The Fourth Shore
- Thread starter Implied
- Start date
Right, sorry, I completely forgot about this. In regards to Greece's population, I'd say with the help of the natalist policies and the repatriation program, it would probably be as high as ~15 million by now, including Orthodox refugees from the Soviet Bloc residing in Constantinople and the native population of Cyrenaica. OTL estimates put the total amount of Greeks worldwide between 15-17 million, so let's say 10.9 (OTL pre-crisis population peak) + 900,000 Cypriots + ~500,000 Northern Epirotes + ~1 million Cyrenaican natives + 2-2.5 million-or-so.
In regards to Italy's national borders, to be fair I never really finalised this part of the timeline so this is really just a rough outline; by default due to not invading France, Italy doesn't lose border territories to them in 1947 (see this for more details on that), but the Communists stage a revolt and seize Zara/Zadar overnight at some point in the late 1940s assuming the Axis didn't occupy it first or some such, at which point nobody was bothered enough to give it back to neutral Italy after the war, "because" (this actually sort-of happened with an island in the Adriatic, in fact). In return, Italy got to keep Fiume and Istria in their entirety (see: Julian March), regardless of Yugoslavian protests, and Italian Albania would look something like this (the grey lines are post-Yugoslavia's dissolution expansion proposals. The thinner black line is an alternative border proposal). Basically, it's OTL with a few adjustments for butterflies, etc.
In regards to the Italian subdivisions, they'd basically be mostly as per-OTL but with some differences stemming from Mussolini's absence in this timeline and the annexation of San Marino (because the Italian nationalists forced unification at some point in the 1920s and I just forgot to mention it until now), something like this (rough draft, sorry about the quality level ^^). Libya would likewise be divided up, much as IOTL, into Tripolitania and Fezzan; from there, drawing inspiration from both Italy and France OTL, Tripolitania would be a core part of Italy proper, a fully-integrated region, while Fezzan itself would be the [Military] Territory of Fezzan, with the capital in Hun (Homs). I can't really say much about the provinces of Tripolitania, though, I never really thought about them. I'd say, again, drawing inspiration from OTL, they'd be something like a Tripoli Province in the west and a Misurata Province in the east, the borders of which would probably reflect something close to post-Italian Libya's OTL administrative boundaries.
Though as I said, I never really finalised the Italian territorial evolution in this timeline, so things could theoretically have ended up going one way or another; if the local Slavs in the Julian March managed to put up a big enough of a fuss, the frontier could have been pushed back to the historic border of the Carniola region (see: Slovene Littoral and Austrian Littoral, respectively), the Dalmatian Islands of Cherso & co. could have gone either way (I've never cared about them, personally, so I never bothered to even figure out if Italy takes them in 1918, or not) and South Tyrol would likely remain Italian, but theoretically Italy could've dumped South Tyrol back into Austria's hands if she'd asked politely for a referendum at just the right time - though it would've been a partitioned version of South Tyrol, rather than the entire thing (there's some Ladin-speaking areas in eastern South Tyrol, so I doubt if Italy would ever be willing to cede those back to Austria. See: language map of the region here).
Italy seem on the victor side in WWII and so Jugo can protest all she want but doubt that any treaty will force the Kingdom of Italy to cede territory for the lulz or for kindness...Zara it's possible if the Jugoslavian are quick and later refuse to give her back, but it will be an big diplomatic incident and an open wound.
If the local Slavs try to put a big enough fuss during a regime headed by D'Annunzio and co. they will simply be volunteered for the colonization of the Horn of Africa...if not worse, OTL even the liberal goverment put a strong politics of italianization of the new territories.
If the local Slavs try to put a big enough fuss during a regime headed by D'Annunzio and co. they will simply be volunteered for the colonization of the Horn of Africa...if not worse, OTL even the liberal goverment put a strong politics of italianization of the new territories.
Hm. Well, I suppose it would depend on the dominant political factions of the era in question. During the Triumvirate's time, that would probably be Britain (due to Leopold's ties to the British) and Russia (due to the ties Kolokotronis and Kapodistrias have to Russia). After the Crimean War, however, the shift in political situations would probably force them to start leaning more towards the British and the French, as Greece has always had this issue of needing to remain on good terms with the dominant naval power in the Mediterranean which was undoubtedly Britain throughout this period, closely followed by France and finally the declining Ottomans, while Russia looks on, desperate to break in through the Dardanelles, but constantly ultimately failing.
IOTL in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the Greeks chose the French to reorganise the Hellenic Armed Forces and I kept that in the timeline as well, so while they may have also purchased some weapons from the Italians after relations were established and subsequently solidified in 1862, that relationship likely wouldn't have lasted politically after Italy joined the Triple Alliance in 1882, at which point it would have reverted to a Franco-Britannic relationship, maybe with a side of Russian imports where needed following the stabilisation of Franco-Russo relations in 1894. Though either way, that particular relationship would inevitably end once the Russians fall to Communism, even as the Greco-Italian relationship is rebuilt as we enter the 1920s, so let's say they're spread between the British, the French and the Italians in the interwar period. And of course, following the Second Great War, the American Military-Industrial Complex would then inevitably enter the picture, likely as a sizeable source, right alongside the British, the Italians and the French.
As we enter the Cold War and the British start decolonisation (and especially after the Suez Crisis in 1956), they'd then likely start leaning more towards the French and Italians with of course the usual side of American and perhaps even select Israeli items where needed, considering the desert nature of Cyrenaica and the anti-Hellenic insurgency permeating the inland area (although, Italy would also likely end up developing more desert-oriented items as well, considering their own enduring occupation of Tripolitania and the "Vietnam War" they went through with Abyssinia). I'd say this would then remain the status-quo until the Cold War ends, at which point, as Greece is and remains a neutral nation rather than a member of NATO, she could theoretically perhaps also find herself purchasing a few select Russian pieces where needed as we enter the 21st century.
