How not to Start a new Country: George Washington vs Cavour of Italy

History has produced leaders whose early decisions helped define the fate of their nations—for better or worse. In the case of modern Italy, Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, leader of the Kingdom of Sardegna-Piemonte, (Italy before unification) made a deeply consequential decision in 1858 that remains one of the most controversial acts of Italian unification. In a secret agreement with Napoleon III of France, Cavour agreed to cede the city of Nice and the surrounding county of Savoy to France in exchange for French military support against Austrian forces in northern Italy. For a newly forming nation, the surrender of culturally and historically significant territory was not a minor concession; it set a precedent with consequences that would echo in perpetuity far beyond the immediate military objective.  

In 1850 French forces intervened in Rome at the request of Pope Pius IX against Italian patriots from the Papal States, who sought Italian unity. 30,000 French troops, under the command of General Charles Oudinot, landed in Civitavecchia, Italy marched to and attacked Rome, inflicting heavy damage, and killed more than 2,000 Romans. They defeated a much smaller rebel force led by General Giuseppe Garibaldi in a struggle that resembled David against Goliath. Yet Pope Pius IX did not reward France with territory from the Papal States nor payment. France acted largely out of religious and political loyalty to the papacy, while Cavour surrendered Nice for military assistance. This contrast raises a central question: when founding a nation, should leaders sacrifice national territory for short-term strategic gain?

The new leaders of united Italy were deeply jealous and wary of Giuseppe Garibaldi, the charismatic and enormously popular revolutionary General of two continents, Europe and South America who was widely regarded as one of the finest military commanders of his time. Garibaldi was born in Nizza—known today as Nice—and belonged to La Giovane Italia, the movement founded by Giuseppe Mazzini around 1830 to unite the Italian states. For Garibaldi and many Italian nationalists, Nice was not merely a border city; it was tied to the ideals and identity of the Risorgimento. Cavour’s decision to surrender Nice to France therefore carried a personal and political sting. In my view, Cavour’s hostility toward Garibaldi may have influenced the decision to give away Garibaldi’s home city, and Italy ultimately paid the price for that shortsighted and disastrous bargain. 

Garibaldi, upon hearing of the treachery, did what he could to reverse it, but to no avail.  

Why do I believe France would have helped Italy against Austria even without receiving Nice? France had strong strategic reasons to weaken Austrian power and expand its own influence on the Italian peninsula. Austria was France’s principal rival in northern Italy, and a successful Italian campaign against Austrian control would have advanced French interests as well as Italian ones. In other words, French support was not simply a favor to Cavour; it was also a way for Napoleon III to increase France’s prestige and political leverage in Europe.  This was the second time Italians gave away valuable Italian territory to the French.  In 1769 the island of Corsica, at the time ruled by Genoa, was sold to the French; the same year that Napoleon Bonaparte was born.  Another territorial blunder with eternal ramifications.  So, as of today, the score is France 2, Italy 0.  

The transfer of Nice to France can be argued by some that it was a good idea at the time; not me.  It was done mainly by one man, Cavour, and without the vote of Sardegna-Piemonte, although the transfer was approved by the Treaty of Turin in 1858.  The Kingdom of Sardegna-Piemonte citizens had no vote. Citzens of Nice did vote overwhelmingly to join France, but then, they were discarded by Cavour as expendable.  I see it as a betrayal of Italian citizens to have done it.  I see no conditions in which it could be a good idea to voluntarily cede valuable land to your neighbor.  It looks to me that Cavour may have been a French mole. The current Italian state, to my knowledge has never condemned Cavour, as a matter of fact it named an aircraft carrier after him that is in current service.  At the same period there was another aircraft carrier named Giuseppe Garibaldi.  I think that General Garibaldi would be insulted to be in the same company as Cavour.  He hated him.   I stand with Garibaldi, the true and ultimate Italian patriot.  

George Washington, by contrast, made decisions that strengthened the foundations of his new country. He led an inexperienced and poorly supplied army against Great Britain, then the world’s most powerful military force, and prevailed through perseverance, judgment, and example. More importantly, after victory he helped establish principles that have endured for generations: constitutional government, civilian leadership, and the peaceful transfer of power. He could have remained in office for life, or even allowed himself to be made king, but he refused both paths. Washington put country above personal ambition. Cavour, in surrendering Nice to France, did the opposite: he diminished the nation he was helping to create.

For more information on the French attack of Rome in 1850 and the rebellion against Pope Pius IX for the liberation of the Papal States see the fine book "The Pope who would be King" by David I. Kertzer, 2018, Random House.

For a very engaging story of the struggle for Rome in 1850 and General Giuseppe Garibaldi's courageous defense of Rome and his escape after defeat see the fine book "The Hero's Way" by Tim Parks, 2021, W. W. Norton & Company.  Garibaldi brought 1,000 volunteers from South America to fight for Italian unification.  These men did not receive the recognition they deserved.  One of these men was a black son of an Uruguayan slave named Andrea Aguyar, a right hand man of Garibaldi; he was killed on the last day of the battle.  No monument for him.

Russian Kaliningrad: The Bizarre Global Decisions After WW I and II Have Sown the Seeds of Conflict

The Austria-Hungary Empire of pre-World War I was one of the most successful empires of the day.  Unlike similar empires which were assembled through conquest, Austria-Hungary was assembled through voluntary association, mainly in fear of aggression by the Muslim Ottoman Turks who were hell bent on conquest for their entire existence.  Countries such as Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Montenegro became part of the Austria-Hungary Empire for this reason.  One exception was the takeover of Bosnia Herzegovina in 1878 when it was awarded control by the Congress of Berlin.  In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed it, to the chagrin and objection of the Bosnians.

Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, was the heir to the Austria-Hungary throne in 1914 when he decided to visit and tour Bosnia-Herzegovina in an open car.  He was shot to death June 28, 1914, at the hands of a Serbian national, Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina. These two men are credited with starting World War I.  The Archduke had to know that this was a very bad idea, but perhaps he did not; it was.  For some bizarre reason, he wanted an open car parade.  There was a first failed attempt against him, which he survived, he brushed it off and continued.  His driver took a wrong turn and he, and his wife, Sophie, were killed; both shot to death.  One stupid move by one man and the world pays the price. Four empires were destroyed after World War I:  The Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Empire and the Austria-Hungary Empire.

At the end of World War I and World War II, twenty years later, international politicians made some of the most bizarre and destructive decisions of all time, again: the not ready for prime-time players.  The Treaty of Versailles produced some of the most poorly decided dumb decisions.  One example is President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, on his own authority, and overriding other European leaders, decided to ignore the Treaty of London of 1915 which promised territory concessions to Italy if it agreed to enter the war (WW I).  Second, the Treaty of Versailles after WW I created the conditions that caused the second World War.  

Among the many controversial decisions made after the world wars was the redrawing of borders that helped shape the new Yugoslavia. In the process, Italy lost territories with long-standing Italian communities, including the Istrian Peninsula, the city of Fiume, and parts of the Dalmatian Coast. To critics, these decisions appeared to represent another act of appeasement—rewarding Josip Broz Tito’s communist regime while disregarding the historical and ethnic complexities of the region. The consequences were severe: ethnic tensions intensified, and Italian civilians suffered atrocities at the hands of Tito’s communist forces, known as the Foibe Massacres between 1943 and 1950.

 Reward a tyrant, such as Tito, and he will like you better, was the thought.  All this at the price of thousands of people losing their lives and stoking ethnic hate for the long term.  History has shown that all these decisions were disastrous.  After the death of the dictator Tito, Yugoslavia broke up and a war of independence of the member states caused more atrocities.  From 1991to 1995 over 100,000 people were killed.  Some of these decisions reverberate with us today such as the enclave of Kaliningrad, the German city known before 1946 as Konigsberg, the largest German easternmost city, gifted to the Soviets at the Potsdam Agreement in 1945.  Who thought that this was a good idea but the Soviets?  Look at the map of where it is compared to the Russian border.  Appeasement roars its ugly head again and the world pays the price.  Just yesterday (8/24/26) the Wall Street Journal had a story about how the Russians are drawing plans for mobilization of the Kaliningrad residents.  This suggests they have aggressive military plans. Déjà vu all over again.  Will we ever lean?

Triple Entente Allies Stab Italy in the Back After World War I

 Under the secret Treaty of London, signed on April 26, 1915, Britain, France, and Russia promised Italy substantial territorial gains, financial loans, and strategic colonial concessions. In return, Italy agreed to abandon its neutrality and declare war on the Central Powers within one month. The specific territories promised are as follows: 

•    Trentino and South Tyrol
•   Trieste and the Austrian Littoral which includes Gorizia and the entire Istrian peninsula
•    Dalmatia and a substantial chunk of the Balkan coastline which includes the city of Zara, now called Zadar in what is now Croatia
•   Sovereignty over Albania
•    The Dodecanese Islands and full sovereignty over the Aegean islands and 
• Expansion of Italian African colonies.

Italy ultimately received Trentino, South Tyrol, and Trieste (only after World War II) but much of what had been promised—including the Italian-speaking peninsula of Istria and the Dalmatian coast—was denied to Italy. After the Second World War, many of these territories came under Yugoslav control under the communist dictator, Josip Broz Tito. Yugoslav partisans, under Tito, committed numerous summary executions of thousands of Italians, including common burials in pits and sink holes, known as the Foibe Massacres.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson refused to honor the Treaty of London in full and opposed Italy’s claims to the territories it had been promised. What was the cost to Italy in joining the allies in World War I:

• 2.1 million military casualties, including
• 600,000 killed in action
• 947,000 wounded
• 600,000 captured or missing

In 1915 the population of Italy was 36 million, the United States population the same year was 100 million.The United States World War I casualties were 320,500 total, with 116,700 killed in action. 

So, it all came down to one man, Woodrow Wilson, who overruled Britain, France and Russia and the treaty of London.   So next time you promise your neighbor to go to war with you, will you believe any promises made? Wilson was a well known racist and a Darwinian eugenicist.  Click here for a description of him.

For those who understand Italian, attached is a video I recorded in 1985 in Sicily of one of my uncles, Cavaliere Giuseppe Neglia reciting a poem he wrote about his experience as an 18 year-old Italian soldier during World War I.  When he recited this poem in public half of the audience was in tiers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzmYO0bND0