It seems to me like Italy got most of what it could reasonably expected from WW1, but resentment with the results is often posited as a reason for the rise of Mussolini. Am I missing something? What else did they want?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
short answer - they lost 1/2 a million soldiers and 1/2 a million civilians while spending a ruinous amount of money for pieces of land to small to show up on a map, and no other change in the pre war tactical or strategic situation for Italy as a whole.
- 2
The Dalmatian coast was "traditionally Italian" in the sense that Venice had dominated it during the Middle Ages. Some cities in the region had Italian minorities: Fiume (modern Rijeka in Croatia) even had an Italian majority (65%), though the people in the surrounding countryside were Serbo-Croat speakers. In the eyes of Italian nationalists that was enough for the whole land to be considered Italian clay.
More directly, in 1915 in the Treaty of London Britain and France had promised to let Italy have Dalmatia, among other things, if they joined in the war against Austria-Hungary. During the Paris Peace Conference, in 1919, however, President Wilson was strongly opposed to this, pushing the right of the South Slavs to national self-determination rather than letting their land be carved up by secret treaties between imperial powers. Britain and France went along with this, and so the Treaty of London was disavowed and Dalmatia went to Yugoslavia. Italian nationalists saw this as a massive betrayal and a stab in the back by the Western Allies.
More directly, in 1915 in the Treaty of London Britain and France had promised to let Italy have Dalmatia, among other things, if they joined in the war against Austria-Hungary. During the Paris Peace Conference, in 1919, however, President Wilson was strongly opposed to this, pushing the right of the South Slavs to national self-determination rather than letting their land be carved up by secret treaties between imperial powers. Britain and France went along with this, and so the Treaty of London was disavowed and Dalmatia went to Yugoslavia. Italian nationalists saw this as a massive betrayal and a stab in the back by the Western Allies.
- 11
- 3
Woodrow Wilson - enemy of Italian Imperialism once again!The Dalmatian coast was "traditionally Italian" in the sense that Venice had dominated it during the Middle Ages. Some cities in the region had Italian minorities: Fiume (modern Rijeka in Croatia) even had an Italian majority (65%), though the people in the surrounding countryside were Serbo-Croat speakers. In the eyes of Italian nationalists that was enough for the whole land to be considered Italian clay.
More directly, in 1915 in the Treaty of London Britain and France had promised to let Italy have Dalmatia, among other things, if they joined in the war against Austria-Hungary. During the Paris Peace Conference, in 1919, however, President Wilson was strongly opposed to this, pushing the right of the South Slavs to national self-determination rather than letting their land be carved up by secret treaties between imperial powers. Britain and France went along with this, and so the Treaty of London was disavowed and Dalmatia went to Yugoslavia. Italian nationalists saw this as a massive betrayal and a stab in the back by the Western Allies.
- 2
Basically as Stephen said. Italy was promised certain gains in return for joining the war, and did not receive them. There was also the general feeling of bitterness following the war that nearly every nation experienced. Mass casualties followed by a peace that didn't really fulfill any nations goals fully and then an economic downturn. Moreover, Italy received very little in the way of spoils (comparative to Britain and France, who gained Germany's colonial empire), and was the target of much ridicule by the Allies. This despite not surrendering like the Russians, and not entering as late as the Americans.
In the case of Italy, it should also be considered that the Italians never really got behind the war until it became one of national defence. The Italian entry into the war, far from being one of popular demand, was a cynical backroom political deal. Until the Boselli government there was little attempt to organise a war effort or even impart to soldiers and civilians of the reasons behind the war. Even then, the war was generally unpopular until after Caporetto, which was a large boost to Italian morale. Though a heavy defeat in military terms, it was actually beneficial in morale terms. Rather than a series of unsuccessful and costly offensives to secure something at best vaguely understood by the average Italian, Italy was now fighting for survival against the invader. Other changes were also important, such as an increase in morale boosting activities and the replacement of Luigi Cadorna (one of the few generals to really fit the stereotype of WW1 leadership).
Given those circumstances, it's easy to see why Italy reacted quite so badly afterwards. There is also of course an element of pride/egotism. Italy was a secondary power playing at great power status. Much like Germany, Italy was a late comer to the empire game. Unlike Germany, Italy did not possess a credible empire, industry, army, navy, government, country... Overcompensation essentially. Think of Italy as a middle aged man in a middle/lowish managerial position who drives a BMW or Porsche.
In the case of Italy, it should also be considered that the Italians never really got behind the war until it became one of national defence. The Italian entry into the war, far from being one of popular demand, was a cynical backroom political deal. Until the Boselli government there was little attempt to organise a war effort or even impart to soldiers and civilians of the reasons behind the war. Even then, the war was generally unpopular until after Caporetto, which was a large boost to Italian morale. Though a heavy defeat in military terms, it was actually beneficial in morale terms. Rather than a series of unsuccessful and costly offensives to secure something at best vaguely understood by the average Italian, Italy was now fighting for survival against the invader. Other changes were also important, such as an increase in morale boosting activities and the replacement of Luigi Cadorna (one of the few generals to really fit the stereotype of WW1 leadership).
Given those circumstances, it's easy to see why Italy reacted quite so badly afterwards. There is also of course an element of pride/egotism. Italy was a secondary power playing at great power status. Much like Germany, Italy was a late comer to the empire game. Unlike Germany, Italy did not possess a credible empire, industry, army, navy, government, country... Overcompensation essentially. Think of Italy as a middle aged man in a middle/lowish managerial position who drives a BMW or Porsche.
- 3
- 2
Did France somehow claim Syria and Lebanon already before or during WW1 or could they have been handed over to Italy as compensation? Alternative one of the former German colonies
Well claims weren't necessarily set in stone, as the Italy case in itself shows. Particularly once Woodrow Wilson came in things rapidly changed.
The major problem was that, from the view of the people really making the decisions (UK, France, USA) Italy didn't really deserve that much. Italy's imperialist claims didn't fit with Woodrow Wilson's incredibly selective view of self-determination, which said that imperialism was bad in certain cases but not when countries like the US did it.
From a British and French perspective, there was little motivation to give Italy great rewards. For one thing, Italy was a rival and they didn't want to concede gains to another nation, particularly one as unpredictable and cutthroat as Italy (there was also mutual rivalry between British and French designs). Moreover, from their perspective Italy hadn't done much to deserve rewarding. Italy had only contributed majorly to one front (the Italian Front) and there had made very little progress. There was also the idea (a myth) that British and French forces had had to save the Italians after Caporetto. Italy had also consumed huge amounts of Entente aid.
Really there was little to suggest to Britain and France that Italy wasn't a deadbeat good-for-nothing layabout who had done nothing to deserve its entirely cynical war goals and would likely stab them in the back first chance it got.
That this was somewhat faultily based logic wasn't particularly interesting to the leaders of the time.
The major problem was that, from the view of the people really making the decisions (UK, France, USA) Italy didn't really deserve that much. Italy's imperialist claims didn't fit with Woodrow Wilson's incredibly selective view of self-determination, which said that imperialism was bad in certain cases but not when countries like the US did it.
From a British and French perspective, there was little motivation to give Italy great rewards. For one thing, Italy was a rival and they didn't want to concede gains to another nation, particularly one as unpredictable and cutthroat as Italy (there was also mutual rivalry between British and French designs). Moreover, from their perspective Italy hadn't done much to deserve rewarding. Italy had only contributed majorly to one front (the Italian Front) and there had made very little progress. There was also the idea (a myth) that British and French forces had had to save the Italians after Caporetto. Italy had also consumed huge amounts of Entente aid.
Really there was little to suggest to Britain and France that Italy wasn't a deadbeat good-for-nothing layabout who had done nothing to deserve its entirely cynical war goals and would likely stab them in the back first chance it got.
That this was somewhat faultily based logic wasn't particularly interesting to the leaders of the time.
- 3
- 1
Wasn't Wilson opposed to American imperialism? I can't imagine he was a big fan of it, he was a staunch neutral.
- 1
- 1
Yes. They'd invested heavily in the Levant pre-war, building railways, schools and hospitals and so forth, and a lot of French citizens lived there under Ottoman sovereignty but with an extraterritorial agreement. France had made it fairly clear that if the Ottoman Empire ever collapsed they'd want to take over 'Greater Syria'.
For the record, it should also be noted that while Italy didn't get everything they'd been promised after WW1, they did get the Trentino and the whole region of Trieste and Pola. It wasn't as if they were sent away with nothing at all.
In the Treaty of London, signed on 26 April 1915 between the Triple Entente (including Russia) and Italy, the Allies made lots of promises that later did not materialize, even if the war proved very costly for a country that like Italy (as has been said correcly before) had very little popular enthusiasm for the war in 1915. Some of the articles that failed to materialize:
- Article 5: Italy shall also be given the province of Dalmatia within its present administrative boundaries (...)
- Article 6: Italy shall receive full sovereignty over Valona, the island of Saseno and surrounding territory (...)
