What if Bismarck imposes return of Nice to Italy in treaty of Frankfurt?

So- will the French take back inflame Italian opinion against France long term?

It might also paradoxically inflame Italian opinion against Germans, the 1866 allies and 1871 cobelligerents, who "let" France retake Italy.

Then, in 1878, Germany might well alienate Russia and end up closer to Austria.

At the same time, Germany will support French colonial expansion (Tunisia included), and later, join the race herself.

I can see a situation where Germany, France and Austria are allied against Italy and Russia. With Japan and Ottomans gravitating towards Berlin-Paris, and the UK likely supporting Russia and Italy in the interests of balance.
 
So- will the French take back inflame Italian opinion against France long term?

Maybe, but ultimately I doubt Italy is going to be willing to overly alienate France when her only other neighbor is Austria. Realpolitik means Italy needs to be on the good side of at least one of their two Great Power geographic neighbors lest she become economically and militarily isolated, and ultimately her desires for the Aegean are more salient than those for Nice and Savoy.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but ultimately I doubt Italy is going to be willing to overly alienate France when her only other neighbor is Austria. Realpolitik means Italy needs to be on the good side of at least one of their two Great Power geographic neighbors lest she become economically and militarily isolated, and ultimately her desires for the Aegean are more salient than those for Nice and Savoy.

This. If Italy actually goes to War, it shouldn't be too hard to actually keep Nice. The problem is just how to persuade the timid Italian government to actually do it.
At this point, Italy feels more indebted than outraged towards the French.
 
I could see Italy declares war to France not only for Nice but also Savoy.Those territories were the homeland of the Italian Kings.
So they can predate comparabale Italian Actions in the 20th Century (Joined WWI on Allied Side despite treaties with Germany and Austria,Attacks France after Blitzkrieg in WWII)
Nice and Savoy were only a decade French so would it not as much hurt France as the lost of Alsace Lorraine.
 
This. If Italy actually goes to War, it shouldn't be too hard to actually keep Nice. The problem is just how to persuade the timid Italian government to actually do it.
At this point, Italy feels more indebted than outraged towards the French.

You'd need a German government more willing to concede "good guy" points diplomatically for the sake of trying itself to a stable alliance with Italy; possibly as the result of an Austria that had made broader and deeper outreaches towards Paris between 66 and 70 that creates the spectere of an Austro-French alliance post-war that Berlin perceived as a viable threat to the infant unification. In that case, they may be willing to keep up the military pressure, but such a government would not be one lead by Bismark.
 
You'd need a German government more willing to concede "good guy" points diplomatically for the sake of trying itself to a stable alliance with Italy; possibly as the result of an Austria that had made broader and deeper outreaches towards Paris between 66 and 70 that creates the spectere of an Austro-French alliance post-war that Berlin perceived as a viable threat to the infant unification. In that case, they may be willing to keep up the military pressure, but such a government would not be one lead by Bismark.

I don't think an Alliance is really needed; it could just be that a Nice-holding Italy has very good reason to be friendly to Germany and can focus less on Austria.

The problem is, at that point a French-Austrian Alliance is almost a given.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem is, at that point a French-Austrian Alliance is almost a given.

This Franco-Austrian coalition is a "problem" but seems an entirely manageable one, unless Russia joins it, and Russia is far more likely to join Prussia/Germany-Italy
 
I don't think an Alliance is really needed; it could just be that a Nice-holding Italy has very good reason to be friendly to Germany and can focus less on Austria.

The problem is, at that point a French-Austrian Alliance is almost a given.

Such an alliance is nessicerily for Nice-holding Italy to STAY Nice holding Italy, since France is going to try to take it back and Italy can't stand up to France on it's own
 
This Franco-Austrian coalition is a "problem" but seems an entirely manageable one, unless Russia joins it, and Russia is far more likely to join Prussia/Germany-Italy
Until the UK gets involved (with France-Austria to counter Germany-Russia), at which point the Italians are almost completely surrounded by land and by sea (they've only got Switzerland as a neutral neighbor and sending enough shipments through the Alps to fight 3 Great Powers, well...). The complete naval blockade that Britain and France would be able to enforce on Italy would knock it out of any conflict very quickly (a race between Italy folding and Austria being overrun, as it were) or keep it from joining any in the first place.
 
It was not : Nice's regions is largely occitanophone (as part of cisalpine valleys on the other side). Except a part of urban upper-middle class, you didn't have much Italian identity.

