Hcfyk

I came across this phrase and I'm wondering whether a definite article should be placed there, or not:

...for long periods of [the?] Italian economic history...

Although my instinct tells me it is okay without "the", I was thinking that, (a) it doesn't refer to the academic field of economic history but rather to history as the events that took place; (b) it refers to a specific noun, rather than to an indefinite one - for example, we would say "long periods of inflation", but "for long periods of the dictatorship", if we made reference to a specific dictatorial regime.

Without 'the' in most situations

... for long periods of Italian economic history ...

... successes of German industrialisation ...

The attack was followed by international condemnation.

Smith believed in British ascendance over other nations.

With 'the' is an option, where you are making a clear distinction between the Italian, and another, history

Economic history throughout Europe has been dominated by landowners. German economic history was marked by ....., while French economic history was completely under the control of the king. The Italian economic history of that time, however, was rather different.

This would be an exceptional situation where you wanted to make a special effort to isolate the Italian situation as distinct from other countries. (It would still be perfectly fine to write it without the "the".)

In a different example, both of these are perfectly acceptable:

American domination of space exploration led to ...

The American domination of space exploration led to ...

The second is used to make a link to a previous discussion of American domination, or a well-known fact surely known to the reader that America dominated space exploration.

Within the narrow context given „German economic history...French economic history.. adding „the“ to „the Italian economic history“ is not incorrect, but it is entirely redundant. When you say „Italian economic history“ how can you be emphasizing Italian economic history over, say Polish economic history? You are not emphasizing Italian economic history over anything. It`s clear you are not talking about any other economic history but Italian in all cases, because you have simply used the word „Italian“ and not something else. Why would anyone think you would be „emphasizing“ Italian economic history over Chinese economic history when no mention of Chinese economic history was even made (unless it was in fact mentioned, as in the example paragraph). But, even in the example given, it does not add attention to „Italian“ economic history in any significant way, though in that narrow context would not be stylistically incorrect (but only that context). The best use and rule of thumb would be to leave „the“ out in all cases entirely.