AHC: CP Italy and Sweden, Entente wins

[Eurofed]

Here is the strategic and diplomatic challenge: Sweden joins the CP in August 1914 thanks to the Admiral Essen PoD, Italy joins the CP in May 1915 because the first PoD makes the Entente look weak enough or Germany strongarms Austria to cede Trento and Gorizia and in any case they are promised Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia. Turkey and Bulgaria still join the CP as IOTL. The Entente still wins the war. Italy withstands the fight as well as and as long as IOTL or as Austria-Hungary, whatever you deem plausible, but please no Italy crapping in its pants and collapsing or throwing in the towel at the first significant military reversal or blockade-related economic hardship, the clichè is loathsome and wrong.

Please discuss how the Entente may net this seemingly wildly improbable victory, as well as the post-war world if you like.

[Van555]

Italy explodes :D

no but seriously, hmm I guess Italy losses something to the newly minted Yugoslavia and sweden gets some reparations to pay but thats all i got.

good to see you eurofed how you been

[ZachScape]

The maximum Italy would ever lose is the Aosta Valley, part of Friuli, the western point of Turin, Sardinia, and its colonies.

[Eurofed]

no but seriously, hmm I guess Italy losses something to the newly minted Yugoslavia and sweden gets some reparations to pay but thats all i got.


Oh, absolutely. As it concerns the peace deal, both Italy and Sweden would have to pay reparations and suffer military limitations. Italy would lose Briga and Tenda, Aosta would get the Saar deal, Austria would keep Bolzano (not Trento), Yugoslavia would gobble Gorizia, Trieste and Istria, and Italy would lose the colonies. I cannot think of any plausible territorial loss for Sweden, especially if Russia still collapses into revolution.

The interwar world would be quite interesting. Sweden would likely settle back into neutralism, but Italy would turn as fiercely revanchist as Germany, probably after a crushed Communist revolution. An Axis with a well-prepared Italy would certainly be an interesting scenario.

However, the main topic is how the Entente could win this uphill fight. Tentatively, I'd say that America joining the Entente in 1915 is an absolute prerequisite.

[Eurofed]

The maximum Italy would ever lose is the Aosta Valley, part of Friuli, the western point of Turin, Sardinia, and its colonies.

Agreed on Aosta in a worst case scenario (although if France is getting its way so much, it is also getting Saar). The colonies are a given. Slight border revisions to give France better control of the Alps watershed are quite likely, just as it was done in 1947 with Briga and Tenda (which may be easily done ITTL). But getting any substantial part of Piedmont is ASB.

Sardinia is theoretically possible but I'm not so sure that France would bother to own it, Corsica has proven troublesome enough, and differently from Corsica for Italy, Sardinia is not an idelaized irredentistic claim for France. It might happen.

I very much doubt that Yugoslavia would get anything better than the 1866 border at the best. Yugoslavia did not have that much clout with the Entente, compare the 1947 border when Italy was in the doghouse.

If France wants to get greedy and to enforce an harsh peace (and it likely does, ITTL the Entente victory is surely even more pyrrhic than OTL), that's another matter entirely (although Britain is going to step in and veto any outrageous demands, they didn't spill their blood to make France the overlord of Europe, so they would not want Germany or Italy too weakened). Of course, a pissed-off revanchist Italy is a bad long-term deal for the Entente.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Italians have a better reason to go revanchist?

[Eurofed]

Italians have a better reason to go revanchist?

No doubt, and in all likelihood they would prepare for the rematch as seriously as the Germans and Russians did, not to mention espousing this Axis idea from the start. This is surely going to make the interwar period and *WWII interesting. For once, an openly revanchist Italy from the beginning on top of Germany and Soviet Russia is going to send Britain and France into appeasement fatigue faster.

Any idea on how the Entente may win in the first place ?

[Van555]

U.S. involvement is probably necessary ASAP, possibly Norway? Maybe a better performing Russia?

[RGB]

Russians playing defense instead of launching risky offensives? Too late to avert Tannenberg, however, with the Essen POD.

[I Blame Communism]

For heaven's sake, no Gallipoli.

[Alex Richards]

For heaven's sake, no Gallipoli.

Definately. Perhaps have Lloyd-George convince Churchill to focus on the Arab revolt organised by Lawrence, perhaps with more funding it can expand to more of Syria and Mesopotamia by 1916/17. That at least always had the potential to cause enough internal difficulties to force an Ottomon withdrawal. I think that would cause Bulgaria to withdraw, which in turn probably prompts the Greeks and Romanians to join the Entente for last minute gains.