And yet, the language of courts and such was Italian until 1860, in contrast with Savoy. While I would agree it's not incredibly dominant, in my opinion it's a clear inclination.

This Franco-Austrian coalition is a "problem" but seems an entirely manageable one, unless Russia joins it, and Russia is far more likely to join Prussia/Germany-Italy

I don't know - Germany is more of a potential rival than Austria-Hungary, and if you break A-H, Italy is bound to have Balkan ambitions of her own.
 
And yet, the language of courts and such was Italian until 1860, in contrast with Savoy.
If use of judicial language was enough to be a proof of dominant identity, it should mean that Flanders was predominantly French until 1823, then became so again between 1831 and 1898. Of course it doesn't really work like this.

While I would agree it's not incredibly dominant, in my opinion it's a clear inclination.
I think you're confusing historical diglossy and popular inclination : linguistically, Nice was firmly into an occitanophone region, which is widely accepted at this point.
A long history of dominance of Italian trough an upper-middle class is not nearly enough to make it "definitely Italian" or "inclined to be Italian" In the period between the 1860's and the 1880's, the region is generally divided between liberals that mix a pro-Italian and a pro-French republicanist attitude, and a conservative stance that is generally supporting Nice's particularism such as Maulausséna.
Note that most of previous representents of Sarde institutions eventually elected to leave the region, putting an end to any real pro-Italian sentiment, which was more and more used as a convenient way to accuse political opponents.

If you're interested, there's Le comté de Nice et la France. Histoire politique d'une intégration, 1860-1879 by Henri Courrière, which have the benefit to be supported by sources and not ideologized historiography from any side.
If you're interested on the use of Nissard compared to Italian before the reunion, there is this interesting article
Very roughly, there wasn't much opposition to whoever ruled Nice, would it be a French or Sarde power during the XIXth as long it doesn't tempers with local particularism and interests, which Sardinians did in significant parts or were percieved as doing so against local language (which was still predominant clerically) and economic interests (such as the free harbour zone). Nice's region tends to be considered at this point as its own thing : would Italy have kept it, it would have turned into some sort of Aosta or SudTirol equivalent.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Until the UK gets involved (with France-Austria to counter Germany-Russia), at which point the Italians are almost completely surrounded by land and by sea (they've only got Switzerland as a neutral neighbor and sending enough shipments through the Alps to fight 3 Great Powers, well...). The complete naval blockade that Britain and France would be able to enforce on Italy would knock it out of any conflict very quickly (a race between Italy folding and Austria being overrun, as it were) or keep it from joining any in the first place.

What's Britain's motivation to join the Franco-Austrians?

If Britain joins the Franco-Austrians in peacetime, she just makes them more likely to pick a fight they cannot handle.

If Britain joins the Franco-Austrians in wartime, she is picking the side that is going to lose.

I get Britain being opposed in principle to German-Italian aggression, or to German-Italian dictation of European affairs, but Britain had better be careful that the means it uses to manage the risk do not backfire.
 
If use of judicial language was enough to be a proof of dominant identity, it should mean that Flanders was predominantly French until 1823, then became so again between 1831 and 1898. Of course it doesn't really work like this.

I think your argument is misleading: the Savoy state of Nice used Italian, uncontested, from 1561 to 1860. That's not six decades, but three hundred years, started well before the House of Savoy started nursing pan-Italian ambitions; and you are comparing it to Flanders, where instead the judiciary language was imposed from the top by the ruling Francophones in a deliberate attempt at assimilation.

I use it as proof the status quo was certainly pro-Italian, if anything.

I think you're confusing historical diglossy and popular inclination : linguistically, Nice was firmly into an occitanophone region, which is widely accepted at this point.

Which I agree with, but since Occitania was not an option on the table and France has never been a friend of Occitan identity, I don't see why should count against.

A long history of dominance of Italian trough an upper-middle class is not nearly enough to make it "definitely Italian" or "inclined to be Italian"

Burden of proof is on the claimant - you. Use of Italian was uncontested. Journals were predominantly Italian by a good margin. When Roquebrune and Menton seceded from Monaco, they issued the Italian tricolor.

In the period between the 1860's and the 1880's, the region is generally divided between liberals that mix a pro-Italian and a pro-French republicanist attitude, and a conservative stance that is generally supporting Nice's particularism such as Maulausséna.
Note that most of previous representents of Sarde institutions eventually elected to leave the region, putting an end to any real pro-Italian sentiment, which was more and more used as a convenient way to accuse political opponents.

Absolutely agree. But it still was well within possibility to go back to 1859 borders.

