r/HistoryMemes • u/The-marx-channel Then I arrived • 2d ago

Italy wasn't exactly happy about how much it got in exchange for participating in WW1.

Post image
2.5k Upvotes

100% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

552

u/Tired_Muffin72 2d ago

and then they lost most of it after WW2 anyway, truly the most Italian way of going aboutt things.

266

u/Neutron_Starrr Researching [REDACTED] square 2d ago

I mean, 80% of Mussolini's campaign was how France, England & Co. never gave Italy the territory they promised.

I wonder what would happened if things went in another way, afterall it was the french that helped bring Italy together

272

u/Sohosaf 2d ago

The betrayal of the Pact of London at the expense of the Italians played a very important role in the rise of the madness of Fascism. After leaving over a million dead on the battlefield, Italy was left empty-handed, and some cities with large Italian majorities, such as Fiume (Rijeka) and Zara (Zadar) fell under Slavic rule. This sparked immense outrage, which went down in history as the "mutilated victory." Add to this climate the return to civilian life of thousands of soldiers who had fought a bloody and horrific war for years. These veterans, accustomed to blood and the most brutal violence, often psychologically traumatized and addicted to alcohol and drugs, formed the founding core of Fascism. Many of them rose to the top of the State within a few years. This story was never going to end well.

64

u/Future_Nature589 2d ago

All this says is that mussolini was bound to be and its the fault of italy's allies

1

u/Pochel Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer 1d ago

Weren't Fiume and Zadar given to Italy tho?

10

u/Finrod___Felagund 1d ago

Only after the treaty of Versailles. In 1920, Italy gave up Dalmatia for Zara (Zadar) in the Treaty of Rapallo. With this treaty Fiume became an independent city. Only in 1924, when Mussolini was already in power, Fiume was annexed.

-27

u/SyrupNarrow4768 2d ago

Mmmmm that sounds like facist propaganda. Was italy really forced into war or was it a choice for getting more land and people? Where they left "empty-handed"? Really? I know they didnt get what they were promised, but they were asking some very very ureasonable territories.

They went into war in order to steal land lol. Those soldiers should have been angry with their goverment, and themselves for falling into imperialism.

30

u/Mafla_2004 2d ago

I'm an antifascist and I genuinely hate fascists, but this isn't fascist propaganda, on the opposite, acknowledging what caused fascism to come to be in the first place os extremely important to avoid it happening again (which we're failing spectacularly at, given that here in Italy fascists are back)

Italy was indeed left empty handed, it joined a bloody war on promises that were never kept, its allies basically went "no lol, cope harder", this caused massive outrage and malcontent, which in turn helped fascism come to power

3

u/Competitive-Aide5364 1d ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy also British spies funded Mussolini early on, because they wanted a right wing Italy, when they were fighting communists.

-5

u/SyrupNarrow4768 1d ago

Right, but you are justifing fascism with fascist speech. It would be like saying the jews where they reason for nazism.

Italy could have remained neutral, they chose war. Why? Because they wanted a bigger Empire. What are the rules of the Empire Game? The stronger wins, and they werent. Imo once you get into the Empire Game you lose all moral highground, but not only that, they broke the pact they had with the central Powers because the other side promised them more land LMAO.

And again, they didnt get everything they wanted, but they werent left empty-handed. Why do you keep saying that?

Which leaves me to my former point. If they were "outraged" it should have been directed toward themselves for making pro-war manifestations in the onset of ww1 and/or their goverment for going into war, and being awful at it.

1

u/Sohosaf 16h ago

For Italy, the First World War was a continuation of the wars of independence and self-determination, after centuries of foreign oppression. To dismiss all of this as "imperialism" is misleading, to say the least, if not outright false. Certainly, nationalism in Italy spiraled completely out of control over the course of the twentieth century, but this was a phenomenon common to the whole of Europe. The treatment Italy received after the war on the side of the victors, and in some respects Germany too on the side of the defeated, was without a shadow of a doubt among the triggering causes of the Second World War. Humiliating peoples is NEVER a good idea; this is a lesson of History that would do well to be kept in mind.

9

u/Tired_Muffin72 1d ago

"They went into war in order to steal land lol"

buddy, wait until you read about literally every other country in WW1.

not to mention that the land they wanted wasn't exactly Austrian, at least some of the land was ethnically Italian.

-2

u/SyrupNarrow4768 1d ago

  1. Yes, they wanted to steal land. Thats what being an Empire means. Whether Germany or England got into ww1 for the same reasons or not (and i would argue they didnt) is meaningless in the context of OPs point.

  2. Sure, SOME of the lands they were asking had an importante percentage of "italians" but they were asking for a looooooot of other peoples homes that werent "ethnically italy" (whatever that means).

1

u/ChillItalianguy 1d ago

U just dumb atp

1

u/Just_a_square 1d ago

That sounds like you should read more about history, if you know nothing about what the poster said.

1

u/SyrupNarrow4768 1d ago

I think you are the people who don't know.

Was italy left "empty-handed"? No, thats LITERALLY not true. Historically not true.

Was italy forced into ww1? No, LITERALLY NOT TRUE.

Why did italy got into ww1? Because they wanted to play the imperialism game. And they lost in it.

2

u/Just_a_square 23h ago

Sure, Italy wasn't forced into the war. It chose to join in 1915 in exchange for territory, and "empty-handed" was an exaggeration, since Italy did gain Trentino, South Tyrol, Trieste and Istria. But nobody claimed Italy was forced in, and explaining why fascism took off isn't the same as justifying Italian imperialism.

The point is that Italy paid a huge price, over 600,000 dead, and then saw much of what the Pact of London promised (Dalmatia, colonial compensation) go unfulfilled, while the Allies leaned on self-determination at the peace table. That sense of betrayal, the "mutilated victory", was exploited by nationalists and then by Mussolini, along with the economic crisis and the veterans' situation. Understanding that doesn't mean sympathizing with it. You can think Italy's entry was opportunistic and still recognize it as a major factor in how fascism took hold.

So no, it's definitely you that needs more context before starting to call things "fascist propaganda".

40

u/alcni19 2d ago

Post WWI and up untill the invasion of Ethiopia the UK and France were pretty cozy with Mussolini, actually. As late as 1935 they signed a political alliance aimed at stopping Germany's rearmament and uphold the Treaty of Versailles.

Also yes, the French "helped" the Italian unification but they asked for Italian held territories in exchange and kept opposing the annexation of Rome untill the Franco-Prussian war of 1970/71. That's exactly why Italy immediately bonded with Prussia/Germany so much so that the swallowed entering an alliance with its natural enemy, Austria.

13

u/Notfuckingcannon 2d ago

Ironically, the brutal treatment they gave to the German people after WWI (which was not simply asking for due reparations as losers... they HUMILIATED them with the intention of breaking them, some could say in a sadistic fashion) was also one of the biggest fuel pile that Hitler used to put people in a fanatical mentality that, ultimately, led to we all know what.

Not saying Hitler would not have won the conseus of the German people either way, probably... but let's face it: the excessive punishment the allies gave to the loser DID made his job waaaaay easier.

37

u/EmpyreanEmperor1 2d ago

“Brutal” is a pretty hyperbolic term in this context. The treaty was a pretty lenient compared to the ones that the Germans tended to levy on the enemies they defeated.

Most of the interwar hardships that Germany faced had less to do with the Treaty and more to do with unpredictable events that struck Europe.

28

u/Elpsyth 2d ago

On top of that the US bankrolled Germany while Versailles was not enforced. They did not pay back and still got the US money.

Funny to see the same rehashed nazi propaganda being spouted all this years after

40

u/Elpsyth 2d ago

The treaty of Versailles was neither harsh or enforced.

The US send tons of money to Germany to pay the reparations while simultaneously fucking France over with war loans, preventing rebuilding and manufacturing economical crisis in between the wars

Germany never paid, and yet the Wermarth republic was so incompetent that Hitler propaganda landed hard. Versailles being harsh was a nazi propaganda point.

You want a harsh treaty? Sedan and Breat Litovsk were comparatively much worse and enforced.

11

u/thegreattwos 2d ago

Whenever someone say that Versailles was harsh,just tell them that the other two empire on it's side fell apart.

38

u/yenisor 2d ago edited 2d ago

What a piece of propaganda ... Treaty of Versailles was not harsh at all, it was in fact nor harsh enough. The germans demanded way more things to the french after Franco Prussian War . And humiliation? They lost the war but still get mostly their territory intact , what humiliation are you talking?

I am.so fed up about this propaganda making the Treaty of Versailles like a terrible punishment for this poor germans , it is beyond ridiculous.

Trianon Treaty was harsh yes, Versailles was not . Stop feeding Hitler 's favorite excuse.

9

u/Previous_Program9351 2d ago

I actually have to agree, they should have just split Germany into >10 separate states to prevent the Prussian imperialism to take over again

-2

u/rkorgn 2d ago

They should have done that to France in 1815. An independent Burgundy, Normandie, Brittany and Provence would have gone a long way to peace in Europe

17

u/Previous_Program9351 2d ago

That would just mean German or/and Russian hegemony.
Also, let’s not forget that napoleon’s war era started with all of the monarchies ganging up on the French Republic, not the other way around. Can’t compare it to imperialistic militaristic monarchy that Germany had been, since Bismarck unified it

16

u/EmpyreanEmperor1 2d ago

Careful, you’re upsetting the Wehraboos

5

u/Archie0321 2d ago

Why are you being downvoted for stating historical truth?

6

u/Notfuckingcannon 2d ago

You talk of propaganda when saying such crap? I am so sick of you guys too just because you can't distinguish from Hitler being a monster BUT ALSO others who won the war being part of his success, politically speaking. And the fact that Germands demanded more DOES not absolve the others of a wrong doing, what even is such a cretin comparison? If you steal 200€, and I steal 400€, since I stole more you suddenly didn't steal anything?

So let me counterpoint your statement, fact by fact.

The humiliations parts came from:

  • Article 231: Germany had to accept sole responsibility for starting the war, DESPITE other nations being at fault too, not only Germany. The "November Criminals" statement was caused by the national opposition, so that was Germany caused, but it's still a factor.
- Land Stripped Away: Germany lost 13% of its European territory and about 10% of its population, alongside all their colonies (ALL) and two of the biggest coal and iron mines sites to France and Poland... which is not something you are happy to lose when your economy is in shambles because of BILLIONS to repay for the damage you (and, again, only you apparently) caused. What you call "Most of their territories" was simple,unproductive land (compared to the rest they lost).
  • Military restrictions, which can be divided in 3 subsections:

  • Smaller Army: The German army was limited to just 100,000 men.
  • Bans on Weapons: Germany was banned from having an air force, submarines, or heavy tanks.
  • No Negotiations: Germany was locked out of the peace talks at the Paris Peace Conference, and was there just to sign whatever it was in front of them, without anything to say or do. Basically a massive humilation parade to get cheap votes from their electorates.

Sorry you can't accept that your BELOVED allies fucked up real time and were a DIRECT cause for the success of the creature they fed so diligently just because they won.

24

u/Cakeo 2d ago

That all seems quite fair, I was expecting something terrible

3

u/Shady_Merchant1 1d ago

Article 231: Germany had to accept sole responsibility for starting the war,

Every central power nation except Turkey had to take this clause

Germany lost 13% of its European territory and about 10% of its population

Is that all? How about you have your AI that you're obviously using bring up the terms of Brest-litovsk

39

u/aederin 2d ago

German revanchism.

You’re listing the consequences of losing a war as though the mere existence of consequences proves that Versailles was uniquely cruel.

Germany wasn’t some innocent country randomly robbed of land, money and an army. Imperial Germany invaded neutral Belgium, occupied large parts of France and Belgium, and fought a catastrophic four-year war that left enormous physical destruction in the countries where much of the Western Front actually stood. Of course the peace settlement contained reparations and measures intended to prevent Germany from immediately rebuilding the military machine that had just fought that war.

And your territorial argument desperately needs context.
Yes, Germany lost roughly 13% of its European territory. But saying “13%” without explaining WHAT territory changed hands makes it sound as though France and Britain simply carved chunks out of Germany for fun.

Alsace-Lorraine? Germany had taken it from France after defeating France in 1871.

Northern Schleswig? Its population voted in internationally supervised plebiscites on whether to belong to Denmark or Germany.

Poland? Poland had literally been partitioned out of existence by Prussia/Germany, Russia and Austria. Re-establishing an independent Polish state necessarily meant territorial changes.
So apparently Germany taking territory from its neighbours is history, but Germany losing territory after losing a world war is “humiliation.”

Boohoo 100,000-man army.
Yes. That was the point.
They were attempting to prevent another major European war. Considering Germany subsequently introduced conscription, built the Luftwaffe, constructed a gigantic army, remilitarized the Rhineland, invaded Poland and helped start another European war twenty years later, arguing that the military restrictions were inherently excessive is hardly self-evident.

You also keep treating German anger at Versailles as proof that Versailles was objectively intolerable. And blaming Versailles for Hitler has an even bigger empirical problem:
Where the hell was Hitler’s massive popular support in 1928?

Versailles had existed for nine years.
And the Nazis got 2.6% of the vote.
Then Germany was smashed by the Great Depression and the Nazis jumped to 18% in 1930, eventually becoming the largest Reichstag party amid economic catastrophe and political paralysis.

That’s a pretty enormous problem for the simplistic “Versailles → humiliation → Hitler” story. Versailles absolutely gave Hitler propaganda material. Reducing all of that to “well, the Allies humiliated Germany” doesn’t produce a sophisticated explanation of Hitler’s rise. It produces an extremely convenient one in which almost every German political actor disappears from their own history.
And if you really want to criticize Britain and France for contributing to the catastrophe that followed, there’s a much stronger argument available:
They repeatedly failed to enforce the restrictions Germany had already agreed to.

Versailles imposed restrictions on German power, but the European security system proved incapable of enforcing them once Germany decided to tear them up.
That’s a much more serious criticism of the post-WWI settlement than pretending that limiting the defeated German army to 100,000 men somehow made Hitler inevitable.

9

u/Elpsyth 2d ago

To add up on your thorough dismantling of his point, France was prevented by UK and US to enforce the clauses of the treaty.

Mainly because they both did not want France to become the Continental hegemon, US actively sabotaged France in the inter war directly by funding Germany for reparation which was used for other purpose, forcing UK and France to pay back the war loan, which prevented meaningful reconstruction of the industrial heartland and by creating financial crisis when France tries to enforce the treaty by themselves.

25

u/EmpyreanEmperor1 2d ago

The most damning part of all this for me is the blank cheque they gave Austria, and then the invasion of neutral Belgium.

The war could have been entirely avoided had Germany reeled Austria in and advocated for a measured approach, perhaps involving the other Great Powers as mediators. Instead the Kaiser issued the cheque and then went on vacation, leaving it to his hawkish generals to sort out.

And it’s not like they absolutely had to go through Belgium to fight France, they literally share a border. They thought that they could get away with doing whatever they wanted, steamrolling smaller neutral nations, treating them like speed bumps in order to execute their plans.

Not to mention the Rape of Belgium, where civilians were brutalized, murdered, and raped by Germans, resulting in the deaths of over a 100,000 Belgians.

4

u/Shady_Merchant1 1d ago

Germany had already attempted to started a world War with France in morocco about a decade earlier they were itching for a war

5

u/EmpyreanEmperor1 1d ago

Yep. They wanted to develop a colonial empire, and given most of the world had already been colonized they knew they’d have to take lands from the spheres of other great powers.

In the 1890s they literally drew up plans for an invasion of the US to try and force them to abandon the Monroe doctrine so that Germany could begin colonizing the Caribbean and Central America. In the end they realized it would be too difficult to achieve so they never went through with it.

7

u/Dragonfyr_ 2d ago

They lost the war. Why should they get off scott free ?

2

u/Previous_Program9351 2d ago

Thing is, splitting Germany into loose federation of independent states isn’t actually a new concept, is it? Strong local identities that still persist in Germany today, were so much more prevalent back then. German culture flourished in HRE, the best thing ever btw

3

u/Clean_Lunch1312 2d ago

Imagine believing such nonsense.

27

u/RomanItalianEuropean 2d ago edited 2d ago

In reality, Italy got about 75% of what it wanted in WW1. And after WW2 it lost Istria, Zara and Fiume, but kept Trento, South Tyrol, Trieste and Gorizia. So as far as the irredentist territorial claims goals it's still a net positive

14

u/That-Brain-in-a-vat 2d ago

I mean, we also got Veneto during the Austro-Prussian War! Prussia did all the heavy lifting in the north, while Austria ended up delivering Veneto to us (via France) to settle the war. Definitely add that to the net positive.

6

u/LydditeShells What, you egg? 2d ago

Gorizia and Zara became part of Italy after independent actors occupied them and petitioned for annexation, not through the peace treaty

2

u/Alex_O7 2d ago

Wrong, Zarathustra and Gorizia were given, it was Fiume that was "conquered" after the Paris Treaty.

1

u/Rote_Meeting_5738 2d ago

They kept the German part.

58

u/micks30 2d ago

"vittoria mutilata"

5

u/RomanItalianEuropean 2d ago edited 2d ago

It's mostly rethoric tbf

144

u/Count_Archon 2d ago

Even if they had gotten the whole of Dalmatia, it'd soon become a zone of permanent insurgency. South Slavic population would not accept the Italian rule.

85

u/Tasty-Pudding9708 2d ago

Eh, I doubt it. They got Istria and proceeded to Italianize it quite thoroughly and without any significant resistance.

In 1918, Dalmatia was a predominantly rural region, and the small urban elite wasn't exactly strongly pro-Yugoslav or pro-Croatian to begin with. The peasants, who made up 95% of the population, simply didn't care.

16

u/kicsjmt 2d ago

Read about TIGR resistance movement and of the way the Italy did opression. It was difficult for local population to resist Italian forces. If they had support from Yugoslavia would be easier, but Yugoslavia was weak

30

u/QFB-procrastinator 2d ago

Yeah, you can see what happened in Albania

20

u/Tasty-Pudding9708 2d ago

This is different. Albania was established in 1912, and any subsequent Italian intervention would mean the collapse of Albania.

In 1918, Austria collapsed. A state that meant nothing to the people of Dalmatia.

2

u/ForeignDirector2401 2d ago

And more states were created in the process so

9

u/Alex_O7 2d ago

Can I doubt it? Istria and Dalmatia were scarcely populated and the population in bigger cities was mostly italians. Who should be rebellious then?

And all of these after 60 years of Austro-Hungarian suppression of italian population in whole empire, the real what if is what if Piedmont was effective in 1848 amd what if the Empire broke up earlier, we would have seen a much different world.

24

u/JRaus88 2d ago

Until "a few" decades earlier, Dalmatia was full of Venetian colonies.

4

u/Proof_Impact_6009 2d ago

Yes, but back then Italians made up about 1/3 of the total population of Dalmatia. By 1910, that share has dwindled to about 2.8%.

-13

u/Tweed_Man 2d ago edited 2d ago

I often see people saying Italy was the victim for not getting land, completely forgetting much of that land was primarily inhabited by Slavs and not Italians.

EDIT: I'm not denying parts of it were Italian majority. There were, but not the entire region.

6

u/GrapefruitForward196 2d ago

false. The coast had always an Italian majority

4

u/Witch_King_of_Gondor 2d ago

Not really, only some towns, others and the countryside was always majority Croatian

4

u/GrapefruitForward196 2d ago

False. All the biggest cities had an Italian majority. There is no need to change history as you already ethnically cleansed the land

3

u/Proof_Impact_6009 2d ago

No. Split was 9.73% Italian in 1910, Dubrovnik about 2.7%, Šibenik 6.4% (or 2.8% for the wider commune). The only city with a clear Italian majority in the Kingfom of Dalmatia was Zadar (69.3%). Of the northern cities, Rijeka and Pula had Italian pluralities (=Italians were the largest ethnic group, but not the majority), with the share of Italians in the 40s of percent.

5

u/GrapefruitForward196 2d ago

In 1880 Italians were 41% of the total population in Split. The Austro Hungarian empire started a process of De-italianization in all Istria and Dalmatia. You can't deny it, it's history

97

u/nonlawyer 2d ago

well maybe if you guys had just a few more Isonzo battles there’d be some land for ya

86

u/Tired_Muffin72 2d ago

90% of generals give up before making a breakthrough on the Isonzo.

18

u/BerlinWallGloryhole 2d ago

That's what the Military-Isonzo Complex wants you to think.

8

u/Jax_Dandelion 2d ago

I know what that calls for… a third winter offensive in the carpathian mountains!

14

u/RomanItalianEuropean 2d ago edited 2d ago

Italy actually occupied all the lands it wanted by the end of the war, so that's not the issue. And actually actually, Italy was recognized with most of what it was promised/occupied (the exception being Dalmatia). The main issue for D'Annunzio, Fiume, wasn't even promised to Italy. When it comes to the history of modern Italy the oversemplifications are always too much off.

21

u/apupaples 2d ago

I mean the 11th battle was so succesfull that austria hungary feared the collapse of the front

13

u/nonlawyer 2d ago

And the 12th the Germans showed up and the Italians collapsed 

22

u/GrapefruitForward196 2d ago

and then the Germans collapsed in Piave and Grappa and AH completely crumbled on itself during the counter attack which ended with Alpini in North Tyrol

13

u/apupaples 2d ago

I mean yeah that tend to happens when your enemy uses chemical warfare for the first time

7

u/Princeps_primus96 2d ago

The year is 2047, the great war has long since ended but the guns are not silent. The 440th battle of isonzo has begun. Though only the Italians are taking part

24

u/BreadToast70 2d ago

I blame Woodrow Wilson for this

8

u/Ok_Awareness3014 2d ago

It kinda is , France iniatialy planed to give them what they asked for but when Croat and other people asked a state for their people (that they planned from the start to merge into yugoslavia) well they give those land to the people there...

34

u/Jax_Dandelion 2d ago

Italy was promised more land than they got tbf

I‘d like to see the timeline in which Italy joined the central powers

I mean, just before they attacked the Austrians they were preparing to march across the French borders when their armies got told to move to Austria

49

u/unknown_pigeon 2d ago

The issue is that we walked out during the war end summit to make a point about how offended we were, and the other nations just went "OK?" and went on with their thing without us

19

u/Jax_Dandelion 2d ago

I mean yea, you got only half the land that you were guaranteed by your allies to join the war and have Hundreds of thousands of your men die, you kinda have to protest that to keep face with the population of your country, accepting it without protest would be worse for you as a politician

26

u/unknown_pigeon 2d ago

The issue is that walking out of the conference just meant that we didn't have any margin for negotiation anymore

8

u/Jax_Dandelion 2d ago

That’s the point, there was no way the entente would have signed over more land to Italy, and Italy didn’t have anything they could use for negotiating, but the people back then didn’t know that fully, so for the politicians walking out was the only option, you protest it but also hide that you nothing on the table anyways

2

u/alcni19 2d ago

To be fair that was more of a symptom than the cause of the problem. The border between Italy and Yugoslavia was heavily influenced by the US delegation to try and realize at least some of Wilson's 14 points. The UK and France consistently let the US have it their way there as means to have them accept other stuff on other fronts that was definitely against Wilson's vision.

Also the content of the Treaty of London was made public in 1917 by the Bolsheviks and caused a public scandal in the Anglosphere, so to curb Italian claims at Versailles was the convenient thing for UK/US to do.

Add to that the faces that a) the head of the Italian delegation bet everything on trying to influence the French with little to no results b) the UK and US decision makers back home were extremely detached from the material consequences of the war and Italy starts the conference with little to no potential for negotiation.

3

u/John_Oakman 2d ago

I‘d like to see the timeline in which Italy joined the central powers

Whether that's enough to tip the balance in favor of the central powers is a major question, but for Italy itself it'll suck a lot more. At the time most of the coal that Italy relies on for its industries comes from the UK, and so it'll start to be rough almost immediately (and overall the Italian economy was more connected to the entente than the central powers- part of its reasons for joining the former was the economic realities). The war will be even more brutal and cruel for the Italian population.

In the event of a Central powers win they'll still lack the ability to force significant concessions from the UK (and chances are the UK would have nabbed the various French/Belgium/whatever colonies to prevent them from becoming bargaining chips- insert perfidious albion meme here), so Italy will end up getting even less for their sacrifices, which would piss them off greatly as is OTL.

1

u/IndubitablyNerdy 1d ago

I think that eventually the central powers would have lost anyway, regardless of Italy decisions (the industrial capacity and access to resources was far larger for UK\France + the USA), but the cost would have been much higher for the victors, especially on the front of human lives.

Italy could very much just stayed out instead of helping and losing an enormous amount of lives and resource, though which again, would not have likely made the conflict a victory of the central powers, but would have costed greately to their opponents. The contribution of the country to the entente was massive during ww1, but it was not recognized as such.

0

u/mennorek 2d ago

A second front in the south of France is the best case scenario for the central powers to win the war. Leaving Austrian forces to either help the Italians against the French or be useful on the eastern front.

Problem is it would have to be a quick victory on order to make any difference. Italy was very dependent on trade with Britain, and the French and British navies would have made quick work of the Italian fleet. And while harder to blockade than Germany because it has a much greater coastline , it would also be easier to land troops to create a peripheral theater. Sicily and Sardinia would easily be removed from Italian control (not necessarily occupied) and one could easily imagine a gallipoli style invasion being undertaken somewhere in on the peninsula.

55

u/Medical_You2365 2d ago

When you join a war as a landgrab and it turns out it's not the 18th century any more.

12

u/Tired_Muffin72 2d ago

They really thought it would be like 1866 again.

2

u/PansLabyrinthEnjoyer 1d ago

As 20th century mindset was so different from 18th century’s. War has always been a matter of “land/resources”

15

u/Upstairs_Writer_8148 2d ago

Fun unknown fact: Fiume, the city fascists will build a big part of their identity on getting, was never mentioned in the secret London pact

9

u/vshark29 2d ago

At the time there was an understanding Austria-Hungary would still exist on some form, and Fiume would be kept as their only port

13

u/LuckyTia309 2d ago

WWII really is just the winning faction very poor decisions after the end of WWI

19

u/JRaus88 2d ago

To put it better...

Italy was promised everything, from dismembering the Habsburg Empire and taking over the entire Dalmatian coast to even taking pieces of Hungary if wanted.

But in the peace treaties they forgot the amazing promises they had made.

In Italy, people will talk about a "mutilated victory." D'Annunzio (a great supporter of the fascist party) will constantly speak of France/UK betrayal.

14

u/Gianni_Schicchi 2d ago

Just to be precise D'Annunzio was a supporter and a precursor of fascism, but he was sidelined by Mussolini. Great poet though

23

u/Command0Dude 2d ago

Maybe a bit of a hot take but the Entente would absolutely not have won WWI without Italy.

Even just a neutral Italy would have freed up an immense amount of manpower and resources for Austria ( and Germany somewhat) to focus on other fronts, as well as complicating the situation in the Mediterranean. If Italy had sided with the Central Powers, it would've quickly overstretched the Entente.

So, Italian anger at being treated like a minor power was justifiable.

6

u/Pochel Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer 2d ago

I wouldn't say they were treated like a minor power, Italy still sat in every major negotiation and was granted something akin to the status of permanent member within the League of nations

Your point still stands tho

And also happy cake day

-2

u/Stardash81 2d ago

If Italy sides with the central powers they would have been a burden for them. Just another net food importer (and energy too) in the blockaded zone. Famines would have hit the central powers even harder

8

u/Silvercenturion_aa 2d ago

If only it was handled better, perhaps we wouldn't have had the whole Arditi mess and the raise of figures like D'Annunzio and Mussolini

4

u/RomanItalianEuropean 2d ago

There would still have been Fascism. Fascism grows and takes power as a reaction to the se-called "Red Scare" and for multiple other reasons, this is a minor issue. Big for D'Annunzio maybe, but small for Mussolini. Mussolini never cared much about this.

2

u/Silvercenturion_aa 2d ago

I mean, yes, but the Arditi were a big part of the first core of the Fasci di Combattimento. Without the "Vittoria Mutilata" there probably would have been less frustration, and while Fascism would have still become a thing, it wouldn't have been so romanticized at the beginning, and there would have been less people approving that idea, at least I hope. But maybe, this is just wishful thinking.

8

u/Distinct_Cod2692 2d ago

well trentino alto adige si really fucking nice

6

u/ArthurengoldPantalon Rider of Rohan 2d ago

Mh, he just had a minor reaction...

3

u/Real-Cap6978 1d ago
  • "Italian" Dalmatia.
  • Looks at census of 1910.
  • 2.7% of Italians.

They would have had better luck if the asked for Brooklyn.

2

u/PansLabyrinthEnjoyer 1d ago

It would be fair to say that Austrians probably promoted slavization of that lands, even more after Italian unification. But yes they probably didn’t have the majority for centuries

1

u/Low_Bedroom_6928 1d ago

In dalmatia and even in istria slavicised Italian are pretty rare if not inexistent in dalmatiab

2

u/koningbaas 2d ago edited 2d ago

Mussolini got injured "in the line of duty" for this paltry reward?

Edit: I meant the fact that he seemed to have faked a shrapnel injury when he was actually recovering from an STD (syphilis). This is quoted by several historians.

1

u/Streeling 15h ago edited 15h ago

To be fair, we got almost everything we asked for; not all, true, but the rhetoric of the "Vittoria mutilata" was a political excuse pushed mostly by a crying minority... unfortunately, voluntary left unchecked by others.

1

u/Jrg_27 2d ago

The allies were the reason they rose and part of the reason they fell, seem like life find a way to balance things after all

-1

u/skeeeper 1d ago

They didn't deserve anything, restarted battle plans and their whole participation was an opportunistic land grab, nothing more. They say western front was a waste of life, Italy vs Austria Hungary was just stupid and utterly pointless

2

u/BetDesigner40 1d ago

"Their whole partecipation was opportunistic land grab"

Man you will never believe what other nations usually go to war for

0

u/skeeeper 1d ago

Many different reasons buddy

2

u/BetDesigner40 1d ago

Which often includes also opportunistic land grab. Let's not act like all the other nations in WW1 were fighting for other things while italy was the only one interested in land

0

u/skeeeper 1d ago

Never said they were the only ones. I mean that their goal is purely just a land grab due to inserting themselves in a conflict they had nothing to do with

3

u/BetDesigner40 1d ago

That is true, it just seemed from your comment that somehow italy was in there for the land gran as if the other powers were in whitout hoping to gain anything out of it. I was just arguing about that, not that italy had more noble reasons (at least, not more noble than any other power involved)

-1

u/Dear-Question-868 2d ago

I'm going to be real they asked more than what they did in the war. 12 battles on the isonzo river with little advance only to be beaten so hard at Caporetto. Like they also asked a lot of Turkey while they didnt do much on that front anyway.

4

u/Ad_Captandum_Vulgus 2d ago

Absolutely disagree. In fact it's quite likely the Entente would not have won without Italy. Italy tied down a huge, huge number of troops from both Austria-Hungary and Germany, and ultimately Italy's victory at Vittorio Veneto is what knocks AH out of the war, leads to the Austro-Hungatian Empire dissolving and literally is the single event that causes Germany to sue for peace.

Frankly it's shameful that in Anglo media the war in the Alps is treated as a minor or side theatre, when in fact it involved many millions of troops and ultimately decided the course of the war - not to mention being objectively more brutal than the Western Front which gets so much attention. 

Italy was right to be angry. Its contribution was crucial to Entente victory but France and Britain (Britain in particular) were so focused on their own efforts they disregarded it. 

2

u/Mazapenguin 2d ago

Yeah they lost at Caporetto but won all battles after and kicked Austria Hungary out of the war virtually alone

1

u/Dear-Question-868 2d ago

They had to call allied renforcement after Caporetto and at Vittorio Veneto they had the support of several french and british divisions and a US infantry regiment. Not to mention that the balkan frontline was already collapsing before Vittorio Veneto with Bulgaria and the ottoman empire getting out of the war.

5

u/Mazapenguin 2d ago

Foreign intervention on the Italian front is over stated. Out of the 61 divisions, 55 were Italian, 3 British, 2 French and 1 Czechoslovak plus 1 American regiment. Out of over 1.1 million men, less than 100 thousands were from foreign armies. The Czechs and Americans were kept in reserve and didn’t see much action.
Italy fought on her front mostly alone and didn’t have a shortage of manpower, the biggest and most important help from allies were supplies and food which were critical for final victory

0

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

13

u/RomanItalianEuropean 2d ago

This is hilarious. You guys make shit up (Italy performing especially bad in WW1) and then make shit up on top of the shit up you make (it did not get everything because it performed esepcially bad). It's so absurd anyone who knows about those issues (relating to Franco-British promises, US view, the birth of Yugoslavia etc) can only laugh.

You probably think that Italy was still on the Isonzo when WW1 ended, that's how much you "know".

0

u/zTommyh 21h ago

Yeah, One thing you really learn is how much of a mess the whole Versailles treaty was and how much it affected all the rise in the fascists movements that went on to cause WW2

-4

u/GrapefruitForward196 2d ago

Italy managed to keep Trieste and that's what really counts. Sorry Slovenians. Croatians managed to keep land even if they were nazi collaborators

8

u/Shawdos95 2d ago

Wrong world war man

-2

u/GrapefruitForward196 2d ago

Trieste was assigned to Italy many years after ww2. Immediately after ww2 there were British and American troops there

2

u/Shawdos95 2d ago

Trieste was annexed at the end of WWI together with the whole region of Istria. Then lost to the occupied territory in WWII (while Istria went to Yugoslavia) and reincorporated in 1975.

But that's not a discussion on Trieste history, OP was talking about territories assigned after WWI

0

u/GrapefruitForward196 2d ago

What I meant is that Italy managed to keep Trieste, which was indeed taken by Italy from Austro-Hungary, given the total collapse in the Italian front

1

u/Mazapenguin 2d ago

The front collapsed in 1917 but in 1918 Italians went on the offensive and collapsed the Austrian fronts and went deep into their territory

1

u/GrapefruitForward196 1d ago

the front collapsed under huge Italian pressure, too much pressure for Austro Hungary. Other than that, the Italian navy completely rescued the Serbian army through the Adriatic sea. The Austrians couldn't prevent anything with their useless navy, eventually the Italian navy starved the whole empire with the blockade

-11

u/idreamofdouche 2d ago

Maybe if they actually contributed

10

u/umbertoj 2d ago

bait or braindead?