It would be difficult, but not impossible to get Norway in the Entente.

[Kelenas]

I also agree that an early entry by the US would be a necessity; otherwise the odds are too far stacked against the Entente without additional butterflies in their favor. Though an alternative would be a more defensive strategy by the Russians, which might turn the Eastern Front into a stalemate of trench warfare similar to the Western Front.

The post-war situation is going to be quite interesting, though.
- Italy might very well lose her colonies. If the Entente is already gobbling up Germany's, then they might think that they could just as well go all the way. This would have a large impact on the fighting in North Africa (if there is even any at all).
- The Anschluss might happen a lot earlier without Italy's opposition. Which, in turn, might motivate other German (or Italian, depending on the territory it loses) minorities to agitate for (re-)union with their respective father nations.
- Sweden... actually depends a lot on the course of the war, and the final peace treaty. It doesn't have any colonies the Entente can take, but perhaps they extract heavy reparations in raw materials as they did with the Saar region in Germany? Also a factor would be whether it was left to fend for itself, or whether Germany and/or any of the other CP members sent expeditionary forces to help the Swedes against the Russians. All in all, I think from a neutral Sweden, to an Axis-member Sweden, and everything in-between would be possible.
- Different leaders will probably come to power due to butterflies. The main question, of course, is "Who?"

- Kelenas

[jakewilson]

There are ways of punishing Sweden. Scania could be given to Denmark, Kiruna to Norway. There is precedent for ceding territory to neutral countries, as Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark after WWI. I don't know ow likely that would be, though, since unlike the other CPs Sweden had reasonably good relations with it's neighbors.

[Eurofed]

For heaven's sake, no Gallipoli.

Definitely, although if you leave Churchill in charge, he's very likely to press for another of his dumbass "big ideas" landings, that would fare no better than Gallipoli, such as Denmark-northern Germany or Sicily-mainland Italy. Perhaps it is better to throw Churchill under a bus.

As others have said, the Entente needs America to join in 1915 or so, the US needs about a year to send troops to Europe and if they come after Russia collapses it shall be too late with these odds. Have Wilson somehow get a declaration of war out of *Lusitania.

The CP need to get some of the stupid bug, and waste their own advantages. Keep the Falkenyan-Cadorna wooden heads duo dominant and dead-set on wasting troops in a seemingly endless row of futile bloody offensives on the Western Front that sap morale, while the Eastern Front is neglected and Sweden, Austria, and Turkey are largely left to their own devices. No coordinated CP effort to bleed Russia white, or to encircle and crush Serbia (its downfall is still inevitable, but if an Italian expeditionary corps does not show up in Albania fails to trap the retreating Serbian army, the OTL Balkans scenario shall repeat itself instead of the region becoming a CP playground).

On the opposite side, remove Churchill and his megalomanic landings, purge the Entente armies of butchers like Nivelle and Haig. Let the Entente assume a strict defensive posture in the West, Britain sparing its own manpower to support the overextended and bled-white French until the Americans can come into line. Some peripheral offensives in the Middle Eastern threater like Alex Richards said, but otherwise let the blockade and monting casualties sap CP morale.

Russia may benefit from a moderate defensive posture, but not too passive, and only if the CP stick to the faulty "France first" stategy. No matter how much defensive Russia goes, spaces in the Eastern Front were so vast that trench warfare was never going to be anywhere as effective as on the Western Front. Too passive a defense, and Russia risks to suffer substantial casualties and/or territorial losses anyway, which would cripple morale and accelerate the timetable of the revolution anyway.

[Typo]

US enters the war 1915-1916

[Eurofed]

It would be difficult, but not impossible to get Norway in the Entente.

Norway would be well aware that betraying the 1905 settlement and attacking Sweden is tantamount to send it a standing "this independence stuff was a big mistake, please re-annex me, everything is forgiven" card. ITTL the Entente looks like the weaker party to neutrals. Even if the Entente wins this round, this would throw Sweden in Germany's arms for the ages. Can Norway trust that Britain and France shall always be able and willing to protect their independence against the big and mean German-Swedish axis ? Doubtful. True, Norway was a British client, and Britain can blackmail Norway by holding its merchant fleet hostage, but would they deem diplomatic patronage and economic comfort more important than gambling their own independence on the Entente's fortunes ?

Otherwise, if Norway says no, the Entente can try bluffing and threaten it with invasion, but this might explode in their faces.

To sum it up, it is theoretically possible, but less easy than you can think.

