If Italy was run by someone competent how powerful could it have become?
If Italy gets involved militarily it's going to struggle anyways, methinks. Italian soldiers were very well disciplined and trained, but Italian leadership was laughably incompetent and corrupt. It'd take a shakedown of the entire military which I don't think anybody would really like.Wasn't the biggest issue for financial growth the limit of native industrial resources, such as petroleum, iron ore, coal and other materials? They would need some skillful diplomacy to gain safe and sustainable access to those type of resources. Libyan oil was a potential, but needed some scientific and engineering advancements to achieve economical access to it.
A surviving Murat Naples unifying Italy in the Spring of Nations in 1848 would be interesting.Italy could have been a pretty reasonably-powerful nation with a POD in the 1800's, I feel, especially if the Italian rulers during the Risorgimento had been more focused on general improvement and not their own tenuous holds on power. We might have seen Italy emerge several decades earlier and in a form more like Germany, with many royals and perhaps an emperor or even as a sort of confederation. An Italy not as heavily rooted in the North could potentially have focused more on internal development in the beginning, especially bringing the South up to a higher standard of living and industrial power, and could have been more of a heavy-hitter in regions like the Balkans. A stable Italy at an early-enough point could also gain a bigger foothold in Africa and perhaps intervene in the Balkans enough to snag land like Albania or a sphere over Greece or the like.
It doesn’t matter how competent a leader is if they’re constantly on the verge of being thrown out of office. People don’t seem to understand how chaotic and volatile Italian politics and elections were pre-Mussolini (and post-Mussolini). If the average term of a Prime Minister is only one or two years, then they can at best only accomplish some basic stuff before their collation falls apart because the next political opportunist wanted it to be their turn in the spotlight.
I have to ask, what is the alternative to a strutting buffoon? Italy was politically unstable and the buffoon was competent enough to come to power in that environment. When I read, "How powerful could Italy have become by 1940 if it wasn't run by a strutting buffoon" I immediately think of France and a series of ineffective governments. Not saying Mussolini was good, but removing him doesn't automatically make the alternative better.
It doesn’t matter how competent a leader is if they’re constantly on the verge of being thrown out of office. People don’t seem to understand how chaotic and volatile Italian politics and elections were pre-Mussolini (and post-Mussolini). If the average term of a Prime Minister is only one or two years, then they can at best only accomplish some basic stuff before their collation falls apart because the next political opportunist felt it was time for their turn in the spotlight.
Maybe the OP wants another fascist leader, who is more competent than Mussolini, in charge?Exactly. It is hard to make Italy much stronger if its governments last rarely more than two years and almost never even one electrotal term. You should really stabilise Italian politics firstly. Mussolini wasn't before WW2 that incompetent buffoon. Yes, he was horrible dictator and made idiotic mistakes but him had too attempts to make Italy true great power and had some degree success. His big mistake was to ally with Germany.
Maybe the OP wants another fascist leader, who is more competent than Mussolini, in charge?
Unless you have a much earlier PoD , then Footprint of Mussolini is ironically the best case for Italy IMO.
A surviving Murat Naples unifying Italy in the Spring of Nations in 1848 would be interesting.
That's assuming Nap III gives his support to the Piedmontese when there is Murat-dynasty Kingdom of Naples and Murat and successors could champion themselves as the leaders of the Italian identity, who's more important half of the Italian Peninsula (who is under liberals ITTL) or the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia?I don't think a Cavour-led Piedmont would've let that happen; however, with Murat being more supportive of the rebellion than any Bourbon would've been, the war could've gone better for Italy, and it's possible that a federal setup (dominated by Naples and Piedmont) could've emerged - IRL, Cavour wanted Piedmontese hegemony over northern Italy so, as long as Naples is friendly, Piedmont won't bother with trying to annex the south.
There might be an earlier WW2 or an German-Italian war over Austria.What about a leader that avoids allying with Hitler or joins the allies?
What about a leader that avoids allying with Hitler or joins the allies?