Yeah, I thought Zara might be the reason why Italy ultimately decides to join the Allies against the Axis Powers, if the Ustase seize it with Nazi support, or if the Nazis seize it directly, "because", thus humiliating the Savoy Kingdom. I think we considered compensating Italy with Malta after the war in return for losing Zara, but then we never bothered, or we couldn't figure out how to do it, or some such, I forget ^^
Good point in regards to the Julian March, but I was thinking considering how IOTL the Italianisation policies ultimately disrupted the ethnic balance in the region, chances are Yugoslav Partisans might end up moving back and forth across the border during the war with local support, if not at least a degree of state support, out of which a potential localised insurgency movement could eventually spring up, in pursuit of "returning" the Carniolan portion of the Julian March to Yugoslavian Slovenia, at least. Without Tito, the Soviets would have a more direct control over Yugoslavia, which in turn would affect how they handle foreign policy matters such as border disputes (even Tito wanted Friuli-Venezia Giulia, after all), etc.
Regardless, yeah, it's unlikely that they'd succeed in effectuating any actual border changes. At most they'd likely end up with a South Tyrol-type deal following a few more decades of fighting - if even. Especially since Italy manages to hold on to Tripolitania in this timeline.
OTL Greece did buy small arms from Steyr, its Gras rifles were actually built in Austria as was the Mannlicher Schoenauer that replaced them in service and like everyone else bought from Krupp in the 1880s despite having a French army training mission. No reason it cannot happen in TTL as well. As we get to the 20th century, probably artillery comes from France and warships mostly from Britain up to ww2 and this Greece between being more developed during the 19th century and a neutral after 1945 should have a fair bit of a domestic arms industry, probably in close cooperation with France, Italy and Israel. Way more common ground with the latter than in OTL given probably troublesome relations with Egypt thanks to Cyrenaica on top of the expulsion of the Egyptiote Greeks in the late 1950s.
How do you envision the demographics of Cyrenaica? Is there a current Arab resistance and how has that looked in the past?
Great work!
Great work!
Greece bought the Mannlichers at 79 French francs apiece IMS, so I'd say its doubtful Mauser was significantly cheaper if any.
Mussolini only tolerated their independence because one of their own (who was also a WW1 veteran) established an independent Sanmarinese Fascist Party that kowtowed to him and Rome. If you butterfly the veteran and the parallel party's creation out of existence, however, it then becomes pointless for a unitary state like that of the Kingdom of Italy's to sustain parallel institutions in a tiny enclave of what is considered to be "rightful Italian soil" by the Nationalist Bloc (not to mention the Monarchist faction, which even Mussolini had to contend with). And on a personal note, San Marino's annexation provides me with a reason to justify the separation of the Romagna region from the Emilia region - something that has yet to happen to this day IOTL. The Savoy attached the two areas together during unification and they've remained that way ever since, because the Italian regions seem to enjoy being the standing epitome of stupid.
Thanks ^^ The main Senussi Insurgency was stamped out in the 1930s through repeat onslaughts into the inland which basically brought the region under control for the rest of the interwar era and the Axis Occupation, though the Greeks did briefly retreat to the coastal mountains during the Civil War of the 1940s in order to cut down on troop deployments in Africa. Following that, they then basically left the inland area alone during the 1950s until oil was discovered in the Italian Fezzan region in the early 1960s which of course prompted a search for deposits in Cyrenaica, bringing about their discovery.
The discovery of oil and the estimates towards the area's economic potential incites the Greeks to re-occupy and properly secure the entire region, which in turn prompts a low-scale insurgency in response (one was already operating in Italian Libya, it just finally bled over across the border into Greek Cyrenaica, with Egyptian support). Luck and some local assistance, however, ensures that the insurgency doesn't escalate into a serious matter, which eventually results in the adoption of a policy of isolation and containment designed to keep the violence away from the valuable oil-producing areas into the...... er, "useless" areas, basically. During the 1970s, Italy's Tripolitania referendum prompts calls for a Cyrenaica referendum and the violence briefly escalates during the period around the referendum (before and after), but it eventually dies down again.
Things end up rather quiet after that until the aftermath of the Third Balkan War in the 1990s, as the failure to implement promises for regional autonomy as a part of the broader Kapodistrias reform package prompts a resurgence in separatist sentiments, however. The security forces have taken to retaliating quite brutally these days, though, so the modern-day attacks tend to be more sporadic and isolated, usually orchestrated by small groups operating alone. Most of the world now basically treats the Libya Question the same way they treat the Turkish Kurdistan Question IOTL, I'd say, and it remains a standing strain on Greco-Egyptian relations, as the Greeks continue to accuse the Egyptians (not entirely unfairly) of assisting separatist elements, and the Egyptians resent the Greek's "colonial policies" as they put it. The issue of reparations for the Egyptian Greeks that were expelled in the 1950s also has a tendency to be brought up once in a while, which doesn't exactly do much to help matters.....
Demographics-wise, between the extreme measures taken against the initial insurgency that wiped out large swathes of the native population in the 1930s and the significant amount of Asia Minor Greeks resettled there in the 1920s, there's been a slim Greek majority in the region ever since that forms anywhere between 55%-60% of the overall total, depending on the decade in question - especially after they found oil in the region in the 1960s and started bringing in people to work on extracting it. For the most part the Greeks live in the coastal cities, with the inland being largely Libyan-dominated, excepting the settlements built around the oil infrastructure which host very mixed populations.
Last edited: