What US politician would have pandered most to Italian territorial demands at the end of WWI?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
When it came down to it, Italy couldn’t offer enough to the rest of the WAllies to overcome the competing claims.

Hmm, one would think in realpolitik terms it would outweigh competing claims just by being bigger and one of the League Council permanent five


Dalmatia for instance had their South Slavs

Croatians were new to statehood, and the Serbs were being wanked by the creation of an enlarged Kingdom.

Albania was a flashpoint between the Italians and Greeks and the South Slavs

But here again, the Italians have a bigger population, economy and military than either. Plus the Greeks and South Slavs are already getting winnings proportionate to their size far greater than what Italy is getting.

South West Turkey was claimed and won by Ataturk

Well this one, yeah, if Italy was not going to win it for itself, no other powers were going to go do it for them.

Of course my whole line of thinking in this thread was not shaped by self-determination and ethnicity uber alles, and has possibly been a bit over-empathetic to what Italian nationalists were feeling at the time.

ObWI - President Hughes is POTUS instead and treats the Italians with the respect their apparent advantages and strength suggest they deserve. Italy gets Brenner Pass, Istria through Fiume, and a mandate over Albania. In Turkey, their expectations get shafted just like everybody else's (Greeks, British, French, Armenians, Russians) by the Turkish national revival.

Going forward is Italy a reliably non-revisionist state, and a natural ally of the leading powers of order and the status quo in Europe? IE, Britain and France.
 
ObWI - President Hughes is POTUS instead and treats the Italians with the respect their apparent advantages and strength suggest they deserve. Italy gets Brenner Pass, Istria through Fiume, and a mandate over Albania. In Turkey, their expectations get shafted just like everybody else's (Greeks, British, French, Armenians, Russians) by the Turkish national revival.

Going forward is Italy a reliably non-revisionist state, and a natural ally of the leading powers of order and the status quo in Europe? IE, Britain and France.

Well, no mutilated victory mean that the fascist narrative had been greatly changed and with no Fiume takeover and diplomatic humiliation at Versailles the liberal goverment is seen as much more stronger; sure the 'Biennio Rosso' and the rise of the Fascist Party will still happen but things will be much harder for them and Benny takeover as we know it is probably butterflyed away.
A still democratic Italy will remain an ally of the Entente or at least a friendly neutral and this mean no invasion of Abyssinia, a total different Spanish civil war and more importantly a much more harder job for Nazi Germany...but said that, if France and Britain don't support Italy in opposing the Anshluss i find difficult to see the Italian army fight alone against Germany.
 

Deleted member 94680

Hmm, one would think in realpolitik terms it would outweigh competing claims just by being bigger and one of the League Council permanent five

Well seeing as though OTL the WAllies didn’t do it, they obviously didn’t see it that way.

Croatians were new to statehood, and the Serbs were being wanked by the creation of an enlarged Kingdom.

Well the Croats weren't getting statehood on their own, they’re becoming part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (Yugoslavia). Serbia isn’t being ‘wanked’, it’s being rewarded for its part in the war and seen as a balance against Austrian revanchism.

But here again, the Italians have a bigger population, economy and military than either. Plus the Greeks and South Slavs are already getting winnings proportionate to their size far greater than what Italy is getting.

Once again, why? Italy was seen as unreliable (late to DoW, tempremental in her conduct, conflicting claims against Allied nations) and maybe an element of realpolitik - limit Italy’s gains to prevent her becoming a Power capable of controlling the Mediterranean.
 
Well the Croats weren't getting statehood on their own, they’re becoming part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (Yugoslavia). Serbia isn’t being ‘wanked’, it’s being rewarded for its part in the war and seen as a balance against Austrian revanchism.

Theoretically yes, but Yugoslavia quickly become MegaSerbia in all but name and from Italy pow (at least in the immediate post-war) this new nation was just an updated version of A-H and built for the exact reason of limit italian influences in the Balkans.


Once again, why? Italy was seen as unreliable (late to DoW, tempremental in her conduct, conflicting claims against Allied nations) and maybe an element of realpolitik - limit Italy’s gains to prevent her becoming a Power capable of controlling the Mediterranean.

More of the second, after all both Yugoslavia and Greece were seen as more pliable towards Anglo-French interest than Italy...still even them wanted a closure of the Adriatic question and were much less callous than Wilson regarding italian interest there; regarding the colonial compensation...'accidentaly' the division was done during italian period of absence, so Rome found it the situation already solved and basically was forced to beg for some scraps. If the italian delegation was present, i expect a resolution more or less like OTL (included what given at Mussolini in the later years)...but the italian pride will be saved and at least Benny don't get prop for the later colonial acquisition.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Let's look at domestic political effects in the U.S.

It is a consensus position that being the President who fights WWI is a poisoned chalice, with the party in power doomed to defeat in the 1918 midterms and 1920 presidential election.

There are multiple reasons for this including reaction against wartime regimentation and inflation and the problems of postwar economic adjustment.

And David T. is fond of saying that there's no way any European peace treaty satisfies all ethnicities in the US, it will always be regarded as giving too much to somebody else, or not enough to their own group.

But, could taking a pro-Italian stand at Versailles become a decisive electoral asset for the incumbent president, building a wall of votes boosting strength in the northeast and California, and canceling out any negative reactions by less numerous south slavic voters who may be proportionately numerous in Pennsylvania and the industrial midwest?

Let's try to apply it to two cases:

1. President Hughes running for reelection in 1920. If he has outsize Italian -American support, will that bring him electoral college advantages, or just ratchet up his popular vote totals in states he already would have won?

2. Second case, a Democratic heir to hypothetical Democratic "not-Wilson" running for President in 1920. If he has outsize Italian -American support, will that bring him electoral college advantages, or just ratchet up his popular vote totals in states he already would have won?
 
Top