If you're interested, there's Le comté de Nice et la France. Histoire politique d'une intégration, 1860-1879 by Henri Courrière, which have the benefit to be supported by sources and not ideologized historiography from any side.
If you're interested on the use of Nissard compared to Italian before the reunion, there is this interesting article
Very roughly, there wasn't much opposition to whoever ruled Nice, would it be a French or Sarde power during the XIXth as long it doesn't tempers with local particularism and interests, which Sardinians did in significant parts or were percieved as doing so against local language (which was still predominant clerically) and economic interests (such as the free harbour zone). Nice's region tends to be considered at this point as its own thing : would Italy have kept it, it would have turned into some sort of Aosta or SudTirol equivalent.

I am interested to the book and will seek it out (though even ita description talks of an Italian past); most of what you say aligns with what I know, there's just disagreement on the interpretation. I just think you are over-emphasizing popular opinion when it was just not a factor in this age; if the élites branded themselves French or Italian, or the governments decided on it, then the situation on the ground adapted accordingly.
 
What's Britain's motivation to join the Franco-Austrians?

If Britain joins the Franco-Austrians in peacetime, she just makes them more likely to pick a fight they cannot handle.

If Britain joins the Franco-Austrians in wartime, she is picking the side that is going to lose.

I get Britain being opposed in principle to German-Italian aggression, or to German-Italian dictation of European affairs, but Britain had better be careful that the means it uses to manage the risk do not backfire.

A French-Austrian and German-Italian alliance conflict is a far more balanced affair than you seem to think. Italy is a far less populatious, developed, and strategically defendable nation than the Habsburgs ever were; the later actually enjoying quite a robust rate of economic growth in the later 1800's which would only benefit from French capitalization. It's only a wash if we assume active Russian involvement... but what motivation does she have to strengthen a dynamic Germany into a Centeral and Western European hegemony whos interests more closely clash with her own than maintaining a relatively passive and toothless AH as a check on Berlin's hegemony? Both they and Britain; rival's with one another, are far better served by letting the continental check each other so they can focus on beating the others extra-europeanly
 
Russia and Austria have conflicting interests in the Balkans. Which might further push Austria and Britain and Ottomans to cooperate to check Russia.

Not to mention, in Crimean War, Britain, France and Ottomans worked together to check Russia.

So, having Russia join Germany-Italy, and Britain joining France-Austria, makes sense and is a "natural" continuation of earlier events.
 
Russia and Austria have conflicting interests in the Balkans. Which might further push Austria and Britain and Ottomans to cooperate to check Russia.

Not to mention, in Crimean War, Britain, France and Ottomans worked together to check Russia.

So, having Russia join Germany-Italy, and Britain joining France-Austria, makes sense and is a "natural" continuation of earlier events.

Actually, the Crimean War is the perfect example of why Britain has no reason to openly pledge itself to a Franco-Austrian alliance (though she's certainly be supportive of them in the event Russia tried to make moves in the Balkans, but out of concern for her own policy). Britain indeed intervened to save the Ottomans; who they actually do have a strategic interest in aligning with (or, more accurately, aligning under them), but it was Nappy III's reckless pursuit of his prestige project to get protection over Eastern Christiandom and gain influence in the Near East, rather than active Russian iniatives to undermine the Ottomans that generated the crisis that obliged them to bail out French blundering to avoid her own interests in the region becoming cohlateral damage. Allying with Austria and France would only obligate her into spending blood and treasure on affairs that don't really concern her for the sake of benefting her main colonial rival... in a similar fashion to Russian obligations to Germany

There's a difference between having a prefered party you'll support passively and incidentally vs. an active pledge of alliance.
 
Burden of proof is on the claimant - you. Use of Italian was uncontested. Journals were predominantly Italian by a good margin. When Roquebrune and Menton seceded from Monaco, they issued the Italian tricolor.
It can also be added that a fourth of the population of Nice left the city in 1861, all of them Italians who refused to accept French dominion; when in 1871 the first elections of the Third Republic were held, Garibaldi was elected to the Assemblée Nationale with an overwhelming majority of the votes from Nice, on a platform of reversing the treaty of 1860. The French government was, of course, extremely receptive and tactful in its answer: Garibaldi was immediately forbidden from speaking to the Assembly, ten thousand soldiers were sent to the city, the local newspaper (Italian, of course) was closed, and most irredentisti were arrested and/or expelled. After this, all the other Italian newspapers in the region were forced to close, and all the toponyms were changed en masse.
 
Top