[Eurofed]

The post-war situation is going to be quite interesting, though.
- Italy might very well lose her colonies. If the Entente is already gobbling up Germany's, then they might think that they could just as well go all the way. This would have a large impact on the fighting in North Africa (if there is even any at all).


Italy losing its colonies is pretty much a given. They are too strategically valuable and too close to Anglo-French possessions. Their lack, and Italy's need to overcome the Entente naval advantage in the Mediterranean, would indeed turn this *WWII theater interesting. Hmm, with the defeat-driven push to innovate, they might easily adopt some lessons from the Japanese. Build an AC-centered Regia Marina, use them to sink the Entente fleets, make strategic landings to seize bases. A PH-like attack on Touloun and Alexandria, quick seizure of Malta, a large-scale landing in North Africa ? Would the Germans try to adopt the example of their long-standing allies ? An AC-centered Kriegsmarine, and a surprise attack on Scapa Flow ? If both Germany and Italy adopt innovative naval strategies, the RN would be in for a world of hurt.

The Axis would also likely pull all stops to make Turkey join them for the rematch, but I dunno how successful they might be.


- The Anschluss might happen a lot earlier without Italy's opposition. Which, in turn, might motivate other German (or Italian, depending on the territory it loses) minorities to agitate for (re-)union with their respective father nations.


Very true. I would also add that with both Germany and Italy actively revanchist and closing ranks very soon, and unless the October Revolution is butterflied away (possible but quite doubtful, it is not going to be a victory any easier than OTL for the Entente), they might enter appeasement mood earlier than OTL. This might butterfly *WWII out entirely, or make Germany and Italy getting even more prepared for the rematch, depending on how much and how quickly Germany and Italy get concessions about ending the reparations and satisfying irredentist claims. However, I would say that the Axis would at the very least almost surely start limited wars against Poland and Yugoslavia, which the Entente may or may not join.

[Kelenas]

An AC-centered Regina Marina and, through cooperation, Kriegsmarine, would be interesting, though I'm not sure how feasible it would be for the Germans. How were their shipbuilding capacities compared to the Italians?

I do like the idea of Pearl Harbor-like sneak attacks on major British bases, though. Wouldn't it be difficult for the Kriegsmarine to sneak up on Scappa Flow, however? It isn't nearly as exposed as Hawaii, and the North Sea is a good deal easier to keep an eye on than the entirety of the Pacific.

What else might a closer German-Italian(-Swedish?) cooperation bring in terms of military innovations? Improved aircraft, due to their research for carrier purposes? Perhaps some infantry gear intended for amphibious or airborne landings?

Personally, I like the idea of Germany and Italy trying to get the Turks into the Axis; something like an effort to revive the old WW1 alliance, where the Ottomans where quite steadfast allies. Plus, it would give them interesting strategic options for attacking the Middle East.

Question, though; how would the government/regimes of Germany and Italy look like? The butterflies probably flap away the Nazis (it was a pretty close and lucky thing how they came to power OTL), but I don't know how easy or difficult Mussolinis rise to power was.

- Kelenas

[charl]

There are ways of punishing Sweden. Scania could be given to Denmark, Kiruna to Norway. There is precedent for ceding territory to neutral countries, as Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark after WWI. I don't know ow likely that would be, though, since unlike the other CPs Sweden had reasonably good relations with it's neighbors.

Well, you could do that but Scania is and was completely Swedish culturally, and it had closer ties to Sweden economically as the Sund was more of an obstacle back then. There is also the issue of effectively dooming Sweden to mass-starvation as all its good farmland is taken away, and the fact that you'd be given Denmark complete control of the Sund and thus all Baltic-Atlantic trade routes.

Kiruna to Norway is even worse. Norway would end up with a huge patch of essentially empty wilderness with no viable land connections to get there. The Swedish-Norwegian border is the way it is for a reason, that being inhospitable mountains and swampland. Norway would effectively be cut off from its new spoils.

The only even remotely possible land concession on Sweden's part is the Torne Valley to Finland (or Russia, I guess) but even that is pretty doubtful, mostly because the area at this point in history was almost uninhabited and didn't have anything to offer economically.

[Monty Burns]

To make that Uber-CP loose the best way would be bad leadership, right? Constant competition among Eastern and western front, worse handling of the economy, bad leadership at seas costing the CP the High-Seas fleet earlier and the Regia Marina as well, leaving Britain truly ruling the waves, dumb-Gallipolli-like ideas by the CP...

I'd agree that Sweden and Italy would get rather lenietn terms. Nevertheless, Italy would likely become revanchist and a close ally of Germany from the start. That implies the Weimar Republic having a close ally throughout the twenties, quite a difference.

[yourworstnightmare]

Hmm, you said the Admiral Essen PoD for Sweden? Well, it's probably the only way to get them into the war. For Italy to join Germany would probably have to force Austria to give up Trieste and Gorizia (perhaps even Trentino, the Austrians would be furious).

But let's say Germany woes Italy and Sweden into the war. Sweden can pressure Russia in Finland, while Italy, well, they can open a front against France, I don't think they'd be succesful, but France would be forced to fight on two fronts. Austria would also not have an Italian front to worry about. All in all the Central Powers are in a better position. For the Entente to win? Let's say the fronts are deadlocked. Germany see no quick victory, start to fell the results of the British north Sea blockade as OTL and goes for unrestricted submarine warfare. And of course lure the US into the Entente, and the same process as OTL happen. The key here is of course Russia. Russia was knocked out of the war OTL, and the Entente still won, but if Russia was knocked out earlier than OTL there could be huge butterflies. For the Entente to win Russia must hold to around the same time as they sued for peace OTL.

[Grey Wolf]

Here is the strategic and diplomatic challenge: Sweden joins the CP in August 1914 thanks to the Admiral Essen PoD, Italy joins the CP in May 1915 because the first PoD makes the Entente look weak enough or Germany strongarms Austria to cede Trento and Gorizia and in any case they are promised Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia. Turkey and Bulgaria still join the CP as IOTL. The Entente still wins the war. Italy withstands the fight as well as and as long as IOTL or as Austria-Hungary, whatever you deem plausible, but please no Italy crapping in its pants and collapsing or throwing in the towel at the first significant military reversal or blockade-related economic hardship, the clichè is loathsome and wrong.

Please discuss how the Entente may net this seemingly wildly improbable victory, as well as the post-war world if you like.

The Italian fleet gets itself sunk by the British (or potentially the French once they have their dreadnoughts commissioned). Italy becomes a drain on the resources of the Central Powers due to attempts to retain Libya in the face of Entente attacks. Not sure what the Senussi are doing, probably being encouraged to look at Egypt and cause trouble there.

No Mesopotamian adventure, instead the troops are sent to Egypt and used against Libya from the East.

Anglo-French naval superiority still allows for the evacuation of the Serbs, but as they are now fighting Italy as well forces are sent to maintain an Albanian bridgehead rather than to Salonika. Greece can still be enticed by the promise of Epirus rather than Thrace.

Anglo-French blockade of the Italian islands, using AMCs or submarines, or both causes great unrest, and civil demonstrations. Italy has to bring in martial law under the king in order to hold together...

...customer!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Eurofed]

An AC-centered Regina Marina and, through cooperation, Kriegsmarine, would be interesting, though I'm not sure how feasible it would be for the Germans. How were their shipbuilding capacities compared to the Italians?


Wholly up to the task, I'd say. :cool:


I do like the idea of Pearl Harbor-like sneak attacks on major British bases, though. Wouldn't it be difficult for the Kriegsmarine to sneak up on Scappa Flow, however? It isn't nearly as exposed as Hawaii, and the North Sea is a good deal easier to keep an eye on than the entirety of the Pacific.


Well, the KM would in all likelihood benefit from the whole novelty value of the strategy. Although it would more difficult (but not impossible) for the Germans to hide their task force sailing for the North Sea, very few in the Admiralty would expect this type of attack. Scapa Flow was in all likelihood quite vunerable enough, since the Germans did manage to sink a battleship by submarine in 1939.

Tsouras does develop this scenario (PoD: Hitler serves in the Navy during WWI and gains a good understanding of naval power) in one of his Third Reich Victorious essays and seems to think that a German PH-like attack on Scapa Flow would be fully victorious (and that a naval-oriented Axis would bring Britain to its knees in a year).


What else might a closer German-Italian(-Swedish?) cooperation bring in terms of military innovations? Improved aircraft, due to their research for carrier purposes? Perhaps some infantry gear intended for amphibious or airborne landings?


Improved aircraft, airborne, and amphibious capability are all very likely possibilities. Also Germany adopting Italian unbreakable ciphers, and Italy adopting U-Boat tactics and developing an sizable submarine fleet. And of course, a Regio Esercito being on the same level of effectiveness as the Wehrmacht, adopting the blitzkrieg tactics and having tanks as effective as the German ones.

Plus, of course, the Holy Grail: if, in all likelihood, Hitler is butterflied away, the German-Italians shall corner the world market for atomic scientists. Without the expatriated Jewish scientists, no way that Britain and America (assuming that America would still bother to join the war in Europe, which is far from probable, if the EuroAxis gets sane revanchist regimes) would get the Bomb first.


