Why is Italy so Pathetic?

Falecius mentions Francesco Crispi, and I think he bears a large part of the blame for the comparative weakness of Italy in the late 19th century.

Why? Well Crispi's obsessive Francophobia crippled Italy's economy at precisely the worst time, by destroying his relationship with his nation's largest trading partner. By secretly joining the Triple Alliance, he ensured that the French would be furious when the news inevitably leaked out- worse, it did so during the negotiations over a renewal of the Franco-Italian trade treaty, which he subsequently walked away from. Crispi's subsequent escalation of the crisis into a full-scale trade war, which lasted a decade, was catastrophic, and essentially destroyed all realistic hope Italy had of being a 'proper' Great Power.

In 1886, almost half of Italy's exports went to France, and the French were also the single largest importer. This trade relationship was destroyed practically overnight, and did not recover until after WW2- in 1913, the equivalent export figure is only 9%. The value of trade between France and Italy fell from 444m lire in 1887 to 165m lire in 1888.

This not only helped spur Italian emigration to the US (and for that matter, France), but it gutted the armed forces. In the 1880s, the Italians had a very modern and well-trained navy that was the equal of the French Mediterranean force if not slightly more powerful; by 1893 sailors were going without pay and the fleet was effectively left to rust. Lack of funds also contributed to the Adowa debacle.

Thanks to Crispi's demagogic, brutally ‘frank’ speeches, and his annual habit of orchstrating war scares, it was virtually impossible for the French Government to make concessions while he remained in power, even though he made some half-hearted efforts in that direction; he clung to office for just long enough to ensure the damage to Italy was permanent.
 

Esopo

Banned
Falecius mentions Francesco Crispi, and I think he bears a large part of the blame for the comparative weakness of Italy in the late 19th century.

Why? Well Crispi's obsessive Francophobia crippled Italy's economy at precisely the worst time, by destroying his relationship with his nation's largest trading partner. By secretly joining the Triple Alliance, he ensured that the French would be furious when the news inevitably leaked out- worse, it did so during the negotiations over a renewal of the Franco-Italian trade treaty, which he subsequently walked away from. Crispi's subsequent escalation of the crisis into a full-scale trade war, which lasted a decade, was catastrophic, and essentially destroyed all realistic hope Italy had of being a 'proper' Great Power.

In 1886, almost half of Italy's exports went to France, and the French were also the single largest importer. This trade relationship was destroyed practically overnight, and did not recover until after WW2- in 1913, the equivalent export figure is only 9%. The value of trade between France and Italy fell from 444m lire in 1887 to 165m lire in 1888.

This not only helped spur Italian emigration to the US (and for that matter, France), but it gutted the armed forces. In the 1880s, the Italians had a very modern and well-trained navy that was the equal of the French Mediterranean force if not slightly more powerful; by 1893 sailors were going without pay and the fleet was effectively left to rust. Lack of funds also contributed to the Adowa debacle.

Thanks to Crispi's demagogic, brutally ‘frank’ speeches, and his annual habit of orchstrating war scares, it was virtually impossible for the French Government to make concessions while he remained in power, even though he made some half-hearted efforts in that direction; he clung to office for just long enough to ensure the damage to Italy was permanent.

Im not sure of that. Italy wasnt cut of international trade because of the trade war. Germany and austria-hungary simply took the place of france as main economic partners of italy. Meanwhile italian rising textile industry exported mostly in the balkans and in south america, so it wasnt damaged.
 
When Italy was part of the Spanish army (the Crown of Aragon had Sicily, Naples and the Duchy of Milan) Italian troops made up a lot of the Spanish armies and their victories in Europe, and made up the bulk of the Spanish fleet. Venice ruled the seas and fought far above its weight. So for much of European history, Italy wasn't bad militarily. Its problem was that 1) it was divided, and 2) others controlled it and used it for themselves.

The reputation for Italian military incompetence really comes only with the establishment of united Italy. The big problem here is that while Italy was a giant compared to the lesser powers of Europe, it was simply not in the same league as the other European great powers.

The major weaknesses of the Italian military during this period are:

1) The Italian economy is not as large as industrialized as its peer competitors. It doesn't have the iron and coal that Britain, France, Germany, or Russia has. The north has hydropower from the alps, but that is it.

2) The South is in ruins, extremely poor and uneducated from centuries of neglect of rule by foreign powers. It needs serious investment. There is a lack of local leadership.

3) The military is not considered prestigious in Italy. The best don't enter the officer corps like some do in Germany, Britain, or France. The Italian officer corps generally (I won't say only) attracts only those unable to succeed elsewhere.

4) Italy has serious problems with basic infranstructure. Malaria is everywhere. Basic plumbing, roads, and schooling is missing in many places.

This general weakness affects Italy throughout its period as the Kingdom of Italy. It was slowly being overcome. By the time of the Second World War, Italy was perhaps 10-20 years away from truly being a peer. It was a generation away.

The proximate causes of poor Italian performance in WWII is a result of:

1) Mussolini did not plan for a long war. When he entered the war in summer 1940 he thought it was going to be over and only expected a token fight. Therefore, the Italians were unprepared for the war they did face.

2) Italy had modernized first in the 1930s which meant by the time the war had broken out, it had obsolete equipment compared to the Allies.

3) The decision that the Italian Navy did not need an organic air component (because Mussolini thought the Italian penninsula was the best air carrier the navy would ever need) was a major mistake which hurt them.

4) Extremely poor leadership at the top of the Italian Army. The Italians fought well under Rommel's command, and Italians made up the bulk of forces that Rommel had lead to victory. Under competent, inspired command, the Italian solider could fight well.

5) The typical Italian solider was poorly motivated and uneducated. An uneducated soldier is not going to be effective in a modern mechanized army. Since regular Italians did not see a real benefit to them in fighting the Allies, it was hard to keep them motivated unlike the Allies who were fighting for national survival or the Germans who were fighting for revenge, a strong anti-Bolshevism, and sense of superiority. In contrast, when we see the elite of the Italian soldiery, like their alpine corps, we get very good soldiers. The problem was that in WWII, the Italians could not afford to use only elite solidiers. They had to use everything, and the Italian economy and culture were not ready for such a commitment.

6) Mussolini made rash decisions. He invaded Greece simply because he was upset that a) Hitler told him to do nothing about Romania (which the two had agreed was in Italy's sphere of influence) but then b) Hitler moved in to protect the Ploesti oilfields after the Soviets occupied Bessarabia. Mussolini was outraged that Hitler never consulted him, so he decided a quick campaign against Greece would recover prestige. Even though his own generals told him the army was not ready for a campaign in Greece and would take time to prepare, he ordered an attack anyway.

If Mussolini had realized that Britain wouldn't cave quickly and that Germany had a long term war, he probably would have stayed out of WWII entirely. Italy's economy would have improved over the next 10 years, and the reputation for the Fascist armed forces would never become a mockery. During the next war Italy would fight, it probably would not have many of the weaknesses it displayed in WWII. By the 1950s or so, it would have resolved many of its long term and short term problems. Probably not a true equal to the best European militaries, but one that would give a respectable performance.
 
Top