- Article 13: In the event of France and Great Britain increasing their colonial territories in Africa at the expense of Germany, those two Powers agree in principle that Italy may claim some equitable compensation (...)
- 2
- 1
Exactly. No one got everything they wanted, it seemed to me like Italy got about what one would expect considering its contribution.
- 1
Well he supported (and signed) the Jones act which increased democratic rule in the Philippines and set out a path for independence but did not set a date for independence. And he signed the Jones-Shafroth act which gave citizenship and democratic rule to Puerto Ricans. These places had been kept as colonial dependencies for a decade prior to his election.
It's not like resentment has to be build on just grounds. Looking at other nations, grudges, attempts at revenge and whatnot it imo was pretty much immaterial which Italian demands were fullfilled or not; if someone wanted to rise a stink out of a war's results there always was a way to do so ...
- 1
Heck think of all the promises made to many nations/groups in both world wars, the Vietnamese, Arabs and others were promised independence.
Italy probably would have been better off however importing goods and selling like the Portugese did in WW2 than get involved in actual combat.
Italy probably would have been better off however importing goods and selling like the Portugese did in WW2 than get involved in actual combat.
- 3
So opposed that he sat there and happily criticised everyone else while doing bugger all about his own countries imperialism. But that's generally the way with America. The classic line is that America never had an empire. Wonder what the Indians, Hawaiians, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, and inhabitants of most of Central America think of that...
Also I just really don't like Woodrow Wilson.
- 3
- 1
I imagine that apart from just being peeved at how they were not given what had been promised by the entente it must have stung quite a bit that they could have gotten South Tirol as far north as Lavis (just north of Trento) from Austria in return for simple neutrality.
What they would have gotten from Austrias initial offer in return for remaining neutral:
South Tyrol as far north as Lavis (Italian majority).
Italys counteroffer to Austria, which was rejected:
Austria would grant the original offer plus Gorizia (Italian plurality atleast within the city), Gradisca (Italian majority, atleast within the city), Trieste as an independent state (Italian majority), the Dalmatian islands, Vlorë (the then capital of Albania!), renounciation of all Austrian intrests in Albania (Opening up for Italian "influence"). Italy would give Austria 200 million lire and join the war on the side of the Central powers.
What they were offered by the entente for joining the war:
South Tyrol as far north as Brenner (Italian minority, like 7% romance speakers), Trieste, Gorizia, Istria (largeish Italian minority, around 36%), Dalmatia (tiny Italian minority, like 3%), Albania as a protectorate, Antalya and a vague promise of additional colonies in Asia and Africa.
What they actually got from the entente after about a million casualties both civilian and military and 12 billion lire in war debt:
South Tyrol as far north as Brenner (Wilson clearly cared little for German self determination), Gorizia, Gradisca and Trieste connected by a narrow corridor.
What they would have gotten from Austrias initial offer in return for remaining neutral:
South Tyrol as far north as Lavis (Italian majority).
Italys counteroffer to Austria, which was rejected:
Austria would grant the original offer plus Gorizia (Italian plurality atleast within the city), Gradisca (Italian majority, atleast within the city), Trieste as an independent state (Italian majority), the Dalmatian islands, Vlorë (the then capital of Albania!), renounciation of all Austrian intrests in Albania (Opening up for Italian "influence"). Italy would give Austria 200 million lire and join the war on the side of the Central powers.
What they were offered by the entente for joining the war:
South Tyrol as far north as Brenner (Italian minority, like 7% romance speakers), Trieste, Gorizia, Istria (largeish Italian minority, around 36%), Dalmatia (tiny Italian minority, like 3%), Albania as a protectorate, Antalya and a vague promise of additional colonies in Asia and Africa.
What they actually got from the entente after about a million casualties both civilian and military and 12 billion lire in war debt:
South Tyrol as far north as Brenner (Wilson clearly cared little for German self determination), Gorizia, Gradisca and Trieste connected by a narrow corridor.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
I find that we should embrace our empire. The sun only sometimes set on the American Empire!
Well the Filipinos probably thought "Yay, Wilson signed a law that gives us a democratic legislature and lays out a plan for our independence."
The Puerto Rican views were more complicated. Some of them liked become American citizens thanks to a law Wilson supported. Others opposed citizenship because they wanted independence and thought citizenship would get in the way. A number of pleblicites have been held on the subject and independence has never won but has also never lost overwhelmingly.
Like I said, Woodrow Wilson could give a homeless man a mansion and I'd still laugh if he got kicked in the nuts by an angry badger.
- 2
- 1
- 1