Personally, I like the idea of Germany and Italy trying to get the Turks into the Axis; something like an effort to revive the old WW1 alliance, where the Ottomans where quite steadfast allies. Plus, it would give them interesting strategic options for attacking the Middle East.


Exactly.


Question, though; how would the government/regimes of Germany and Italy look like? The butterflies probably flap away the Nazis (it was a pretty close and lucky thing how they came to power OTL), but I don't know how easy or difficult Mussolinis rise to power was.


Mussolini would be probably butterflied away like Hitler, since his takeover was a pretty close and lucky thing too, although in all likelihood we would still see something rather like the fascists, since that's the ideological pool from which a revanchist Italian leadership would arise. Tentatively I'd say that D'Annunzio, Balbo, and Federzoni might be some familiar substitutes for Mussolini, if butterflies don't create an ATL charismatic leader.

All in all, I'd say that for both countries, we are totally still going to see far-right regimes, that depending on butterflies may swing from a neo-monarchist alliance of the radical nationalists and the army, to something rather like OTL Italian fascism. Nazi-like racism is in all likelihood stillborn without Hitler.

[Eurofed]

Hmm, you said the Admiral Essen PoD for Sweden? Well, it's probably the only way to get them into the war. For Italy to join Germany would probably have to force Austria to give up Trieste and Gorizia (perhaps even Trentino, the Austrians would be furious).


Actually, Austria giving up Trento and Gorizia under German pressure and keeping Trieste is a much more plausible PoD.

[Grey Wolf]

Take up where I left off with thoughts on the original post...

...Sweden could certainly have problems in Finland, say they over-run it eventually but believe their reward should be to get it back, by which time Finnish nationalism is rising and allows for a Russo-Finn convention where the Tsar supports Finnish independence after the war for co-operation now against the Swedes. Sweden would be loathe to invite the Germans in to help, and could well find themselves bogged down in Finland.

An Allied Epirus front instead of a Salonika one could lead to an expanding bridgehead rather than a static one. Greek...

...request!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Eurofed]

Anglo-French blockade of the Italian islands, using AMCs or submarines, or both causes great unrest, and civil demonstrations. Italy has to bring in martial law under the king in order to hold together...


The rest is plausible but Entente blockade of Sicily and Sardinia causing a revolution in the mainland is about as likely as CP blockade of Ireland causing a revolution in Britain. It's unpleasant, but it does not really harm the core of the nation anywhere enough.

Also, not sure why Libya would become such a great drain on CP resources, or even on Italian morale.

[charl]

...Sweden could certainly have problems in Finland, say they over-run it eventually but believe their reward should be to get it back, by which time Finnish nationalism is rising and allows for a Russo-Finn convention where the Tsar supports Finnish independence after the war for co-operation now against the Swedes. Sweden would be loathe to invite the Germans in to help, and could well find themselves bogged down in Finland.

Unless Sweden promises Finland independence first. Sweden had no interests in annexing Finland at this point. Having a friendly buffer state on the Russian border to the east on the other hand would be the best thing Sweden could hope for. Not to mention that Finland would be a huge drain for Sweden economically.

I think it's more than likely that Sweden would march into Finland as liberators rather than conquerors.

EDIT: This thread (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=162020) is of much relevance to the scenario.

[Grey Wolf]

...back

Greece could unite around an Epirus campaign, aimed against Italy rather than against Germany as it would be perceived, and aimed directly at preventing the expansion of Italian influence in Albania.

Bulgaria could attack Greece (since Salonika is not this fortified camp but rather looks like a potential prize) but get beaten in a war which further serves to unite the nation.

Greece could then take Kavalla and open up a front directly against the Ottoman Empire.

Romania's entry would not be the disaster it was in OTL as Bulgaria is too heavily engaged elsewhere. Russia would be more willing to support Romania directly perhaps as the price for more Entente aid in the Baltic

Fisher may get his Baltic campaign giving the three white elephants something to do in 1917.

Russia holds, and the USA enters the war. Since there has been no mass redistribution of CP forces, US troops rather than bolster the W Front are used in a descent upon Sicily which rises up against the Savoyard dynasty and proclaims its independence.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Oh well, I was just having fun with the idea

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Eurofed]

in a descent upon Sicily which rises up against the Savoyard dynasty and proclaims its independence.


