Rarely is the question asked: What if Italy had won the Second World War? The more frequently asked question is: What if Germany had won the war? Italy may have been the birthplace of fascism (1) but in the original Axis of Evil (2), the Italians clearly were the junior partners to the Germans – ideologically, economically and militarily.
Fascist Italy nevertheless has an expansionist track record distinct from Germany’s: Mussolini’s stated aim was to restore the Roman Empire (or build something similar to it), and to reclaim the Mediterranean as an Italian Mare Nostrum (3). He never quite managed to do that, but did cobble together something of an African empire, conquering Lybia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and part of Somalia.
Closer to home, some of Italy’s irredentist (4) frustrations were satisfied by the annexation of neighbouring territories, such as the area around Nice after the fall of France. Expansion in the Balkans and Greece was less successful, and the Germans had to come to the aid of the Italians to consolidate the Axis hold on the area. After the war, Italy obviously lost all its colonies and extra territories.
These two maps are an answer to the Italian version of the most frequently asked What if-question about the Second World War. They are taken from Italian writer Enrico Brizzi’s novel L’inattesa piega degli eventi (’The Unexpected Unfolding of Events’), which describes an allohistorical world in which fascist Italy breaks with Hitler in time to be counted as a victor, come Germany’s eventual defeat. The alternate 1960s Italy described in the novel is still ruled by an ageing Duce (5), a situation immediately reminiscent of Spain, which was the fiefdom of generalissimo Francisco Franco, the victor of the Spanish Civil war, from the late 1930s to the mid-1970s.
In the book, Mussolini has kicked out the royal family and reduced the role of the Church, firmly establishing his hold over power. The colonies have been promoted to the status of associated republics, but this is largely a formality. The story in Brizzi’s book follows the travels of an Italian sports writer in these African possessions of Italy, whence he will return with a different view of the Madrepatria (’Motherland’).
These maps show Italy’s territorial acquisitions in Europe and Africa. In Europe, Italy as grown to the detriment of France (annexing Corsica, now also an associated republic, the area around Nice – Nizza in Italian – and the Savoy), Austria and Malta (also an associated republic). In Africa, the Italian Empire controls Eritrea, Ethiopia and the larger part of what today is Somalia. The British rule over Somaliland in the north, an enclave in Italian East Africa. There is something going on with part of the Savoy, but both my eyesight and my Italian are too deficient to figure out exactly what it is.
Many thanks to Valerio Taubmann for sending in these maps. More on Mr Brizzi’s book on this page of his website (in Italian).
- Mussolini’s power grab in 1922 preceded Hitler’s by more than a decade.
- Rome-Berlin, as of the signing of a friendship treaty between Italy and Germany in October 1936; Rome-Berlin-Tokyo, as of the signing of the Tripartite Pact in September 1940. The Axis was thereafter sometimes also called RoBerTo in Italy.
- ‘Our Sea’, a common term for the sea when all its shores were Roman possessions.
- Irredentism, i.e.the desire to annex territory based on historical and/or ethnic grounds, gets its name from Italia irredenta, a term to describe territories held by the Austro-Hungarian empire between the unification of Italy and the end of the First World War, and claimed by Italy.
- Fascist leaders love epithetons. Hitler’s was Fuehrer, Franco liked to be called Caudillo and Mussolini was nuts about Duce, which means something like ‘leader’ or ‘guide’.



И такое даже бывает ???
Comment by Noon — November 3, 2008 @ 5:30 am
I don’t know if this fits the alternative story in the book, but in reality Italy also occupied a big chunk of Greece. Plus, even before the war, the Dodecanese islands in south-east Greece were also Italian possesions.
Actually, this map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ItalianMareNostrum.jpg shows the maximum extent to which Mussolini’s aspirations came true.
Comment by plagal — November 3, 2008 @ 6:06 am
With regards to Savoy, the text seems to suggest it was occupied by Italy in 1945, became independent in 1948 (”Regno di Savoia”) but turned to France in 1951 (”torna alla Francia”).
Comment by tapastalatukat — November 3, 2008 @ 6:47 am
this is definitely a cool map and analysis.
Comment by Baoky — November 3, 2008 @ 9:20 am
If the world change, things won’t be what they are now.
Comment by World Guy — November 3, 2008 @ 9:21 am
It seems Italy also took control over the French Somaliland?
Comment by ArCgon — November 3, 2008 @ 9:21 am
thanks , i bookmark your site.
Comment by HRHR — November 3, 2008 @ 9:21 am
What about Northern Africa ???
Comment by Amio Cajander — November 3, 2008 @ 9:57 am
What about Greater Albania?
Comment by Edmund Schluessel — November 3, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Does someone know wich font is used for the first map?????
Comment by Baobab — November 3, 2008 @ 11:19 am
> and Mussolini was nuts about Duce, which means something like ‘leader’ or ‘guide’.
or indeed “Duke”
(also “Doge” in the old Venetian republic originally from the Roman “Dux Bellorum” meaning “military commander”).
Comment by John Hardy — November 3, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
[...] Read it. [...]
Pingback by DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » What If Italy Had Won the War? — November 3, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Hello all,
I’ve been an avid reader of this blog since when the hit counter was around 200,000 – my heartfelt ‘bravo!’ to Mr. Strangemaps.
I’ve also read Enrico Brizzi’s book, which is really amusing and well written too, so if you can read Italian, or if the book gets translated in a language you can read, go grab a copy. Here’s my contribution to the discussion.
In the book there’s a third map, that shows Southern Europe and Africa, with all the Italian possessions, associated republics and mandates, which include not only Albania, Libya and the Dodecanese (not shown in the first two maps), but also several territories that were French colonies before WW2, and assigned to Italy at the end of the war, as France was counted among the defeated – a provisional path for a Trans-African Railway, going from the Mediterranean to the port of Cotonou in Benin, is also shown.
In the timeline in which the book is set, according to historical references included in the book itself, the Rome-Berlin Pact never sees the light of day; Italy stays neutral in WW2 till September 1st, 1942, when it is attacked by Germany. Vichy France attacks Italy a few months after Germany, but both are defeated in a few years. That’s why France loses most of its colonies to Italy, including Nice and part of Savoy (the latter first annexed by Italy, then given back to the Savoy royal family, then reannexed by France).
Quite remarkably though, the first map is peculiar in itself, because the boundaries between Italian regions are different, not only from our timeline’s in the late Fifties – early Sixties (which may be easy to make up), but also from how they were just before WW2, as they do not reflect a number of adjustments occurred to Italian provinces in the Twenties and Thirties in our timeline, like the creation of the province of Rieti in northeastern Lazio in 1923 by transfer of territories from Umbria and Abruzzi E Molise, the disbandment of the province of Caserta in northwestern Campania in 1927 (due to some sort of personal quabble between Mussolini and some Casertans, mind you!), and the transfer of a few boroughs around Bobbio in southern Lombardia (Lombardy) to Emilia E Romagna and Toscana (Tuscany) in 1923. These are the ones I noticed; I may have missed some more.
This might mean that the point of divergence chosen by Brizzi is not after Italy’s occupation of Abyssinia in 1935-36, but right after Mussolini’s coup, that took place in late October 1922. Or it could be a blunder by the cartographer who picked the wrong map to create this alternate one, who knows.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 3, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
It would be very unlikely that in 1942, the Italians would have defeated Germany and Vichy France at the same time, because Germany was way more advanced and still had a lot of troops to use, plus the combination with Vichy France in Northern Italy….
Anyway, the ousting of the King would be unlikely as well, because the monarchy was very popular between WWI and 1945, and it would have caused Civil War. Most of the Italians were devout Catholic and they would never have accepted the moves Mussolini would have taken against the Catholic Church of Italy.
I would also doubt that the Italians would have stayed neutral and would have survived…and yes I would like to see the third map.
Anyway, it is a nice map. A few days ago I finished reading/viewing all the maps of strangemaps…these maps are really wonderful. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Tim — November 3, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Thanks for the pointers Paolo. It explains why Italy doesn’t occupy any part of Albania or Yugoslavia (except for Zara/Zadar.
This map stills feels weird to me, I have trouble to see how Italy could have gained the strategic Malta from Britain, while, if I’m not mistaken, losing a small part of pre-war Venezia Giula.
Apparently a small chunk of Tunisia was also annexed. Why not the whole colony ?
Comment by Quiche — November 3, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Only an Italian would’ve placed an alternative history plot around a soccer league!
Just fascinating!
Comment by Miteque — November 3, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
>>Mussolini’s stated aim was to restore the Roman Empire<>in which fascist Italy breaks with Hitler in time to be counted as a victor, come Germany’s eventual defeat.<<
Italy was fascist since 1922. Because it switched sides one year before Germany was defeated, it never paid for any of the crimes it committed under fascism. Italian governments since WW II have alternated between Socialist and neo-Fascist governments. The neo-Fascist government of Berlusconi is currently in power.
I am not sure why Sudtirol (Trentino E Tirolo) is a part of Italy today. Most of the people in that province speak German as a first language. The people have been fighting annexation by Italy since the end of WW 1.
Are you aware that Albanians watch all of the Italian TV channels and because of this, all Albanians understand Italian as a strong second language?!?!? How do Albanians feel about Italians today?
Comment by bourgoises pig — November 3, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Are you familiar with the area Fodom, Buchenstein? Part of the (former) Serenissima?
I would like to know more of this territory, for instance, the relation with the ‘Hochstift Brixen’ (in Südtirol).
Thanks
Comment by Edwin — November 3, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
It’s rather strange that German-speaking Northern Tirol (Tirolo settentrionale) would also be annexed to Italy…
It seems as if the region immediately surrounding Tunis also maintains a link with Italy.
Comment by Maarten — November 3, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Savoy (very North-Western region) and Nice had been part of Sardinian Kingdom untill 1859, when they were given to France. In return, French army helped the Sardinian one to unify Northern Italy (occupied by Austrian Empire). Savoy was the land where Italian Royal family were from. For this reason, many Italians considered it part of Italy (and Nice too) and Mussolini took aim at annexation of Nice and Savoy.
Don’t forget that before the War Italy had also 12 Greek isles (”Dodecaneso”: they were got from Turkey in 1912) and Albania.
Comment by snorri — November 3, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Sometimes I would sell Corsica to Italy for no more than a penny…
Comment by lp — November 3, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
After the First World there was a strong co-operation.
Italy tried to create links with Austria.
Both countries had to acknowledge Germany as their superior, however, at the end.
Comment by Elsevier — November 3, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Italy would only have held off the Germans IF the Brits and Americans had deployed troops in Italy previous to the invasion. This would also be the only possible excuse for a German invasion. Would an envious & greedy Mussolini have invited Allied troops onto Italian soil if promised some territorial rewards? I doubt it, the Allies failed to deliver in WWI and this was one of the major reasons why fascism rose to power. How could Mussolini justify such a thing to the Italians? Backstabbing a fascist partner and siding with the Allied perfidy again?
Comment by Morat — November 3, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
Maybe the Italians could have held back the Muslim horde.
I wonder about the elite ruling class of Europe allowing those Muslims to infect Europe as they have been allowed to do for too long.
The Islamic serpent will strike you Europeans some day.
Be prepared to bow down to your new masters.
Comment by obbop — November 3, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
I am wondering what that very small area at the northernmost tip of Tunisia is?
Comment by David Kendall — November 4, 2008 @ 1:05 am
Is that little area wedged between Marche and Emiglia e Romana supposed to be San Marino?
Comment by Huntington — November 4, 2008 @ 4:37 am
Italy remaining neutral has a lot of side effects on the war. The Mediterranean remains an Allied lake, immensely assisting the British; there are no Balkan, African, Middle Eastern, or North African campaigns.
One thing I doubt is that Italy would annex more of the Tyrol. The area taken after WW I included a large Germanophone region whose inhabitants have been unhappy about it ever since. Even Mussolini would be reluctant to expand that sore spot.
Musso’s favored areas for Italian expansion in Europe were Savoy and Nice, Corsica, and Dalmatia – areas formerly ruled from Italy.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — November 4, 2008 @ 6:11 am
One thing is not clear in this alternamap. How possibly Italy annexed further bits of Austria? In WW2 Austria has been annexed by Germany, therefore this would mean Hitler himself ceded parts of his Reich to the ally.
I’m not referring only to Tyrol area, but also to the a part of Karnten (here recalled ValDrava – Drau Valley).
This is rather impossible. I would say such a map is the “dream” of a fascist, not a possible alternative version of historical events.
The division in regions gives instead a good idea of Italian colonialism. 2/3 of the so called “Alto Veneto” is made up of Friûl, a unique micronation still existing, where a different language is spoken (friulian). Such different populations (which to be sincere made up almost all Italy) have always been “denied” by Roma-centric administration.
Finally, I wish to point out that only SudTyrol has a germanophone majority, but also Trentino and “Venezia-Giulia” have a difficult relationship with Italy.
These three regions have been annexed by the end of WW1, taken away from the Habsburg Empire.
In SudTyrol the vast majority spoke german, and minorities spoke ladin (similar to friulian) and italian.
In Trentino the majority spoke italian (in dialectal version), and minorities spoke ladin and german.
The “Venezia-Giulia” is a completely fake term, dating end of 19th century. The original name of such region (extending from Triglav mountain to Pola in Istria) was Küstenland or Litorale in italian. It has been a crownland of the Habsburg Empire since about 5 centuries, and its main cities (Triest, Görz) were under the rule of Wien even before typical austrian cities like Salzburg!
In the northern part of such region a slight majority spoke slovenian, a huge minority spoke friulian, small minorities spoke german and italian. In the southern part, the main languages were slovenian, italian, croatian. (italian and croatian both in local versions, very different from standard ones).
The situation of such “italophones” in the Empire was very good, of course a minority in number, but a well-cuddled one. Indeed, a vast majority of the italophones were good citizens and opposed italian annexion.
Only a minority of warmongers wanted the war and the Roman invasion. They have been “sanctified” when the WW1 was over, and all town street names were changed to honour them.
The regions have been culturally colonized, punishing with jail those who spoke anything else than italian.
But still, those who love history, know the truth and won’t accept the italian invasion.
I’m an italophone, but I belong to Mitteleuropa, not to mediterranean area.
Comment by der Görzer — November 4, 2008 @ 9:33 am
“After the war, Italy obviously lost all its colonies and extra territories.”
One would have thought so, but apparently, the Italians were entrusted with further control of Somalia until 1960, via the UN Trust structure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Somaliland
Comment by P — November 4, 2008 @ 10:41 am
“One would have thought so, but apparently, the Italians were entrusted with further control of Somalia until 1960, via the UN Trust structure”
UN Trust is completely different from colony. Somalia was not India, nor Algeria.
Comment by snorri — November 4, 2008 @ 11:14 am
I’m afraid I can’t scan the map without the authorization of Mr. Brizzi (it would be a clear case of copyright infringement). I’ll try and ask him.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 4, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
To Tim (#14):
I agree that Brizzi’s scenario is very unlikely, at least about the war with Germany. In other “What if Italy had won WW2?” novels and novellas, Italy either stays neutral (which nominally doesn’t count as a victory, but, given the poor state of belligerent countries in Europe after WW2, neutrality was de facto a victory) or changes sides mid-war as it did in our timeline, but always signing a real alliance with the Allied Powers (UK and USA), instead of wasting more than one month trying to arrange an armistice and getting sneakily occupied by German armor divisions in the meantime, resulting in 18 months of occupation, as it really happened.
The ousting of the Savoy royal family is described in the book as happening because the King wanted to sign a surrender with Germany and Vichy France, and tried to arrest Mussolini on September 8th, 1943 (the armistice date, in our timeline), for that purpose. This attempted “counter-coup” failed and the Savoy family ran fled.
Regarding the Church, Mussolini had always wanted to create a secular state; he had started his political career as a Socialist, and his marriage with his wife Rachele was a civil, not religious, one. After his rise to power, he had to come to terms with the Church’s great popularity – and his own faltering one – to the point of signing the Lateran Pacts in 1929 and having his daughter religiously married to Count Ciano with great fanfare. In Brizzi’s book, the Fascist regime’s popularity after WW2 was so high that Mussolini could easily get rid of the Church, to the point that his funeral, described in detail at the beginning of the book (as a flash-forward), was a civil one and unattended by anybody belonging to the clergy.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 4, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Answering a few questions on the map:
Map-wise, it’s actually quite perplexing that Venezia Giulia eastern boundaries do not include the Postojna area, that was given to Italy by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia under the Rapallo Treaty, signed in 1920. That would move the point of divergence even earlier… or make the cartographer’s blunder even bigger.
Malta’s inclusion as an Italian colony (or “associate republic”, as it is described in the book) is even more perplexing, as no alliance between Italy and UK took place to justify the transfer. On the other hand, Albania is included as a colony, as Italy conquered it, with no intervention from any other European power on either side (Chamberlain, anyone?) in early 1939.
The small chip of land between Emilia E Romagna and Marche is actually the Republic of San Marino.
The small portion of Tunisia marked in the map is the town of Bizerte and the surrounding area.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 4, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
I was trying to figure out what “Chenia” meant on the map of Africa, before realize that would be the Italian spelling of Kenya.
Comment by Peter — November 4, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
For those interested in the period or those with Italian parents that left after the WW II, I recommend reading Goodbye Trieste by Elsa Spencer. It’s a personal account of living in Trieste during the war, after the Italians lost, during the Nazi occupation, when attacked by the Yugoslavs, and during eventual patrol by the Allies during the days as a Free Territory.
Comment by afrankangle — November 4, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Где скины скачать для блога ? Дайте ссылок плз…
Comment by Rihard — November 4, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
The details in Savoy state the fully shaded area was part of Italy from 1945-8, then became the ‘Kingdom of Savoy’ from 1948-51, and finally returned to France in 1951.
Comment by nemt — November 5, 2008 @ 3:03 am
Странная вещь – подписался у вас на rss а кодировка неверная приходит ….
Comment by Ефим — November 5, 2008 @ 5:49 am
To bourgoises pig (#17):
In our timeline, Italy, at the end of WW2, was stripped of all its colonies (but received a 10-year UN mandate for Somaliland, as pointed out before), had to leave all the territories occupied during WW2, and had to cede:
- the Dodecanese to Greece;
- the Istria peninsula, almost all of Julian March (Venezia Giulia), the towns of Rijeka and Zadar, the Kvarner Gulf, the islands of Lastovo e Palagruza to Yugoslavia;
- The towns of La Brigue and Tende, plus other minor pieces of land, to France.
