of the issue there was the impact of the Depression on Britain's finances and Chamberlain's decision to court Germany as a proxy to stand up to Stalin (hence the AGNA and turn against France), which involved giving Germany loans to rehab her economy so Britain had an export market. Italy was a fraction of the power and more importantly purchasing power of Nazi Germany, which was simply a far more important trade partner in terms of granting loans.
Yeah I know about the expense of the Ethiopian adventure, which partially inspired this thread. Italy would have a lot more money to spend on actual useful stuff like say developing Libya.

Maybe the H-L pact it's implemented, with Benny being less indecisive and more prone to end a costly adventure; this while not really sour relations between Italy and the Entente as OTL...will create some serious attrition and the LoN while not discredited like our will end with her reputation seriously damaged.
On the italian side, things will be good, the colonial adventure was a very costly vanity project for Benny and between the war, the pacification and the money wasted in grandiose idea of developement it was a serious waste for the not florid finance of the Kingdom; so there will be more money for the modernisation of the armed forces and for other civilian project, plus there will be no or at least a much reduced attachment towards the German economy making us much less dependent of Hitler and co. Not only that but the sanctions created serious problem to the italian economy...even if in an indirect manner, as Mussolini started seriously is autarchy project so in little time many higher quality foreign product were substitued by lower quality local (and the same goes for much of the raw material).
Finally the colonial war and the following sanctions were a political treasure for Mussolini, with the italian people greatly supporting him and allowing to start both the autarchy but also a much quicker fascistization of the entire society...basically it was the zenith of his power and internal support, without that he will be a (little) diminished and better remember that he never had the same power of Hitler, Franco or Stalin.
Very interesting points. So Italy without the Ethiopian war is less fascist, richer, and more economically diversified?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Mussolini offered the Republicans support (I believe equipment and blockading Nationalist-held ports mainly) first in return for a naval base in the Canaries and some other bits and pieces. They turned him down.


Ooh, it looks like we have a debate going here. Interesting.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which was more expensive for Italy, the East African Adventure of 1935-1941, or the Spanish Civil War Intervention of 1936-1939?
 

Deleted member 9338

Which was more expensive for Italy, the East African Adventure of 1935-1941, or the Spanish Civil War Intervention of 1936-1939?

I think this is comparing Apples to Oranges, as one was interval and long term and the other was external and could end any any point. You also have to add in the cost of development of Libya, Italy cannot afford to pay for all of these projects.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well sure there were differences between Spain and Ethiopia, but they all had opportunity costs right? Surely an Italy that had avoided either of the conflicts or both of them would have been militarily and economically stronger in the 1940s, dontcha think?
 
Top