Didn't happen in 1943, wouldn't happen here. It's about as likely as Scotland proclaiming its independence if the CP pull a Sealion. Please cut short the "Italy has no balls in adversity and no patriotism" ASB ideas, they were warned against in the OP.

[charl]

Oh well, I was just having fun with the idea

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

And well you should. And you are right: if Sweden was to aim for an annexation of Finland then they'd be fighting a guerilla war against the Finnish population. It's just that Sweden wouldn't want Finland back.

[Beer]

Hi!
With both Italy and Sweden in the CP an Entente victory becomes very unlikely, because only massive bad luck or ASB induced stupidity on the CP side could prevent a russian meltdown in 1916. Hell, even a late 1915 russian collapse is possible, but with a bit luck on the CP side. Anyway, if the CP can attack the western front 1917 with most of their units from the east, it´s the end for the Entente. The troops and even much more important, the supplies from the US which enabled the Entente 1918 to withstand the german spring offensive (and it was close even then), are not there in 1917. Game over for the Entente.

[Kelenas]

Well, the KM would in all likelihood benefit from the whole novelty value of the strategy. Although it would more difficult (but not impossible) for the Germans to hide their task force sailing for the North Sea, very few in the Admiralty would expect this type of attack. Scapa Flow was in all likelihood quite vunerable enough, since the Germans did manage to sink a battleship by submarine in 1939.

Tsouras does develop this scenario (PoD: Hitler serves in the Navy during WWI and gains a good understanding of naval power) in one of his Third Reich Victorious essays and seems to think that a German PH-like attack on Scapa Flow would be fully victorious (and that a naval-oriented Axis would bring Britain to its knees in a year).

Well, it would certainly be a heavy blow to British morale. Especially if it is coordinated with similar Italian attacks on bases in the Mediterranean (i.e. Malta, Suez, Gibraltar).

Improved aircraft, airborne, and amphibious capability are all very likely possibilities. Also Germany adopting Italian unbreakable ciphers, and Italy adopting U-Boat tactics and developing an sizable submarine fleet. And of course, a Regio Esercito being on the same level of effectiveness as the Wehrmacht, adopting the blitzkrieg tactics and having tanks as effective as the German ones.

Perhaps improved economic cooperation, as well? Or some standardization of equipment between the two militaries (i.e. compatible calibers for small arms, guns, etc)?

Plus, of course, the Holy Grail: if, in all likelihood, Hitler is butterflied away, the German-Italians shall corner the world market for atomic scientists. Without the expatriated Jewish scientists, no way that Britain and America (assuming that America would still bother to join the war in Europe, which is far from probable, if the EuroAxis gets sane revanchist regimes) would get the Bomb first.

Mussolini would be probably butterflied away like Hitler, since his takeover was a pretty close and lucky thing too, although in all likelihood we would still see something rather like the fascists, since that's the ideological pool from which a revanchist Italian leadership would arise. Tentatively I'd say that D'Annunzio, Balbo, and Federzoni might be some familiar substitutes for Mussolini, if butterflies don't create an ATL charismatic leader.

All in all, I'd say that for both countries, we are totally still going to see far-right regimes, that depending on butterflies may swing from a neo-monarchist alliance of the radical nationalists and the army, to something rather like OTL Italian fascism. Nazi-like racism is in all likelihood stillborn without Hitler.

In Germany, we might see the military leadership seizing power, though I'm not sure if the same could happen in Italy.
In that case, though, I think that there might not be a war against the USSR. IIRC Germany's military leadership in WW2 was quite keen to avoid war with the Soviet Union, and it was Hitler who more or less overruled them.

- Kelenas

[Grey Wolf]

Didn't happen in 1943, wouldn't happen here. It's about as likely as Scotland proclaiming its independence if the CP pull a Sealion. Please cut short the "Italy has no balls in adversity and no patriotism" ASB ideas, they were warned against in the OP.

Well its your thread, you can set the parameters if you like

I wasn't going to bother posting any more in this thread, but I will answer your 'comments'

1. If the islands are separated from the mainland by a blockade that will be a blow to morale, to coastal economies, and to face. The only seaborne trade would be in coastal waters where it was safe(ish) and those merchants and extended networks who relied on trade would be facing ruin.

Sure, you have trade with/through Switzerland, Germany and Austria but its not going to compensate. I don't know if Italy is self-sufficient in this period, and if it is how much of that is from fishing?

2. OK I have no idea about Sicily but they always struck me as a pretty revolutiionary lot and I certainly got the impression that they didn't like the Savoyards. Having a load of American soldiers there willing to work with local organs could make a difference

3. The blockade of the coast would be a symptom of a growing feeling that the war is being fought on the wrong side, and that they are losing it. That's why I said it would lead to demonstrations etc

4. Why would Italy NOT make a big deal out of Libya? It spent an enormous amount of effort to capture the place and its their shining colonial star. They aren't going to fail to try to defend it, and it is conversely the obvious place for France and Britain to be able to succeed in the attack

5. Do you believe the Italian fleet can defeat the British? I admit that a pitched battle is less likely than not, but the post asked for how the CP alliance could fail, so best-case scenario for the Italian navy clearly does not meet up with that request

[I Blame Communism]

Gosh, we're talking a lot about WW2 for a WW1 thread, and all with lots of convergence. Why does WW2 have to be fought? Why does there have to be a Weima republic? Let's go crazy!

If we were considerable more flexible with the PoD specifics, it occurs to me that we might keep the Ottomans neutral, which solves a great many problems for the Entente. Bulgaria stays neutral, so while Russia adopts a more defensive stance, the Romanians can open a viable theatre, and Serbia can be an even bigger nusiance for longer.

[Some Bloke]

With Italy joining for Irredentist claims ITTL, I can see a lot of Norwegians supposedly putting 2 & 2 together with Sweden, after all, Norway had only become Independent in about 1905, so I think that they'd be very worried about the idea of a belligerent neighbour. I think it is possible that Gallipoli may never happen and the troops get sent to Norway in an attempt to strongarm the Swedes in to throwing in the towel.

However, if Sweden merely diverts troops to the western border, Russia might (wrongly) see the opportunity for an offensive and lose more men.

I think that Denmark would be in very precarious position, having a beligerent state to the south and war potentiall happening just across the water, so we'll need to consider the effects of an expanded war in the Baltic.

The more think about it the less likely Gallipoli seems to me. I can see 2 possible alternatives. The first is the aforementioned Norway expedition (This could lead to an earlier clash with the German fleet in the North Sea).

The second is a campaign in the Med. If we follow the earlier suggestion of supporting the Arab Revolt, they will need to be supplied, which is only possible by sea. There is therefore some justification (read pretext) in attempting to capture the strategically important islands of Sardinia (France), Sicily (GB) and the Dodecanese (read porpaganda opportunities). The capture of the latter could also provide a Quid Pro Quo for Greece entering the war on the Entente side (perhaps even with the Greeks actively assisting the assault). With Italy being in the Central Powers I can see the Med fleet being reinforced with more modern BBs and perhaps the French concentrating their assets in that sea.

There is therefore a greater driver for this operation as it may provide an opportunity for a decisive engagement against the RM and the K&KM, this may provide some lessons for Britain in gunnery, safety and command procedures for the leadup to Jutland (or whataever engagement ITTL is analagous to that action).

However, I think that earlier US involvement in this scenario is still preferable if not necessary. Keeping in minds that Woodrow Wilson was
a) Pro Entente
b) Rabidly Racist
I think that Italian involvement on the side of central powers may encourage even greater involvement from the Wilson Administration to become directly involved, perhaps even by 1916.

[Grey Wolf]

However, I think that earlier US involvement in this scenario is still preferable if not necessary. Keeping in minds that Woodrow Wilson was
a) Pro Entente
b) Rabidly Racist
I think that Italian involvement on the side of central powers may encourage even greater involvement from the Wilson Administration to become directly involved, perhaps even by 1916.

Wouldn't he lose the election if he was no longer "The Man who kept us out of the war"?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Some Bloke]

Excellent poing Grey Wolf, that completely slipped my mind, is it safe to assume that US public opinion would be the same as OTL?

[charl]

Excellent poing Grey Wolf, that completely slipped my mind, is it safe to assume that US public opinion would be the same as OTL?

I would say no. It depends on how Swedish entry happens. If Sweden takes the German proposal to join in because of territorial aspirations (very unlikely, as OTL shows us) then yeah the USA would be about the same, but if Sweden joins because of the von Essen POD (check the thread I linked) then the Entente is attacking a neutral country without provocation. That would in my mind mean the USA is very weary about joining the war on the side of the Entente. They may still wage a war on the CP by themselves, but that would likely be constricted to German colonies in the Pacific. There is also the issue of whether Germany has a need to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare if Sweden is there to control the Baltic, as it would free more of the German surface fleet to be available in the Atlantic.

