AHC: An Independent Corsica
- Thread starter Patton
- Start date
Maybe not as you think. If it was free from French rule, it would probably join in the unification if Italy.
The idea of a sovereign Corsica is interesting. What if Pascal Paoli had been able to withstand the French and Genoese (of course this could never have happened without continued British support) and maintain his island's independence? It's unfortunate that Corsica's more famous native son considered himself a Frenchman, and came back to the island not to fight for its independence, but to suppress it. Little Corsica, it seems, offered an insufficient scope for le Petit Caporal's colossal ambition.
If the Germans had been able to repel the Allied D-Day invasion in 1944, occupied southern France and dispensed with the Vichy regime, might they have promoted an "independent" Corsica as a means of balkanizing and weakening France, just as they encouraged Breton nationalism, and tried to make the occupied Belgians think of themselves as Flemings and Walloons? Of course, Mussolini would have wanted to make Corsica an Italian possession - il Duce was just as aspiring as Bonaparte, though less capable. And Hitler might or might not have agreed to this. Certainly, the wishes of the islanders themselves wouldn't have been consulted.
In more recent times, there was an insurgency/terrorist group called the Armata Corsa that fought for Corsican independence. As I understand, the group received little support from the Corsican people.
Would Corsica be better off economically, if it gained independence? How much money does the island send to Paris, as opposed to the amount they receive?
If the Germans had been able to repel the Allied D-Day invasion in 1944, occupied southern France and dispensed with the Vichy regime, might they have promoted an "independent" Corsica as a means of balkanizing and weakening France, just as they encouraged Breton nationalism, and tried to make the occupied Belgians think of themselves as Flemings and Walloons? Of course, Mussolini would have wanted to make Corsica an Italian possession - il Duce was just as aspiring as Bonaparte, though less capable. And Hitler might or might not have agreed to this. Certainly, the wishes of the islanders themselves wouldn't have been consulted.
In more recent times, there was an insurgency/terrorist group called the Armata Corsa that fought for Corsican independence. As I understand, the group received little support from the Corsican people.
Would Corsica be better off economically, if it gained independence? How much money does the island send to Paris, as opposed to the amount they receive?
Corsica gets a lot more from Paris than it gives in return.
The island is an economic basket case with a lot of employment depending on the civil service and other associated industries. Tourism does exist but not on the same scale as anywhere else in the Mediterranean on account of the "particularities" of the island.
Agriculture has never really been massively developped by Corsicans themselves, the more recent developments were made by repatriated Pied Noirs.
Corsica is a very beautiful place, but it is also a place with its own very peculiar attitude, which is very insular and very inward looking.
Corsica was independent for awhile in the 18th century as the Corsican Republic[/ur], having seceded from Genoa and eventually being conquered by France, something the British were not exactly happy about, considering they were Corsica's ally and sponsor.
So the easiest way is to simply keep it Independent is to have Britain put them under their protection and make it known to France that a war with Corsica is a war with Britain, which France would not want to purue at the time.
So the easiest way is to simply keep it Independent is to have Britain put them under their protection and make it known to France that a war with Corsica is a war with Britain, which France would not want to purue at the time.
It's unlikely that Britain would ever go to war with France on the sole cause of Corsica.
1)It's not as they already had many points in Mediterranea to secure their fleet.
2)Giving it openly their protection to what was legally and de facto a rebellion without real legitimity acknowledged in Europe would make them frown upon by every continental power.
It would make them fear that Britain could support every revolt as long they could have a slightest advantage on it.
Not the most interesting idea for keeping a functioning alliance system.
In the timeline that I'm working on Britain "lends" the Kingdom of Sardinia the money with which to buy-out the Genoese claim (just before the French purchase would have been agreed) on condition that Corsica is left as legally & effectively autonomous within that kingdom, leaning quietly on both Genoa and the Corsicans to accept this deal.
I did'nt say going to war, I said threatening to go to war, which has been something that's worked for lots of countries throughout History.
Last edited:
Then there's two solutions.
1)France ignore. Britain withdraw and loose a great bunch of diplomatical credibility.
2)France complies (unlikely in my opinion, as they not only invested money but needed more than Britain to control the island), and Britain still enjoy the bad diplomatic effects listed above.
Britain was openly a backer of Corsica and its sponsor IOTL, I don't see why ensuring one of its allies remains independent would effect its diplomatic standing.
Because his ally happen to be revoltees. Every other power in Europe could logically deduce that Britain would find itself allowed to support every rebel that challenge their authority.
It wouldn't be anymore ensuring an ally, but supporting revoltess and being the bank of every troublemaker.
Furthermire threatening to go to war and NOT going to war after that is greatly decredibilizing.
My point is the other European powers already knew Britain was doing so, so why would continuing to do so change anything.
Last edited:
They already know they were funding a rebel? That's does not change anything.
In fact, knowing that from the beggining could even push european powers to tell Britain to calm down on this.
Again, you can't fund what appeared as rebel without legitimity without worrying everyone on "hey if they support them against France, what exactly prevent them to do the same".
That was considered (and still today) as unconventional war.
Let's take the exemple, AH of course, of US using chemical weapons against Ghadafi. Even if it was used again a psychocracy, others states would frown upon it.
Guys
I see one problem with this argument that Britain supporting a rebellion would cause widespread opposition. That does explain the way the continent turned on the Bourbons when they went to war to support a rebellion they had armed and funded against Britain.
If France can support the American rebels why can't Britain support Corsican ones?
Steve
I see one problem with this argument that Britain supporting a rebellion would cause widespread opposition. That does explain the way the continent turned on the Bourbons when they went to war to support a rebellion they had armed and funded against Britain.
If France can support the American rebels why can't Britain support Corsican ones?Steve
That's a good question.
1)It's why France didn't supported openly American Revolution in first place.
2)France was already more or less isolated diplomatically due to the consequences of Seven Years War and didn't risked too much to do that, unlike Britain.
3)It doesn't threatened other european powers interests, well except Spain but Bourbon Spain had to follow what France tell it to follow.
Corsica, at the contrary is in Europe and funding a rebellion there is another business because there are the cores of power, not in american colonies.
And acting such close to power core is more worrying. At the point that the next rebellion in western world was the one of peasant of western France because they were led by some nobles, meaning it could be classified as "loyalist" when republicans were the rebels.
Hope it helps.
EDIT :
4)And of course, America's loss was far more annoying for Britain than the loss of Corsica for France. In geostrategic matter, it was worth being frowned upon, while starting a war on Corsica alone (I'm not saying that funding and openly supporting corsican during a war would have been impossible, not at all) would have been...silly to say it politly.
Last edited:
Britain could easily enough keeo Corsica temporarily, as they were allowed to by treaty, before chucking it once the upper crust grew bored with it. That or simply have a branch of the Bourbons deemed too undesirable for France to set up shop there. Maybe Napoleon's son somehow. He could inherit Elba for their empire.