Should the definite article "the" be used in "periods of [the?] Italian economic history"?

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.