EDIT: Also, regarding your earlier post, there is no freaking way Sweden would engage Norway in a land war. The border is simply not passable for an army, even today. It's not going to happen. Plus Norway is neutral, and none of the CP powers have any need or wish to attack it. Furthermore Sweden is and was not in any shape to start an offensive war just like that. It's one thing if Russia strikes first, and Sweden has German support, but Sweden as the attacker is not going to happen. We were not that powerful, and we did not have any territorial aspirations. We did not want Finland, and we did not want Norway (even if it was only 10 years since we lost them). It's simply not worth the cost and the Swedish leadership knew that very well.

[Dilvish]

Hmm, the Germans and Italians get a crazy idea to outflank the French lines by invading Switzerland? Austria-Hungary joins in with an attack against Lietchenstein. :) As a result, they all get bogged down in the Swiss Alps. This also lowers the CP's image in the USA, which is the key country here.

Can we have the Ottomans neutral in this war?

[Eurofed]

1. If the islands are separated from the mainland by a blockade that will be a blow to morale, to coastal economies, and to face. The only seaborne trade would be in coastal waters where it was safe(ish) and those merchants and extended networks who relied on trade would be facing ruin.


I'm not negating this would happen, although it would be much more severe on Sardinia, which is separated from Italy by a wide tract of open sea, than for Sicily, which is close to the mainland. I was just arguing that both islands were economically backward (Sardinia even more so) and Sardinia was rather marginal in the national political landscape. So the blockade effects on the econom and by extension the morale would be limited.


Sure, you have trade with/through Switzerland, Germany and Austria but its not going to compensate. I don't know if Italy is self-sufficient in this period, and if it is how much of that is from fishing?


Italy was relatively self-sufficient as foodstuff went. It's not going to suffer revolutionary instability from this before Germany and Austria-Hungary, if any. The industry was concentrated in the northern section, where the railway network was (and is) most developed. Entente costal blockade is not going to be effective in the Adriatic, so the CP may use caostal navigation there, too, to send trade to Italy. There is going to be some hardship, but it is nothing that a war government can't control. Again, the blockade is going to affect morale in the long run, but more than for the other CP powers.


2. OK I have no idea about Sicily but they always struck me as a pretty revolutiionary lot and I certainly got the impression that they didn't like the Savoyards. Having a load of American soldiers there willing to work with local organs could make a difference.


Allied occupation of Sicily in 1943 didn't trigger any separatist attempt in Sicily. Entente occupation in 1918 would not be any different. Sicily is rather like Bavaria in this regard, there is a lot of regional pride and self-identity, but Italian patriotism runs quite deep nonetheless. WWI was the age of rampant nationalism, regions with no separate national identity are not going to secede because a war is lost, especially not in a situation that would paint the ringleaders as stooges of the enemy.


3. The blockade of the coast would be a symptom of a growing feeling that the war is being fought on the wrong side, and that they are losing it. That's why I said it would lead to demonstrations etc


Oh, sure, as long as this is happening in parallel with the other CP nations is fine and given the scenario going to happen in the end. I was just protesting the fact that it seemed to single out Italy. Remember, we weathered Caporetto without collapsing or throwing in the towel.


4. Why would Italy NOT make a big deal out of Libya? It spent an enormous amount of effort to capture the place and its their shining colonial star. They aren't going to fail to try to defend it, and it is conversely the obvious place for France and Britain to be able to succeed in the attack.


Oh, sure. I was just remarking that since you assumed that the Entente would gain naval supremacy in the Mediterranean, once they occupy Libya, there is little that Italy may do about it. There would be gnashing of teeth, but it is not enough to collapse national morale.

[Eurofed]

Hmm, the Germans and Italians get a crazy idea to outflank the French lines by invading Switzerland? Austria-Hungary joins in with an attack against Lietchenstein. :) As a result, they all get bogged down in the Swiss Alps. This also lowers the CP's image in the USA, which is the key country here.


Why not ? This is a war where the CP have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, in order to lose, so an amount of stupidity is warranted.


Can we have the Ottomans neutral in this war?

If we were considerable more flexible with the PoD specifics, it occurs to me that we might keep the Ottomans neutral, which solves a great many problems for the Entente. Bulgaria stays neutral, so while Russia adopts a more defensive stance, the Romanians can open a viable theatre, and Serbia can be an even bigger nusiance for longer.

Hmm, I'm dubious about letting Turkey go Entente, it would make the scenario challenge perhaps a bit too easy for the Entente. I mean, WWI Italy and Turkey were of comparable weight, as the sum of military-economic power and strategic importance go, so exchanging their place in the alliance leaves the OTL balance largely unchanged. In comparison to OTL, the CP would only have the net advantage of Sweden, which was surely significant, but not the game-changer that Italy or Turkey were.