Sweden and Italy on CPs side

Given the recent slew of WWI threads, I'm going to make one of my own:

What would be the effect if Sweden and Italy ended up on the Central Powers side?

Sweden because the Admiral Essen PoD is in effect (rogue commander of Russian Baltic Fleet makes a first strike against Swedish navy on his own and outraged Sweden declares war). (August 1914)

Italy because Germany successfuly strongarms Austria-Hungary in ceding Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca to Italy as the price for their CP belligerance during the early 1915 negotiations, plus it promises Italy all of Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, Chad, Gibuti, and eastern Algeria from defeated France. (May 1915)

Can this ensure the collapse of Russia before 1917, butterfly away unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram, keep America neutral, and give victory to the CPs ? With Russian violation of Swedish neutrality balancing German violation of Belgian one, and all of German-Americans, Italo-Americans, and Swedish-Americans lobbying for the CPs, I can see more reasons for the US to stay neutral.

As mentioned in the other thread, every soldier fighting in Sweeden or Finland, is one less soldier fighting the Germans and Austrians. The Austrians will be able to focus their entire army against Serbia and Russia, plus France will have to divide it's forces between the German front and the Italian front. Not to mention France and Britain will have to send troops to defend Tunsia and Egypt respectively, though this will be a sideshow in the end.

Suffice it to say, this would not be good for the entente, though it would butterfly away a couple of bitter corprals taking over Germany and Italy.

The first thing with Italy joining the Cps Romania would likely follow them while Greece would stay neutral.

Italy joining CPs would give AH one less front to worry about, and if it happen before Serbia fall, they can transfer the soldiers kept on that border to Serbia, to kill Serbia off fast. When Russia fall it would also it would leave Austria with no fronts.
So they could the soldiers to the westen front, strengthing both the Italians and Germans there.

Italy on CP side is a war winner, what with one more front for France and one less for Austria. If, unlike IOTL, Italy even enters the war early on, on CP side, then the initial German offensive against Paris might suceed because the French have to divert divisions. But even if that does not happen, in the long run, too, that decides the war for the CP.

Of course, there were some pro-CP leaning but neutral smaller states, like Scandinavian states and the Netherlands... and if King Charles of Romania had lived longer then Romania might have ended on CP side, too... those scenarios would have some less clearcut results...

I'd say the war is in the bag for the Central powers. Just getting Italy on the CP side in the beginning of the war is going to destroy the French. The Germans nearly won just by themselves so adding the Italians is going to further drain the French beyond what they could handle and possibly force the French to surrender in the beginning. This means that any British declaration now becomes meaningless which also makes the war far more easy since where are the British going to land troops? So now it's just Serbia, which in this scnerio is not going to last long and Russia which having to face off against the entire CP military is going to get beaten.

Saladan said:

Just getting Italy on the CP side in the beginning of the war is going to destroy the French.

Click to expand...

Which, I suspect, would be the reason that the OP specified May 1915 as the time of Italy's entry, and not August 1914.

I would agree that if Italy ad Sweden joined the Central Powers the war would be over by 1915. Russia would collapse by then and the French might has fallen in 1914 with the need to maintain troops in North Africa and on its frontier with Italy. If Romania also joined the war on the Central Powers side the the Czar would have had to sue for peace or face a collapse 2 years earlier.

Eurofed said:

Given the recent slew of WWI threads, I'm going to make one of my own:

What would be the effect if Sweden and Italy ended up on the Central Powers side?

Sweden because the Admiral Essen PoD is in effect (rogue commander of Russian Baltic Fleet makes a first strike against Swedish navy on his own and outraged Sweden declares war). (August 1914)

Italy because Germany successfuly strongarms Austria-Hungary in ceding Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca to Italy as the price for their CP belligerance during the early 1915 negotiations, plus it promises Italy all of Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, Chad, Gibuti, and eastern Algeria from defeated France. (May 1915)

Can this ensure the collapse of Russia before 1917, butterfly away unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram, keep America neutral, and give victory to the CPs ? With Russian violation of Swedish neutrality balancing German violation of Belgian one, and all of German-Americans, Italo-Americans, and Swedish-Americans lobbying for the CPs, I can see more reasons for the US to stay neutral.

Click to expand...

Going with your dates, things are seriously bad for Russia. Whilst Sweden's army might not do more in 1914 than tie down Russian divisions, this means less to face the Germans and Austrians. Whatever Essen does, he can't wipe out the Swedish navy, and certainly can't wipe out its capacity to rebuild. The Russians are going to be even more blockaded in the Baltic, and probably by 1915 they are finding their own coastal operations in jeopardy - no home-to-home trade, serious curtailment of fishing etc. With German naval support (and all it takes is to swap out divisions of the HSF from the North Sea) Swedish forces might even descend on Moon Sound etc in Spring 1915, landing in the islands

You might even end up with an early anti-Russian uprising in parts of the Baltics

Italy's entry is only going to compound things more. Spring 1915 will seem to be the turning point in retrospect. Greece is already on the brink of joining the CP with the king overpowering Venizelos in the Autumn, and Greek aims could look far more likely if they take an aggressive stance - land from Serbia, land from Albania perhaps.

Of course, Britain and France aren't going to stand idly by and do nothing. War is a pro-active occurrence, and they will open new fronts, send new expeditionary forces etc.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

LordInsane said:

Which, I suspect, would be the reason that the OP specified May 1915 as the time of Italy's entry, and not August 1914.

Click to expand...

Also because the 1915 entry PoD is more feasible since it only requires Germany realizing that Italian alliance is too precious when they meet a stalemate in the West and being more decisive than OTL about strongarming Vienna to cede its Italian claims.

A 1914 PoD would require Germany immediately making such moves at the declaration of war (less plausible) or possibly a different sequence of WWI onset which would bind Italy to the defensive Triple Alliance more strongly. I.e. Germany does not adopt the Schliffen Plan, (and so does not need to beat France and Russia to the gun), Russia declares war to A-U first, Germany declares war to Russia in response, France declares war to Germany.

A "Russia first" German strategy could make an Italian 1914 entry more feasible without making it an immediate endgame for France.

Grey Wolf said:

Of course, Britain and France aren't going to stand idly by and do nothing. War is a pro-active occurrence, and they will open new fronts, send new expeditionary forces etc.

Click to expand...

Possibly, but where, and using which troops ? Once Italy joins the CPs, which happens after Gallipoli, the Anglo-French are not going to have that many spare troops, I reckon, with that long Western Front. Maybe a violation of Norwegian neutrality to attack Sweden in late 1914, as they tried to do in 1940 ? As for Italy, they could easily seize Sardinia, but it's not a big loss to Italy, and landings in mainland Italy are going to turn worse than Gallipoli. A Salonika front ? But as other posters said, Greece and possibly Romania turns CP after Italy joins, Serbia is wiped out very quickly, and they would have to face a totally hostile Balkans: Austrians, Italians, Turkes, Bulgarians.

Eurofed said:

Possibly, but where, and using which troops ? Once Italy joins the CPs, which happens after Gallipoli, the Anglo-French are not going to have that many spare troops, I reckon, with that long Western Front. Maybe a violation of Norwegian neutrality to attack Sweden in late 1914, as they tried to do in 1940 ? As for Italy, they could easily seize Sardinia, but it's not a big loss to Italy, and landings in mainland Italy are going to turn worse than Gallipoli. A Salonika front ? But as other posters said, Greece and possibly Romania turns CP after Italy joins, Serbia is wiped out very quickly, and they would have to face a totally hostile Balkans: Austrians, Italians, Turkes, Bulgarians.

Click to expand...

There will of course be African fronts opened up at the Italien colonies.

Will Lucky said:

There will of course be African fronts opened up at the Italien colonies.

Click to expand...

Very true, but just like German ones, their economic and manpower value was neglegible to mainland (being decades before Libyan oil was discovered), they are almost surely occupied soon, but they may be easily regained at the peace table.

Italy would lose their few colonies and Sardinia. The Italian rails aren't enough to support all of their transportation, they need their merchant fleet to make up the difference. Their Merchant fleet could be sunk easily. The Italians need to import a significant amount of both food and industrial products. Germany could help them out in those departments but for how long? This could potentially allow Germany to starve out faster then ITL. Attacking into the French Alps will help Germany and Austria-Hungary quite a bit, but it will hurt the Italians far more then the French. Italy joining the war on the side of the CPs could potentially be national suicide even if it's a German Wanks wet dream, and I'm not sure that they are willing to do that for Germany unless an allied defeat looks imminent.

Sweden and Romania would help, but how much? Combined they would definately help, though they aren't going to win or lose the war.

In this scenario Russia is less likely to go on to the offensive(so are Britain and France). It's quite likely that the CPs waste alot of man power on offensives launched into the allies teeth. Just throwing man power at the Russians isn't always the best idea. The a blockade of the Central Powers could be even more painful in this TL.

I'm curious how how the US and Japan get effected. Maybe Japan could be offered some more German Colonies in exchange for sending an Expeditionary Force? Could the US intervention be butterflied away without the Germans being so desperate?

Obviously the Central Powers have a great chance of winning in this TL, but I'm just trying to say that it's not going to be as easy as some seem to be making it.

Bopater said:

I'm curious how how the US and Japan get effected. Maybe Japan could be offered some more German Colonies in exchange for sending an Expeditionary Force? Could the US intervention be butterflied away without the Germans being so desperate?

Click to expand...

The USA might be affected by the circumstances of Sweden's entry into the war, as well.

Eurofed said:

Also because the 1915 entry PoD is more feasible since it only requires Germany realizing that Italian alliance is too precious when they meet a stalemate in the West and being more decisive than OTL about strongarming Vienna to cede its Italian claims.