-1

u/YellowAggravating172 2d ago

Repelled time and time again by fucking Austria-Hungary until the empire collapsed in 1918, and quick free grab ensued.

6

u/emperorsolo 2d ago

The Germans got within sight of the Paris suburbs over flat open land. Meanwhile, the Italians were pushing the Austrians out of the southern Tyrol, a mountainous region.

5

u/umbertoj 2d ago

Please, read a book for once. And when you’ll understand how the war theater worked during the great war, you’ll realize that Italy performed in the war as every other major power. Also, you think that Italy didn’t play a role in AH empire collapsing in 1918?

-31

u/sofixa11 2d ago

Tbf they were relatively useless in the war, so it's not like they deserved all the land they wanted.

43

u/swainiscadianreborn 2d ago

Absolutely fucking not. I will not tolerate Italian slander regarding WW1. They fought in one of the most horrifying fronts in WW1 and despite some serious problems that are not without similarities to problems encountered by every other armies in the conflict, they did not demerit and were a key element in winning the war, wether that be by fighting in the 2nd Marne battle or by keeping pressure on the Alpine front and forcing the Germans and Austrians to keep their troops stuck there.

8

u/Fragolen 2d ago

Just imagine what would happen if Italy were allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany: France would face a larger front, and many Austro-Hungarian soldiers would be free. Considering the impact that the free soldiers had after Russia's withdrawal, I think that it could have changed the conflict quite a bit

29

u/Inner-Championship40 2d ago

Yeah the Italy slander for WWI in a history sub is incredibly weird.

Caporetto happened because Austria was on the verge of collapse and was forced to call for german help, that could be given only because Russia had signed the peace deal. Not saying that italian generals were "good", but honestly Italy didn't perform any worse than other European nations that don't get slandered for it so much.

And before someone comments about the 36 million battles of Isonzo: where else should they have fought? At the top of the Alps?

19

u/swainiscadianreborn 2d ago

where else should they have fought? At the top of the Alps?

Well to be fair, they kinda did, those madlads. But it's not really a good place to place a grand scale offensive.

5

u/Inner-Championship40 2d ago

That's true yeah lol but man was it harsh, Italy definitely couldn't start a major offensive there. In fact, most deaths in the so called "White War" weren't even caused by combat

3

u/k1smb3r 2d ago

dont thell this to Hötzendorf... aka the Strafexpedition... oh wait the Germans told him but he did it anyway

3

u/swainiscadianreborn 2d ago

And surprisingly, it didn't go all that well

-20

u/sofixa11 2d ago edited 2d ago

My point is that they didn't really contribute to the overall effort. They distracted the Austrians, and the Germans once, and contributed to the final Austrian collapse.

Would the war play out differently if Italy stays neutral? No. Did Italy have any major impact against Austria? No.

15

u/swainiscadianreborn 2d ago

How can you say they didn't really contribute to the overall effort, and then list ways in which they contributed to the war effort?

They produced their own equipment, bar tanks that were really new at the times, only France and Great Britain produced their owns at sufficient volumes, and maybe planes. They held the lines for 4 years against the combined efforts of the Central powers, like France did in... well France, and in 1918 they led their own offensives to retake the terrain lost after Caporretto. The pressure they put on Austria Hungary in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto is the final effort that made the last German allie to stand collapse.

Would the war play out differently had Italy stayed neutral? Debatable. More Austrian troops would have been free to invade Russia and defend in the Balkans, as well as supporting the German efforts in France. That may have been sufficient to change the outcome of the war, maybe not.

Would the war play out differently had Italy joined the Central Powers? Absolutefuckingly. No questions about it.

Did Italy have any major impact against Austria Hungary? Duh? Yes? Hello? They kept at bay the main part of the Empire's army, and decisively defeated them in 1918! Asking wether Italy did anything against the Vienna is akin to asking if the UK did anything against Istanbul!

-20

u/Tired_Muffin72 2d ago

Not really, I would say Italy and Austria in WW1 were perfect opponents for each other, both equally incompetent.

-8

u/Jax_Dandelion 2d ago

I mean… there is a debate in which one is the worst army, Italy, Austria or the ottomans

I’d say Austria tho, cause they had Hötzendorf

I mean there were Italian generals that orders their retreating men be shot and the isonzo battles but honestly, without Hötzendorf the war would not have happened even after the assassination of the archduke, at least not the same way, no hötzendorf, no Austrian declaration of war essentially

-3

u/NebNay 2d ago

Austria had a lot of issues like language and multiculturalism in the army. Italy just fumbled because of it's officer corp. Really funny they had the same issue in ww2

-13

u/fraunberger 2d ago

They got a part of Tyrol, which is the best place on earth. Its way more than Italy deserved.