Basically, what if the Republic of Austria, after 1918, had managed to negotiate its way to retaining the majority German province of South Tyrol (minus the Trentino region, which imbues some confusion into me as it could theoretically be considered “Middle Tyrol”), thus preventing 150.000 German-identifying persons from becoming Italian for the rest of foreseeable history?
What effects would this entail on interwar Austria and Italy?
 
Italy is a bit more sawed-off over not getting enough territory in the post-war settlement. But I don't think D'Annunzio or any similar figure is going rogue for it, as he did for Fiume. Italian skiers are less competitive.
 
Italy is a bit more sawed-off over not getting enough territory in the post-war settlement. But I don't think D'Annunzio or any similar figure is going rogue for it, as he did for Fiume. Italian skiers are less competitive.
Would that really stop a fascist or authoritarian-nationalist Italy from claiming South Tyrol as Terra Irredenta? Language barriers didn't stop them from annexing Albania IOTL, after all.
 
The Italians decided to screw the treaty and occupy the region anyway. Like hell there gonna let the Austrians keep Brenner's pass
 
Last edited:
The Italians decided to screw the treaty and occupying the region anyway. Like hell there gonna let the Austrians keep Brenner's pass
Was Austria really that big a military threat to Italy? What interests would they even have in regards to the possibility of declaring war on their southwestern neighbor?
I could see Italy getting worried about the territory after an Anschluss-like deal between Austria and more powerful Germany, though.
 
Was Austria really that big a military threat to Italy? What interests would they even have in regards to the possibility of declaring war on their southwestern neighbor?
I could see Italy getting worried about the territory after an Anschluss-like deal between Austria and more powerful Germany, though.

Italy had just spent 4 years bleeding itself against the Austrians. Their interests revolve around holding the Alpine passes in South Tyrol which gives Italy an excellent defensive position along their northern border regardless of Austria's alignment. Also, Italy doesn't have to do anything to keep South Tyrol the Italian Army was already occupying the region following Vittorio Veneto and he collapse of A-H
 
Last edited:
Was Austria really that big a military threat to Italy? What interests would they even have in regards to the possibility of declaring war on their southwestern neighbor?
I could see Italy getting worried about the territory after an Anschluss-like deal between Austria and more powerful Germany, though.

That's the point: "Even Clemenceau realized that the two German states could not be kept apart forever if they really desired the union. But he was determined to keep them separate as long as possible..." https://books.google.com/books?id=1eZkToUVYisC&pg=PA326 The possibility--even likelihood--of an eventual Anschluss always had to be taken into account.
 
Would that really stop a fascist or authoritarian-nationalist Italy from claiming South Tyrol as Terra Irredenta? Language barriers didn't stop them from annexing Albania IOTL, after all.

The premise of the thread is "Austria retains South Tyrol". See the title. Therefore, ITTL, Italy does not seize South Tyrol.

In any case, it would be very confusing for Italy to claim Sudtirol as "Italia Irredenta" when there are no Italians living there, and the territory has never been ruled from Italy. Italy was able to seize the territory in the immediate wake of the war; but once the settlement has been written down and signed, further demands are unsupportable - and unlikely to be raised by Italian hotheads.

Fiume had Italian residents; Istria had been ruled by Venice; Dalmatia had been ruled by Venice. The only thing tying Sudtirol to Italy was that it was south of the crest of the Alps.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The premise of the thread is "Austria retains South Tyrol". See the title. Therefore, ITTL, Italy does not seize South Tyrol.

In any case, it would be very confusing for Italy to claim Sudtirol as "Italia Irredenta" when there are no Italians living there, and the territory has never been ruled from Italy. Italy was able to seize the territory in the immediate wake of the war; but once the settlement has been written down and signed, further demands are unsupportable - and unlikely to be raised by Italian hotheads.

Fiume had Italian residents; Istria had been ruled by Venice; Dalmatia had been ruled by Venice. The only thing tying Sudtirol to Italy was that it was south of the crest of the Alps.

Agreed. This makes the German right wing warm up to Italy faster. Italy is less fearful of Anscluss, because neither Austrian Germans nor German Germans will be pining for Trentino.
 
Italy could be compensated I suppose with other territory. The Tyrol was I think less of a big deal than areas along the Adriatic, like Fiume, for example. They also could be compensated with German Colonies where they have a particular interest.

A demilitarization of the South Tyrol might be enough to allow Italy to accept this situation domestically. There were real security risks related to Brenner, after all.

The key is Italy has grand ambitions in the Mediterranean, which were partially met, and ambitions along the Adriatic, which were also partially met. If both are fully met, and SudTyrol is demilitarized, than perhaps they would be fine with such a deal.
 
Top