No serious claims were made by Austria about South Tyrol, that had been annexed by Italy at the end of WW1 – quite understandably, as Austria was occupied by UK, USA, USSR and France just like Germany, and the USSR strongly opposed any reunion of German territories.
South Tyrol is nowadays identified as the Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, part of the Autonomous Region of Trentino – Alto Adige, and is both officially and de facto bilingual (70% german-speaking, 25% italian-speaking). German-speaking people of South Tyrol have almost always been against the Italian rule, that started as very respectful right after WW1 but became very harsh during Fascism, when speaking German was not allowed, German schools were closed, and immigration from other Italian regions was promoted in order to italianize the region. This has been reverted by the post-WW2 administration, under which the definition of Autonomous Province grants the area to be economically funded by the Italian State; small groups of people are still against Italian rule altogether, and this led to several bombings in the Sixties and Seventies.
In Brizzi’s book, relationships between Italy and Germany could be described as “unfriendly”, due to a few occasions of attrition between the two, so they were not allied at all; in this alternate WW2, Italy, attacked by Germany, manages to counterattack, occupy and annex North Tyrol and the high Drava valley, in Carinthia. After winning WW2, Mussolini’s policy of italianization of these regions became even harsher, promoting a partial ethnic cleansing by deportation, in order to turn the german-speaking majority into a minority.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 5, 2008 @ 10:43 am
To der Gorzer (#28): I hope you don’t mind if I slightly rephrase what you wrote.
The name “Venezia Giulia” refers to the Austrian Litorale, or Julian March as it is known in English, and has been created by the italian-speaking linguist Graziadio Maria Ascoli in 1863, right after the unification of Italy under the Savoy royal family, but before the annexation of the northeastern regions (the Three Venices), that were conquered between 1866 and 1918. This name has been widely used in Italy, even officially, since that time, to define the area.
The Venezia Giulia region was conquered by Italy in 1918, and being mostly inhabited by Slovenian- and Croatian-speaking people, it went through the same fascist italianization process that took place in South Tyrol, with prohibition of using any languages apart from Italian, renaming of people and places, etc. Almost all of this region was conquered by Yugoslavia in 1945; a small portion of the Istria peninsula and the remaining part of Julian March, including the town of Trieste, were placed under the joint administration of Italy and Yugoslavia, and named Free Territory of Trieste. This territory was split in two parts; Zone A, the remaining part of Julian March, was returned to Italy in 1954, while Zone B, the northwestern chunk of the Istria peninsula, was annexed by Yugoslavia. The areas currently belonging to Italy (the towns of Gorizia and Trieste and their surroundings), like most coastal areas all around the Istria peninsula and currently within Slovenian and Croatian boundaries, were inhabited by an Italian-speaking majority before the 1918 annexation to Italy.
Austria-Hungary has had a better attitude than other states (e.g. Russia) towards minorities; this enlightened approach was definitely appropriate for the well-being of the Empire, as its population was composed by 16 distinct ethnic groups. The aggressiveness, fueled by the ideals of nationalism, of some nation-states, like Italy, and some ethnic groups within the Empire, who believed they weren’t considered enough, ultimately led to ethnic confrontation and became one of the igniting reasons behind WW1.
I would have liked to include some Wikipedia links on the subject for everybody’s enjoyment, but I haven’t worked out how to include hyperlinks yet. Sorry about that.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 5, 2008 @ 11:00 am
This map is largely not realistic and fictional. Maybe ita would be placed in a world after a FIRST world war won by Italy with the Central Powers. But – also in this hypotesis, Italy would have gained just the region of Trento, maybe the region of Bolzano (and not the entire Tirol), Gorizia and maybe Trieste (and not the entire Kunstenland). The expansion toward France – on the other hand – is most reliable.
This map suggests this to me because the east boundary of Italy are the austro-hungarian one and not the political boundaries gained by Italy after First world war.
More, The entire Tirol ask to Italy to keep unite it in 1919. But Italy refused, because italian boundaries was fixed at London pact in 1915, toward a line that slice Tirol in two parts. If Italy would have denounced London Pact, at fact, we could have had an entire Tirol under italian souvereinity. And – maybe – for Italy it could be better, because Allies – at end of War – decided to ignore large parts of London Pact in order to privilegiate Yugoslavia instead Italy…
If Italy would have won WW2 – maybe in 1942 – we would have gained the entire west Slovenia (with Lubiana), northern Dalmatia, some slices of Greece and some slices of alpine villages actually french. But not much more in Europe. Surely not a square meter of Tirol, that was III Reich! It is very arguable that Hitler would give his favour to an italian acquisition of Nizza and Savoia, and even Corsica. More reliable is an annexation of Malta. If British Empire would capitulate, Italy would have gained Somaliland, and a territorial continuity between Italian East Africa and Libia through Sudan, and maybe Gibuti. I’ve serious doubt even about a protectorate upon Tunisia. Hitler was a friend of Mussolini, but him and moreover his establishment hated bitterly Italy and Italians.
Comment by Emanuele — November 5, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
@ Paolo Malucelli:
thanks! you have done a good job in better explaining what I wanted to express.
Comment by der Görzer — November 6, 2008 @ 9:40 am
well done =]
Comment by dramaqueen — November 6, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
You are incorrect about Mussolini conquering most of those territories. You have him conquering Libya, Eritrea, Ethiopia and part of Somalia. Actually he was only responsible for Ethiopia. The other lands were gained by Italy some decades before him. They acquired Eritrea and Somaliland in the 1880’s, and Libya in 1911.
Comment by Mycroft — November 6, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Et voila: Mr. Brizzi promptly and kindly shared his maps with us (thanks a lot, Enrico!). You can find them at
http://rapidshare.com/files/161207904/Mappa1_Finale.jpg (1st Map)
http://rapidshare.com/files/161207905/Mappa2_Finale.jpg (2nd Map)
http://rapidshare.com/files/161207906/Mappa3_Finale.jpg (3rd Map)
1st Map: Italy.
Legend:
Solid Gray: Territories annexed in 1945 after the victory against III Reich and France.
Shaded Gray: 1945-48 Italian Province of Ciamberì [Chambery]; 1948-51 Free Savoy State; in 1951 reannexed by France.
Also shown are capital cities of provinces instituted in the annexed territories: Nizza [Nice], Castro Alberto [Albertville], Lemania [Thonon-les-Bains], Ponte sull’Eno [Innsbruck], Borgo Drava [Lienz], Villaco [Villach], Bastia, Ajaccio.
