WI - Kingdom of Italy annexes all of Austrian Tyrol

What if the Kingdom of Italy annexed all of Austrian Tyrol (on top of South Tyrol and Trentino) after WW1, with the whole territory remaining under Italian rule as an autonomous province (like OTL South Tyrol and Trentino) to the present day?

Vorarlberg meanwhile due to being disconnected to ATL Austria somehow ends up becoming a part of Switzerland.
 
Last edited:
Vorarlberg meanwhile due to being disconnected to ATL Austria somehow ends up becoming a part of Switzerland.
Switzerland: We've said it once and we'll say it again - NO!
Vorarlberg: ...
Austria: ...

As for the reason... Simple imperialism, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
 
Why Italy would want German majority area? Even with that area what it annexed in OTL Italy has already enough doing.

And Switzerland doesn't want Vorarlberg.
 
At Versailles, Wilson was reluctant to support even the Brenner Pass border. https://books.google.com/books?id=NQodBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA148 Even Britain and France were somewhat apologetic about it ("well, maybe we went too far in the Treaty of London but we're bound to honor it now"). But at least it could be defended on strategic grounds. There would be no justification at all for Italy getting all of Tyrol, and Italy never wanted it.
 
Italy has no need for it: Alto Adige (Südtirol) was needed for strategic, defensive purposes, nam3ly control of the Alpine passes and mountaintops that could be used in an invasion of Italy. That the majority of the people there would much prefer not being separated from Innsbruck and the rest of Tirol was a conveniently overlooked fact. Going beyond the Alps would not be in Italian interests (and would obviously be vetoed by the powers that be) especially when there are still lands perceived as "irredente" on the other side of the Adriatic, namely Fiume/Rijeka and the whole of Dalmatia plus eventually Ragusa/Dubrovnik. The Alps are an obvious border, even the most exalted nationalist would not want to annex parts of "Germany" beyond the Brenner.
 
Italy had more legitimate claims to land other than all of Tyrol. They would easily chose gaining the Dalmatian Coast over getting more of Tyrol.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
At Versailles, Wilson was reluctant to support even the Brenner Pass border. https://books.google.com/books?id=NQodBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA148 Even Britain and France were somewhat apologetic about it ("well, maybe we went too far in the Treaty of London but we're bound to honor it now"). But at least it could be defended on strategic grounds. There would be no justification at all for Italy getting all of Tyrol, and Italy never wanted it.
Bingo! Indeed, the Brenner Pass border in the north made logical sense due to the fact that it would provide Italy with an extremely defensible northern border in the event that Austria and Germany will ever unify. In contrast, having Italy annex territory north of the Brenner Pass would simply be pointless since this territory would be German-majority and do absolutely nothing to further improve Italy's security.
 

CaliGuy

Banned

Italy has no need for it: Alto Adige (Südtirol) was needed for strategic, defensive purposes, nam3ly control of the Alpine passes and mountaintops that could be used in an invasion of Italy. That the majority of the people there would much prefer not being separated from Innsbruck and the rest of Tirol was a conveniently overlooked fact. Going beyond the Alps would not be in Italian interests (and would obviously be vetoed by the powers that be) especially when there are still lands perceived as "irredente" on the other side of the Adriatic, namely Fiume/Rijeka and the whole of Dalmatia plus eventually Ragusa/Dubrovnik. The Alps are an obvious border, even the most exalted nationalist would not want to annex parts of "Germany" beyond the Brenner.
Completely agreed with all of this. :)

Also, to elaborate on what you wrote here, Italy wanted a secure border in the north in the event that Austria and Germany will ever unify; indeed, I think that the original plan was to give Italy South Tyrol but to also give South Tyrol large amounts of autonomy (a promise that unfortunately went unfulfilled for several decades, in large part due to Mussolini coming to power and opposing this).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Italy had more legitimate claims to land other than all of Tyrol. They would easily chose gaining the Dalmatian Coast over getting more of Tyrol.
Completely agreed.

Also, though, out of curiosity--what exactly was the reason for Italy's obsession with Dalmatia?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What if the Kingdom of Italy annexed all of Austrian Tyrol (on top of South Tyrol and Trentino) after WW1, with the whole territory remaining under Italian rule as an autonomous province (like OTL South Tyrol and Trentino) to the present day?

Vorarlberg meanwhile due to being disconnected to ATL Austria somehow ends up becoming a part of Switzerland.
As other people have have previously said: None of this is actually realistic.

Basically, Switzerland didn't want Vorarlberg and annexing territory north of the Brenner Pass would have resulted in harm without any benefit for Italy.
 
Completely agreed.

Also, though, out of curiosity--what exactly was the reason for Italy's obsession with Dalmatia?
It was a former territory of the Republic of Venice and, at least in the cities, there had been significant Italian speaking populations until relatively recent times. Strategically, Italy wanted to make the Adriatic an Italian lake and exert at least economic influence in the Balkans. Obviously they were over ambitious aims.
 
Top