Is it true that Woodrow Wilson prevented Albania from being partitioned by its neighbors after WWI?

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,474
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#11
I must disagree. From the very beginning, Italy plotted against the new state. They supported the Montengrin Christmas Uprising and were also the biggest supporter of the Montenegrin government-in-exile. Italy also worked against Yugoslavia at the Paris Peace Conference. Italian Army Vice Chief of Staff Pietro Badoglio formulated a plan to use any possible subversive measures to weaken Yugoslavia. This plan was approved in 1919 by the Prime Minister Orlando, Foreign Minister Sidney Sonnino and General Armando Diaz. The plan proposed using Catholic clergy, Italian agents inside Yugoslavia, supporting those that supported old regimes (like those in Montenegro for example) etc. In May 1919 Italy even contemplated an invasion of Croatia through Slovenia and the Yugoslav government expected a full-scale war against Italy. In July and August Yugoslavia mobilized 400,000 troops in order to prepare for the expected Italian attack. So, while the Fascist takeover increased tensions with Yugoslavia, those tensions were present even before that.
Italy also acted biased towards Austria when supervising the 1920 plebiscite in Southern Carinthia. Not to mention how they tried to occupy as much Yugoslav territory as possible in 1918. Slovene forces could stop them only by using former Serbian POWs and deception. On one occassion they had to put up fake town signs to convince the Italian army they advanced further than they have, otherwise they'd probably have taken Ljubljana.
 
Feb 2018
164
EU-Germany
#12
albania wasnt partintioned after the war it was already partitioned during the war, yet into independent albanian states fostered by ww1 militaries -shkodra(kuk) vlore(italy) korce(france);

an invasion of yugoslavia(kSCS) by italy, a threat if even real, was just pure histeria; post-war italy did not have the capacities nor the stability(fascists/anarchists/communists) to have launched an invasion of yugoslavia(kSCS), as seen by the carnaro/fiume occupation carried out by volunteers not the state, the state was even ordered(rapallo24) to remove the occupiers which it followed on dec 20; the free-state was then however indeed ceded(rome27) to italy not to the kSCS(yugoslavia) but the only action of the italian military was the removal(bomb out) of the italian volunteers; while irredentism claimed in theory half the world de facto the state post-war was only concerned by the areas with italian majority in the former austrian-k├╝stenland, one of the areas promised in the treaty of london 15;
 
Last edited:
Nov 2018
22
London
#13
Considering that around 2.5 million albanians are living outside of "albanian" borders today show that however it was partitioned it was done wrong in the first place, Italy and Germany lost the war so albania has remained an unfairly partitioned country until today. Sickening that it took so long for kosovo to be split from Serbia when 99% of people living in kosovo are albanian even after the genocide. I don't mind the idea of kosovo because it is kinda cool to have more than 1 country speaking the exact same language, a bit like Scotland with England or Ireland with England. Of course I would prefer for unification but what about the 500,000+ in North Western Macedonia, name me another ethnicity who have such density in one area of a neighbouring country
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
2,594
Connecticut
#15
Is it true that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson prevented Albania from being partitioned by its neighbors (specifically Yugoslavia, Greece, and Italy) after the end of World War I?

Also, if so, does anyone know how exactly Albania's neighbors planned to divide it?
Don't know for sure but that makes sense. Wilson was the big advocate for national determination and Albania's main reason for existing prior to WWI had been to prevent Serbia from getting a warm water port, without internal support in the Conference she could have easily been done for. Her existence at the time was born of the interests of a defeated power. I do think Wilson and the US being there took the punishment of any nation that was not a Central Power off of the table though and that is dependent on a settlement without Wilson pushing self determination. Also seeing that Serbia was annexing so much territory including warm water ports, the importance of Albania declined.

Wilson stopping Italy from taking the spoils of war promised by the UK and France in the Treaty of London because annexations and secret partitions were things of the past was a major theme of the conference so stands to reason this would hold doubly true if Italy went after Albania which was not in the agreement and was even further from Italy than Dalmatia and the other stuff Italy was asking for.

I am under the impression the Greeks were more interested in taking Ottoman lands. Anatolia had once been the heartland of the Byzantium Empire and lots of historically Greek regions there. Of course this didn't end up going too well for them but that was their main focus rather than trying to take over a non defeated state. Greece also had learned from Bulgaria what happened to small Balkan kingdoms that got too greedy.
 
Likes: Futurist
Nov 2018
22
London
#16
The "great powers" also cost bulgaria a lot of lives by interfering and splitting Bulgaria allowing the ottoman to slaughter yet more people out of spite. Russia was in the process of wiping out the ottoman but the great powers got involved because they were worried about a potential Russian expansion
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions