WI: An Italy that can actually hold its own

[DirtyCommie]

How could one get an Italy that would actually be a powerful member of the Entente/Central Powers in WWI and (depending on how that goes) a powerful member of the Axis/Allies in WWII? I mean one that can actually win battles and perform well against the Austro-Hungarian, German, French, British, American and/or Ethiopian armies. And what would the effects be?

[RookieHistorian]

Too my knowledge, Italy did pretty well in the actual fighting after it joined the WWI. They just got gipped when it came to the peace table.

As for WWII...well, lets see...for one thing they one in Ethiopia...and the reasoning behind Italian defeats in Africa I believe are due to A)Incompetance and B)Inferior tech. Possibly even C)Lack of combat experience

[DirtyCommie]

Well, Italy was the least successful of the powers in WWI, during the actual fighting. They were constantly bogged down in southern Austria and didn't really see any sort of breakthrough until the very end. As for Ethiopia, it was a difficult, almost-Pyrrhic victory.

[LordKalvan]

Originally Posted by DirtyCommie

Well, Italy was the least successful of the powers in WWI, during the actual fighting. They were constantly bogged down in southern Austria and didn't really see any sort of breakthrough until the very end. As for Ethiopia, it was a difficult, almost-Pyrrhic victory.

Was there any kind of breakthrough on the western front prior to the late 1918? This is WW1, and defense almost always prevails over offense.
The Italian front was not really easy to break: in Trentino most of the fighting happened on the highlands of Asiago, some 1500 mt asl; in the east the Isonzo is quite a large and swift river, and crossing it under fire is not exactly easy. Cadorna was no Caesar or Alexander for sure: he was a typical WW1 blockhead, and could not think beyond a frontal assault.

I would think that a landing near Trieste might have been a good bet, and it might have unlocked the Isonzo stalemate. However the Western Allies were not giving enough consideration to the Italian front and - as I said - Cadorna was less than brilliant and never considered an amphibious operation.

The Italo-Abyssinian was of 1935-36 was much less complicated than you seem to believe. The war was declared on 3 October 1935, and Italian troops entered Addis Ababa on the 9th of May 1936. Considering the logistics of the war, the lack of infrastructures and the (very) cautious attitude of De Bono (the first Italian commander on the Northern front) it was not too bad.

[Damu]

I will never understand why some people are so surprised that the Italian armed forces din not perform well against French, British, German, AH or American troops. Italy during WW1 and WW2 was much less industrialised than her main opponents. Only Rome and the north were trully comparable to France or Germany for example, large parts of the south were rural, poor and backwards. The Italian economy was just not strong enough to go toe to toe with other great powers.

And as LordKalvan said, the 1935-6 Ethiopian campaign was by no means a Pyrrhic victory. Though they faced resistance, Italian troops scored a completely decisive victory.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Damu

I will never understand why some people are so surprised that the Italian armed forces din not perform well against French, British, German, AH or American troops.

Actually, during WW1, they did. The performance of the Italians against the AH is entirely comparable to the one of the Anglo-French against the Germans.

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by DirtyCommie

How could one get an Italy that would actually be a powerful member of the Entente/Central Powers in WWI and (depending on how that goes) a powerful member of the Axis/Allies in WWII? I mean one that can actually win battles and perform well against the Austro-Hungarian, German, French, British, American and/or Ethiopian armies. And what would the effects be?

For one, get a politician who can plan ahead and with a clear objective and some military knowledge.
Adua was a disaster becouse the then prime minister needed a foreign policy succes so he give order to the army to conquest something yesterday; the conquest of Lybia even if political preparation for it has been done the military side was negletted and it was a 'go and fetch for yesterday' as usual.
Cadorna, for all his falling had ajustification for not immediately pressing the A-H when they have so little men in zone; he must transport the army from the French border to the A-H border and create a plan the government give him the news of the switch of alliance very late, and it's better don't even talk about the WWII armistice.

For a better performance in WWI, well no conquest of Lybia, maybe after the initial attack UK and France decide that after all the Ottoman are a better ally and more needed for stabilizing the Balkans or counter A-H so they convince (coerce) Italy at accepting a diplomatic solution with some minor concession, this humiliation by the Entente powers and more specifically the renege of the secret treaty by the France, prompt Italy to side with the CP in WWI (the problem is the balkan war, the italian victory over the Turk prompetd other nation to attack them, here maybe the BW don't happen, is absorbed by WWI or happen along the line becouse they know that OE was saved only by France and UK), with more resource and men (here not used in Lybia for conquest and pacification) and with plan already drafted. If it's needed another push for an Italian central powers make survive Genaral Alberto Pollio, predecessor of Cadorna who greatly supported the CP alliance and by the way can probably manage the army (from a human point of view) better than Cadorna (worse is difficult)

[basileus]

Originally Posted by DirtyCommie

How could one get an Italy that would actually be a powerful member of the Entente/Central Powers in WWI and (depending on how that goes) a powerful member of the Axis/Allies in WWII? I mean one that can actually win battles and perform well against the Austro-Hungarian, German, French, British, American and/or Ethiopian armies. And what would the effects be?

Simple: have Italy unify some three centuries before, and chasing out the Papacy outright. A unified, protestant country from the Alps to Sicily. Then we have some hope. For the lack of natural resources, however, nothing can be done apart from building a colonial empire and a strong navy.

[Nassirisimo]

Originally Posted by basileus

Simple: have Italy unify some three centuries before, and chasing out the Papacy outright. A unified, protestant country from the Alps to Sicily. Then we have some hope. For the lack of natural resources, however, nothing can be done apart from building a colonial empire and a strong navy.

I think your a bit too dismissive of Italys chances. With a POD from the 19th century, its never going to become as powerful as Britain, but it can certianly be a greater power. Prehaps if Cavour had had his way and the unification of Italy was more gradual (OTL, it was almost forced upon him by Garibaldi's expedition in the south). This could have led to a stronger Italian state, and in paticular, a southern Italy with a better image amongst other Italians which could add a bit more national cohesion. All of this would help Italy futher on in the 19th century.

[Ward]

In 1939 the Italian Army relished a lot of trained soldiers to go home to bring in crops and when the War started the Italians then filled there divs with Green Recruits .
They would of been better off if they did not discharge the trained soldiers in 1939 . Also the Spanish Civil war cost Italy a lot of money because they deployed over two divisions to fight in Spain .