Oh for god...Tunisia was initially heavily economical and political penetreted by Italy, but then the French decided that they want for them and invaded, declaring null and void the italian contract and causing a lot of economic hardship and political embarassment in Italy, it's the so called 'Schiaffo di Tunisi' the Slap of Tunisi
Please understand that I am very often facetious. Apologies, but I like poking fun.
I know all this perfectly well, and I treat it as seriously as equivalent whining about spheres of influence and special rights from the British or French yellow press and economic sectional interests, of which there was plenty. That was how things were conducted in the 19th century. Much as I find it ridiculous, though, the affront to Italy was real - as real as any number of other colonial pissing contests.
I objected in the strongest terms, however, to Eurofed's apparent belief that France pinched what was rightfully the property of Italy, however. It was rightfully the property of Tunisia. Let us all bare that in mind.
During the second italian independence war in exchange for French military aid was stipulated that Nice and Savoy was to given to the French, well the military aid was...almost of the quality of the italian performance during WWII, and the land was almost keept by Piedmont.
The land was kept. The deal was Lombardy-Venetia for Nice-Savoy. No Venetia, no deal. Napoleon III understood that and the territories were not handed over in connection with the end of the war...
The cession was done more for the political aide and the permission to the lesser italian nation to unite with Sardinia than for more pratical aide
...So, Cavour thought it was wise to hand over some small territories if that would ensure the goodwill of an important power? Sensible of him, and it was important for a country making even the most temporary alliance with peasant revolutionaries to prove its respectability, but it was he who did it and he who fought the nationalist opposition. French pressure alone could not have forced the handover (or why didn't they grab 'em at some other time?).
And that's what means??

.
That if Italy and France were on bad terms in the 1880s and 90s, both governments were to blame.
Yes becouse Scotland was basically a conquered and absorbed nation,
Please don't make authoritative statements on things you don't know about: Scotland is neither conquered nor absorbed.
here we are talking of sovereign nations it's a little bit different In the sense that we had economic, political, territorial issue with them still open.
If AH was our principal advesary, France fill cleary the second position
My point was that this phrase 'hereditary enemy' has no useful diplomatic meaning.
The 1902 treaty was simple a mean to not enrage too much French and becouse not all people here were confortable in an alliance, even of convenience with AH. But is principal function was to buy time, see who are gonna to win or made the better offer...classic italian politics nothing more
Nobody's arguing that it was a binding entente (or Italy would have been in at the start). Italy mended fences and bided time to see who could make the better offer. It was France. We've come full-circle and are back at "But what can the CP offer?". As AG says, the foundation-stone of Hapsburg policy was never to give up anything without fighting.