Click to expand...

Berlin strongarming Vienna will be like trying to strongarm an eel. The Austrians, particularly Franz-Josef, isn't going to give the Italians anything. There is too much dislike between them.

Italy attacking France is not going to make the difference that some people think. A better use of Italian divisions is to replace German (mostly Bavarian) divisions is Alsace Lorraine (Schlieffen actually included this in his draft plan).

A potential problem for Italy as part of the CP is coal. Italy was highly dependent on Britain for coal. Germany has a surplus of coal in at least the early part of the war but the exisiting rail lines can only partially compensate for the lost of British coal.

Was Sweden more inclined towards the Central Powers? And was Norway more inclined to the Central Powers? Could both of these Nordic Nations supply their fleets at Jutland and lead to a German victory?

Campbell1004 said:

Was Sweden more inclined towards the Central Powers? And was Norway more inclined to the Central Powers? Could both of these Nordic Nations supply their fleets at Jutland and lead to a German victory?

Click to expand...

Norway would never, ever seriously contemplate going up against Britain. Sweden was more inclined towards the Central Powers in certain upper class and conservative circles, but the prevailing tendency was towards neutrality. Of course, the OP mentions a way to get Sweden in on the side of the Alliance fairly reasonably. Whether Jutland will occur as per OTL might be up in the air (I'm not really that knowledgeable on it, but I suppose a changed situation in the Baltic might have an effect upon Kattegat and Skagerrack's strategic situation- a hostile eastern coastline for the Entente might have some impact, as well).

Italian battlefleet

In the Mediterranean, there's a lot of Central Powers dreadnoughts--4 Austrian, 6 Italian, plus Yavuz. That's a serious threat; even if they don't work together, the Entente has to honor the threat. The French fleet is not up to facing that amount of firepower without reinforcements...

David S Poepoe said:

Berlin strongarming Vienna will be like trying to strongarm an eel. The Austrians, particularly Franz-Josef, isn't going to give the Italians anything. There is too much dislike between them.

Click to expand...

Just to quote myself: Actually A-H agreed to cede Trento to Italy OTL. Bethmann Hollweg pushed that forward, but the offer to Italy was too late and too little. Italy was promised more or at least more interesting gains by the Entente (especially Trieste in addition to Trento). The problem with A-H was, that any ceding of territory based on national criteria would shake the foundations of a multinational empire and be a threat to its integrity. Since Italy held also claims on Istria, A-H saw also the threat of losing its access to the Adria (and only access to the Mediterranian and the Oceans in general). So the reluctance of A-H politicians to give territory away is basically understandable. But they could not afford to alienate Italy which they had done already in the Bosnian crisis and with the attack on Serbia. There was a clause in a treaty (the Triple-Alliance) that allowed Italy compensation for any A-H gains on the Balkans which were never given. (Although it was somehow disputable if the clause could be invoked in these cases.) That was the basis for Italy's demands in 1914/1915. Therefore the chances for successfull negotiations on these matters were rather low. The majority in the Italian parliament was in favor of neutrality, but had a difficult stand due to the rather late concession of A-H to give Trento back.

The German diplomats tried rather hard to get A-H to the negotiation table. At last Bethmann Hollweg get the approval of Emperor Willhelm to offer a part of Silesia to A-H as compensation for the loss of Trento and as a symbol of the German Empire that it would share the burden of territorial loss with A-H. This offer should be a last straw and actually had never to be relied on (much to the relief of the Emperor), since A-H was willing to give up Trento after they faced grave military defeats and realised the danger Italy posed to the Central Powers.

To get at least Italy's neutrality there are some points to be considered:

1. A more realistic assessment of the military power of Germany and A-H by their respective leadership before any major defeats. Therefore an earlier willingness to negotiate with Italy about at least Trento and Trieste.

2. A weaker Entente would help a great deal. Brtish neutrality would also help a grat deal, although rather unlikely without a rather early PoD. It was the English diplomats who finally got Italy into the boat. Russia was rather unwilling to let control of the Adria fall into Italian hands, especially since this would include an Italian controlled Istria which was considered as a part of the Russian sphere of influence (after an Allied victory). Without the English diplomats even in OTL an Italian neutrality was a distinct possibility. With Britain not part of the Entente and no major defeats of the Central Powers (yet) a victory of the Central Powers is conceivable further augmenting the chances of Italy staying away from the possible losing side.

3. With an earlier and more appealing offer the majority in the Italian parliament would have a greater impact on negotiations.

Under these circumstances I think a neutral Italy is possible as is a late entry into the war on the side of the exhausted but at least winning Central Powers to grab some slices of France (like Nice, Corsica and Tunisia). An earlier entry would need much more concessions by the CPs. So it is not impossible but neither the most probable event.

Kind regards,
G.