2nd Map: Eastern Africa.
Administrative zones and main cities are shown; most retain their original name, although slightly changed according to Italian phonetics for ease of pronounciation (e.g. Belet Uen = Beledweyne, Obbia = Hobyo); some are renamed (Dante = Hafun, V Maggio = Jowbar, Rocca Littorio = Galkayo?).
The path of the Trans-Abyssinian Railway is also shown.
3rd Map: Africa and the Mediterranean Sea.
Legend:
White: Republic of Italy (Capital: Rome) and Associated Republics, each of them listed with its capital city.
White circles: Special statute territories.
Light Gray: Trust Territories.
Dark Gray: Member States of the Mediterranean Conference and their dependencies.
According to the book, the Mediterranean Conference includes Italy, Spain, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt, plus their colonies and trust territories.
The projected path of the Trans-Saharan Railway is also shown.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 6, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Et voila: Mr. Brizzi promptly and kindly shared his maps with us (thanks a lot, Enrico!). You can find them at
rapidshare.com/files/161207904/Mappa1_Finale.jpg (1st Map)
rapidshare.com/files/161207905/Mappa2_Finale.jpg (2nd Map)
rapidshare.com/files/161207906/Mappa3_Finale.jpg (3rd Map)
(add the usual http:// at the beginning of each, and omit the bracketed text. Sorry for this inconvenience, but my posts are apparently rejected as spam if i put a hyperlink into them…)
1st Map: Italy.
Legend:
Solid Gray: Territories annexed in 1945 after the victory against III Reich and France.
Shaded Gray: 1945-48 Italian Province of Ciamberì [Chambery]; 1948-51 Free Savoy State; in 1951 reannexed by France.
Also shown are capital cities of provinces instituted in the annexed territories: Nizza [Nice], Castro Alberto [Albertville], Lemania [Thonon-les-Bains], Ponte sull’Eno [Innsbruck], Borgo Drava [Lienz], Villaco [Villach], Bastia, Ajaccio.
2nd Map: Eastern Africa.
Administrative zones and main cities are shown; most retain their original name, although slightly changed according to Italian phonetics for ease of pronounciation (e.g. Belet Uen = Beledweyne, Obbia = Hobyo); some are renamed (Dante = Hafun, V Maggio = Jowbar, Rocca Littorio = Galkayo?).
The path of the Trans-Abyssinian Railway is also shown.
3rd Map: Africa and the Mediterranean Sea.
Legend:
White: Republic of Italy (Capital: Rome) and Associated Republics, each of them listed with its capital city.
White circles: Special statute territories.
Light Gray: Trust Territories.
Dark Gray: Member States of the Mediterranean Conference and their dependencies.
According to the book, the Mediterranean Conference includes Italy, Spain, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt, plus their colonies and trust territories.
The projected path of the Trans-Saharan Railway is also shown.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 6, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
What to say about the trend of decentralisation in Italy nowadays?
Would that have occurred otherwise?
Interesting fact: Tirol asked Italy to keep the region united in 1919.
Where can I find more information?
Comment by Edwin — November 6, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
but with the rise of Hitler, the Fascists immediately became more concerned of Austria’s independence and the potential threat of Germany to Italy, if it demanded the German-populated areas of Tyrol.
Comment by Edwin — November 6, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Ah, thank God it is only a novel. Where would the Foreign Legion have been without the Matei’s and Raffalli’s. I wonder if it mentions the “Lobo Bianco” of the Italian Tirol, which waged an underground war against former Nazi’s back in the 1950s. But I do like the Idea of leaving the Italians in Somalia. I once knew a U.S. Special Forces officer who had been born in Addis Addaba to an Italian military officer and his wife.
Comment by lirelou — November 7, 2008 @ 1:31 am
To Paolo Malucelli (#45)
>>…the definition of Autonomous Province grants the area to be economically funded by the Italian State<<
I read that other regions of Italy were jealous of all of the subsidies flowing from Rome to Sudtirol (Trentino Alto Adige). For example, the government of Alto Veneto (Veneto) demanded that either the subsidies stop, or that the Veneto state be allowed the same kind of autonomy as enjoyed by Sudtirol. Do you have any updates regarding this subject.
roadtoitaly.com/info/regional_map.htm
add the usual http://www at the beginning of the above link.
I see that Italy just had elections. How successful were the separatist parties throughout Italy? Are they gaining ground? Would decentralization lead to the breakup of the Italian state into several smaller countries?
Comment by bourgoises pig — November 7, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
“The British rule over Somaliland in the north, an enclave in Italian East Africa.”
Actually it’s not totally surrounded by Italian East Africa. French Djibouti (spelt Giboti on the map) is still there. Also it’s not a true enclave as British Somaliland is not surrounded on all sides – one of the sides is bordered by the sea.
Comment by Novelty — November 8, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Would the Italians meet with wars of liberation in its African colonies.
I have read about the Eritrean city of Asmara, with its interesting modern architecture.
The Dutch built a city on the island of Java, called Bandung.
It also has many interesting Dutch modern architecture.
Comment by Elsevier — November 8, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
If I had a wheel I’ll be a barrow…
I live in italy and it is quite a nightmare, even if fascist lost war they still mantain power and rules here. Thanks to anti-communism usa politics in the cold war. Bah…
By the way, not all knows that Mussolini built many forts and strongholds on the italy-tirol borders, and that an invasion from nazis would be easily stalemated in matter of days…blitzkrieg works on the maginot, but not on hundred of meters of rocks ;-)
But the story sadly took a very different way…
Comment by AhrimanTheHarsh — November 9, 2008 @ 2:41 am
Thanks for this information, I’d like to know more about these forts and strongholds in Tyrol.
But what to tell about the former Italian East-Africa.
Eritrea has become an independent country,
it’s relation with Ethiopia.
Somaliland has several internal conflicts.
Comment by Faust — November 9, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
If you look at the map of Austria, if Italy would have annexed the whole of Tyrol, it would border Southern-Germany, Bavaria.
What can we tell about the history of Tyrol. How can we relate the list of rulers to this history?
The counts of Tyrol, what have they accomplished.
Comment by Faust — November 10, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Faust, Eritrea achieved Independence from Ethiopia recently (1990s) and was part of Ethiopia under a federalist system after the war restored Selassie to power – though he was later overthrown by leftists and buried in a latrine. Eritrea wasn’t then and isn’t now a well defined nation state apart from Ethiopia, it was originally based on the border between what Italy could conquer in the 19th century and what remained independent Ethiopia. The name comes from what the Romans called the Red Sea. The conflict between Erit/Ethio today is based on an artificial line drawn by Europeans (among older ethnic and religious fueds, obviously) – quite ironic, really.
Much of what as Italian Somaliland has not had an effective government since the 1990s. Southern Somalia is currently involved in a many-headed civil war between Islamists, rogue warlords and tribal leaders, the UN/US/EU/AU/etc backed Transitional Government, and the Ethiopian military. Northern Somalia, which makes up some of what was Italian and all of British Somaliland is more stable. British Somaliland, which was united with the Italian part briefly during WW2 and permanently after independence in 1960 is an autonomous state just called Somaliland, currently seeking international recognition. In the Italian part there’s Puntland, which seeks to be a federal state under a Mogadishu government (same for the smaller states of Maakhir, Northland, and Galmudug). While these states are relatively peaceful, they happen to be where all the pirates are coming from.
Hope that info helps.
Comment by nemt — November 10, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Actually the names Ethiopia and Eritrea are both Greek-derived. land of the sun-burnt faces, and land of the red (sea).
Comment by Graham Asher — November 11, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
What can you tell me about the history of Ethiopia –
in general.
The Rastafari-movement, etc.
How does it relate to the Italian colonial period.
Did both cultures influence eachother.
Interesting: the idea of Mare Nostrum,
and Haile Selassie seen as part of the Holy Trinity and as the returned messiah promised in the Bible.
Italy and the Mediterranean
Ethiopia and Africa
And what does Abessinia mean, the former name of Ethiopia?
Comment by Edwin — November 12, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
And now, for a not-so-short post-WW2 Italian history post… *wink*
In Italy, just as much as in Germany, WW2 has been a “taboo” subject for half a century. Nazism and Fascism have been labeled as “absolute evils” in both countries. In Germany, this has meant that the whole country has considered itself guilty of Nazism – or unable to believe that itself had managed to achieve such huge accomplishments on the road to death and destruction. In Italy, the winning factions, that had originally constituted the partisan movements and played a significant role in defeating Germany on the Southern Front, went into politics mode at the end of the war: turned themselves into political parties, had a new constitution penned, ousted the monarchy, reinstated democracy, outlawed the Fascist Party and declared that the fightings occurred on Italian soil between September 1943 and April 1945 had been a Liberation war. The end of it is still celebrated with a national holiday, on April 25th.
This is, as it often happens, a good example of how winners rewrite history to their liking. Not because Italy hadn’t been liberated by the German friend-turned-foe, that had sneakily occupied it in August 1943 after Mussolini’s arrest and before the armistice between Italy, the UK and the USA – that much is true. But because Germans weren’t on their own: the Italian Army, that had almost disbanded itself on the day of armistice, was partially rebuilt as the Army of the Repubblica Sociale Italiana (Italian Social Republic), a puppet state under German control in Northern and Central Italy, led by none other than Benito Mussolini himself, freed by Otto Skorzeny from his conviction – although he was not much more than a puppet either; 1944 pictures show him as a tired man, a pale shadow of the charismatic persona he once was. From 1943 to 1945, a fighting took place with Germans and Fascist Italians (who were being called “Repubblichini”, Small Republicans, at that point) on one side, the Allied Coalition and non-Fascist Italians on the other; this kind of confrontation, from a neutral perspective, would be named “civil war”. As I said before, this simply couldn’t be, and still isn’t: the few historians who were so courageous to say it have been called “revisionists” and ostracized till death and beyond.
After WW2, Italy has reorganized itself as a “parliamentary democracy”, in which the Parliament has a prominent role. The first free elections took place in 1948, with a lot of tension in the air: propaganda, on both sides, reached levels of aggressiveness never seen before in an Italian election, with the Communist Party hailing at the USSR as a workers’ paradise on earth, and the Christian Democrats, aided by the Church, presenting the opponent as “evil and children-eaters”. The Christian Democrats won – and they kept winning, albeit with diminishing results, till 1994. Later, it turned out that both sides, throughout the whole Cold War, had been economically funded by their respective “allies” – the USA on the Christian Democrats’ side, the USSR on the Communist Party’s side; furthermore, Italy was deemed as strategically relevant by the USA for its position at the center of the Mediterranean Sea, and the USA did everything they could to prevent a Communist Party victory. Italy, from a political point of view, was, therefore, almost hibernated for about half a century. This doesn’t mean that nothing happened: the Socialist Party entered the leading coalition in 1961, that since then was called a “centre-left coalition”; in 1976, the Socialist Party reformed itself, trashing its more leftist ideals.
Opposition parties did not belong to the left side only: although the Fascist Party was legally outlawed in the Constitution, the Monarchy abolished by a referendum – many Italians considered the Savoy royal family to be guilty of letting Mussolini take the power and also of fleeing, on the day of armistice, from Rome to Bari, that had already been occupied by Allied troops – and its male members denied access to Italian soil, the Italian Social Movement (that clearly inspired itself to quasi-Fascist ideals, but recognized democracy) and the Monarchy Party were formed. While the latter was disbanded in the Sixties, the former lived on.
Everything changed a few years after the end of Cold War. Over four decades of imposed stability had generated a widespread corruption, and many Italians took it for granted, considering politicians as an above-the-law elite, only occasionally caught in the act of bribery. But in 1992, a huge number of politicians, including the most powerful ones, were accused, arrested, taken to court and found guilty of bribery. Most of them belonged to the parties of the centre-left coalition, and these parties collapsed, breaking into many smaller ones, of much lesser importance. Their place was taken by the Italian Social Movement, that renamed itself Alleanza Nazionale (”National Alliance”) and abandoned its more rightist ideals (its leader, Gianfranco Fini, claimed Mussolini’s anti-jew racial laws to be an “absolute evil”), becoming a conservative party; and the Forza Italia (”Go Italy”) party, founded by famous entrepreneur Silvio Berlusconi. These two have merged into the Popolo della Libertà (”People of Freedom”) party in 2008. Since 1994, Italy has been alternatively governed by this new “centre-right coalition”, and a new centre-left coalition, led by the former Communist Party, that has reformed itself three times in the last 20 years in a continuous drift towards moderate positions, and including several other smaller parties, from Neo-Communists to ex-Christian Democrats. None of these coalitions has been able to win statewide elections twice in a row so far – a situation very similar to that of ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe.
Also part of the centre-right coalition is the Northern League party, probably the most important autonomist party in the history of the Italian Republic, that has repeatedly managed, in its 20-something years of existence, to be the most voted, or second most voted, party in several northern regions, the richest ones in Italy, heavily taxed for decades in an apparently fruitless attempt to bridge the economic and social gap between northern and southern Italy; its main objective is to achieve a greater level of autonomy for those regions from the State, and while it once aspired to make northern Italy secede, it is now actively promoting federalism. Before the Northern League, many other autonomist parties were founded, like the Union Valdotaine (Aosta Valley Union), the Sudtiroler Volkspartei (South Tyrol People’s Party), both originally connected to the Christian Democrats, and the Partito Sardo d’Azione (Sardinia Action Party), connected to the Socialist Party. These parties played a significant role in the creation of special Statute regions (there are five of them: Aosta Valley, Trentino – South Tyrol, Friuli – Venezia Giulia, Sicily and Sardinia), enjoying a greater level of autonomy, and better state funding, than the remaining Ordinary Statute regions. The decentralization process has been particularly slow for decades – regions, although defined in the 1948 Constitution, weren’t operational until 1970, and didn’t have a relevant role until the Nineties – but, mostly due to the Northern League, it’s been gaining speed in the last 20 years, and the taxation system is very likely to be reformed on a federal basis before 2013; according to the current proposals, each region will manage 90% of the total tax income coming from within its territory.
Secessionist movements aren’t very popular at the moment in Italy; the reason is unclear, although the creation of tighter relationships with the other countries forming the European Union may have somewhat weakened the need to break Italy apart.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 12, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
My impression of Italy is that the country is run like a ramshackle, third world nation. Hopelessly disorganized and corrupt…
If “…each region will manage 90% of the total tax income coming from within its territory,” then why bother paying the remaining 10% to Rome? What would happen to the “special Statute regions” if the generous federal subsidies were cut or eliminated altogether?
Has Rome always feared that autonomy would eventually lead to succession? I could imagine the residents of many Italian states looking at Liechtenstein and Luxembourg with envy.
Comment by bourgoises pig — November 12, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Lega Nord
In which Italian regions
a strong backing?
Comment by Faust — November 13, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
To bourgoises pig (#60):
I may be wrong (couldn’t verify it anywhere), but, if I remember correctly, the fiscal federalism most recently envisioned contemplates that some services (e.g. national defense, interaction between regions, representation within the European Union) should still be provided, and therefore funded, as statewide.
About federal subsidies to Special Statute regions, that’s really hard to say. In a worst case scenario, South Tyrol would seek independence and try to merge with North Tyrol creating a new Tyrol state; mafia in Sicily might manage to rise to power legally on its own instead of unofficially supporting politicians, like it apparently did with Christian Democrats before 1994 and with Go Italy after 1994, and seek indipendence too. Other Special Statute regions wouldn’t consider independence, but all of them would become poorer, thus halting immigration and, in the case of Sardinia and Sicily, increasing emigration towards other, richer, regions.
You’re right about envy: many northerners, especially from Lombardy and Piedmont, wish they were in Switzerland, and that was almost true for the territories that once belonged to the Duchy of Milan (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Milan), that was in the influence sphere of the Swiss Confederation between 1512 and 1515, when the Swiss Army was defeated by the French Army in Marignano (today Melegnano).
The fear of autonomy and secession comes from the very origin of Italy as a state: apart from Emilia E Romagna and Tuscany, whose people chose to be part of Italy in 1860, the other regions were conquered by the Savoy Kingdom, that before 1860 only comprised Aosta Valley, Piedmont, Liguria and Sardinia. Especially the conquest of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_the_Thousand) was accomplished in a definitely unconventional way, and led to decades of civil unrest, historically dismissed as brigandage. Even the referendum that ousted the Monarchy in 1946 clearly showed a fractured Italy, with the Monarchy victorious (up to 80% of votes) in Southern Italy and soundly defeated in Northern Italy. The local identity is still very strong, as recent studies show that about 50% of Italians think of themselves firstly as belonging to their city, region or macro-region (Northern Italy/Southern Italy), not as Italians.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 13, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
To Faust (#61):
Lega Nord (”Northern League”) is particularly strong in Lombardy and Veneto, but usually achieves good results in Trentino, Friuli – Venezia Giulia and Piedmont, too. In 2008 elections, it surprisingly performed quite well in Liguria and Emilia and Romagna.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 13, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
To Paolo Malucelli (#62)
If only the Italian states could form their own version of Switzerland! I understand the the admiration of many Italians for Switzerland. What do the Northern Italians really think about the Austrians?
For the territories that once belonged to the Austrian Habsburgs, do the people living in Alto-Veneto wish that they were in Austria? I never realized how much of Northern Italy was ruled by the Austrian empire. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Empire).
Comment by bourgoises pig — November 13, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Interesting to know more, the relation between the people from the North of Italy and Austria.
Comment by Faust — November 14, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
According to at least one book I’ve seen (Vittorio Spreti: Enciclopedia storico-nobiliare), the king gave Mussolini the title Duke of Fascism.
Comment by Anton Sherwood — November 17, 2008 @ 4:21 am
To bourgoises pig (#64):
No, people living in Veneto (Alto Veneto and Basso Veneto never existed in our timeline – the northeastern part, including the provinces of Udine and Pordenone, was part of Veneto between 1866 and 1945, and part of Friuli – Venezia Giulia thereafter) do not wish they were in Austria.
Veneto and the western half of Lombardy were part of the Venetian Republic before the Napoleonic Wars, and were annexed by the Austrian Empire in 1815, by the constitution of the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, whose King was the Austrian Emperor. The new kingdom was administered very efficiently and without all the corruption that marred the Venetian Republic administration, but this was obtained by giving all the most important administrative roles to Tyrolian and other German-speaking officers, thus leaving the local elite almost powerless. This led to civil turmoil for the whole existence of the kingdom, until 1866, when it was ultimately annexed by the Kingdom of Italy.
Nowadays Veneto people may admire Austrian efficiency, but they also want to rule themselves, or be ruled by other Italians. I’m speaking by rule of thumb here – don’t have any figures to show about the subject.
Comment by Paolo Malucelli — November 17, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Nice article:
If you cannot understand German or Italian, then google for this link and then click: “translate this page”
http://www.reise-nach-italien.de/altoadige.html
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — November 17, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
To Paolo Malucelli (#67):
Wanting to rule instead of being ruled by either Rome or Vienna makes sense.
Fast forward to 2008:
“…all the most important administrative roles to officers in Rome, thus leaving the local elite almost powerless. This led to civil turmoil for the whole existence of the territory.”
Perhaps Italy will someday break into several smaller countries?
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — November 17, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
I didn’t know the Venetian political elite was corrupt?
I would like to elaborate….
The Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia was a kingdom in northern Italy, and part of the Austrian Empire. It was established after the defeat of Napoleon, according to the decisions of the Congress of Vienna, on 9 June 1815. The Kingdom ceased to exist when the remaining portion of it was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy in 1866.
The Netherlands became an independent country. Why didn’t Venice become an independent country?
Both were republics?
Comment by Edwin — November 18, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
This demonstration occurred November 8th in Bozen (Bolzano):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8yKeC1A9s
The Italian and German-speaking ethnic groups really don’t like one another, do they? You would think that the Trento-Alto-Adige region would have become another Luxembourg….. Do both groups even feel comfortable living there?
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — November 19, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
By the way, if you watch the video, the German group of 3000 is conducting a peaceful march to the monuments that the Mussolini fascists erected. (Imagine if Germany had left nazi memorials alone after WW II instead of destroying them!) The ethnic German speaking people in the Alto Adige (Sudtirol) want the Mussolini memorials torn down. Notice the mob of 1000 noisy Italian hecklers doing their best to disrupt the speeches given during the march. Fascinating!
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — November 24, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
The German-speaking population has unsuccessfully tried for years to get rid of the monument, since the inscription „Hic patriae fines siste signa. Hinc ceteros excoluimus lingua legibus artibus.“ (Something like: “Here on the borders of the fatherland, raise the flags. From here we educated the others through language, laws and art.”) is a *bit* of an insult to them. The city of Bozen attempted to defuse the situation at least a bit by renaming the square from “Victory Square” to “Square of Peace” which only lasted a short time before a referendum was made in favor of changing it back. Though a referendum is not binding, the city respected the wishes of the majority and did change it back.
Comment by AAII — December 3, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Knew about Brittany, Flanders, Alsace and Lorraine, Basque country, Catalania and Corsica but didn’t know France also annexed Savoy and as late as the 1950s! Wonder if this spured on France’s failed attempt to annex Saarland later on in 50s? Just how insecure is France, that its so addicted to old fashion grandiose territorrial expansionism. Even today we have the example of Francophone exanspionism in the perpetual frenchifing Belgium via the continued enlargement of Wallonia into Flemish areas. Despite defeats during the Napoleonic and world wars, a weakened and humiliated France just got bigger and bigger while England got sucked dry of money, technology and territory from America…how?
Comment by Derek Knatchbull — December 5, 2008 @ 7:32 am
@ Derek Knatchbull (post #74)
I too do not understand how France could grow bigger. It makes you wonder why France did not give Lorraine back to Germany. It is a run-down area, full of dirty coal fields and welfare recipients. In short, it is the poorest region in France.
Regarding the French language, search Google for this blog:
the worldwide decline of french
How did Britain get “sucked dry” by America? If not for American support of England in two world wars, England would no longer exist. Therefore, the Brits owe America. Time to pay just like Norway. :-)
Seriously, though, read this book and tell me if America caused any of Britain’s problems:
The Anglo Files: A Field Guide to the British
Comment by bourgoises pig — December 8, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
@ Derek Knatchbull (post #74)
You should state: Not “sucked dry by America,” but by the European Union. Isn’t that the feeling held by most Britons?
Since this post is about Italy, how devoted are the Italians toward the European Union?
Comment by bourgoises pig — December 10, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
@ bourgeoises pig: Parts of Lorraine, such as Thionville, are historically part of Luxembourg rather than France or Germany. o my knowledge there are more germanophones in Alsace than in Lorraine. One could also argue however that Alsacian is a separate language just like Luxembourgish, rather than a German dialect.
It is indeed unbelievable how France troughout history has annexed parts of virtually all the countries neighbouring it. On the other hand Prussia did much the same in annexing eastern parts of Luxembourg and the southern part of Sleswig (the northern part is in Denmark).
Comment by Stadjer — December 16, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Just for your information, in Veneto there’s a new born independentist party that claims for the independence of Venetia (the former Republic of Venice)
http://www.pnveneto.org
A thousand years of freedom, prosperity, independence (with our own language) are not so easy to forget :)
Comment by Yoshi — December 19, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
yeah…i guess that just fascinating only.
Comment by santos — January 16, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
In the thirties Italy decided to be a a big and powerful country. We were not rich and called the rich and unpleasant countries “plutocratic”. If we had become rich, would have found an adjective suitable for us. One of our historical enemies, the German bloc, had a dictator we believed a good partner in business. Japan was in its far galaxy, our was the only country that went to war together with the nazis. Above all we thought to beat UK. Commonwealth included, we thought to beat half the planet. For the moment US were not involved, however maybe we believed to be able to give them a good trashing too. While the war was running its course, our initial poverty quickly become destitution. Then in Italy strange political military manoeuvres happened. It was no more clear who was our enemy and many soldiers came back home. Many foreign armies went to our territory and the situation was extremely confused. The war ended and we lost our dictator Mussolini as well as our king forever. Practically speaking, our nation did not exist and it was impossible to identify ourselves with it. At that point we were interested in US because they were the only ones who offered us a model. Unluckily we were not able to manage an open market. Twenty years later our politic system controlled completely that market.
Comment by Giuseppe Paolo Mazzarello — February 14, 2009 @ 11:53 am
i don’t Giuseppe Paolo Mazzarello’a comment
Comment by Maozz — March 30, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
[...] from the killer blog, Strange Maps. Amazing [...]
Pingback by If Italy Won the War « Robert Lindsay — April 8, 2009 @ 8:10 am
Our world will changed if they won, we must thank every people that made that thing not happen.
Comment by azshop — May 7, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 5:30 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:57 am