Italy enters the Franco-Prussian war

What if the Italians had gone to war with France along with Prussia in 1870? It is certainly possible, as Italy did ally with Prussia against Austrian in 1866, and there were several pieces of French territory that Italy was interested in (Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and Tunisia). Also, Italy was still bitter about France making a seperate peace with Austria in 1859, as well as French troops protecting what was left of the Papal States.

If Italy does enter the war it is safe to assume that France is still going to lose badly, so Italy will probably get all of the land they wanted. What effect is this going to have on various events in the coming years? The big question of course is if this will change or even remove World War I.

Well, Italy might be somewhat more loyal to the Central Powers, especially if France is really teed that weak Italy had managed to grab so much with the aid of its bigger German ally, but the "we will astonish the world with our ingratitude" aspect to Italian statesmanship might still be there.

What effects might the Paris Commune have on a belligerant Italy?

Given the fact that Italy and Austria still had some territorial disputes the Central Powers might not have formed anyway. Maybe Germany would have decided to ally with Russia instead of Austria then.

As for Italy's military weakness, if they stay a close German ally they will probably get some German advisors and such to make their army better, much like Austria and the Ottomans got in OTL. A stronger Italy might be more willing to go into battle with their allies rather than sit back and wait to see who is winning before joining the war.

Given how revanchist France was about the land they lost in the Franco-Prussia war it would probably be a lot harder for Italy to switch sides.

As for the Paris Commune ... good question.

I always wondered why Italy did not stick with germany at the time of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.
There are obviously a few reasons: the absolute priority was the recovery of Rome, and the new Italy was very worried about the possible reactions of other Catholic powers: given that France was busy with Prussia, and that Spain was not really in the position to intervene, the big question was Austria (actually, the interesting point of TTL would be if Austria were to come into the war, both for revenge against Italy and Prussia and to defend the Holy See: my guess id that it would not change the ultimate result of the war, but at the same time it could deflagrate into a continental war, much longer that OTL limited conflict).
Btw, Garibaldi participated in the war, leading a volunteer corps on the side of the French (which shows that garibaldi too was a very strange guy, considering that he was wounded - and his wife killed - in 1848 by french troops, and that french troops were stationed in Lazio to guarantee the Papal state). However, I would not expect any big ripple from the Commune: OTL, it did not make a big impact anywhere in Europe (compare with the widespread insurrections of 1848).
Just a note: Italy was surely interested in Nice and Savoy (which had been ceded to france just 10 years before the war), and probably Corsica too (I am not so sure that Corsica was such an issue in 1870).
Tunisia was not yet a French protectorate (it was occupied in 1881), and at the time italian interests in Tunisia were surely greater and more established than French ones. Possibly, one of the outcomes of the peace treaty might have been to recognize an Italian interest in North Africa east of Algeria.
Going back to the possibility that Austria might come in for another round, I would expect that this might mean an early end for the AH empire.
A possible outcome of the war might even have been Austria and Bohemia-Moravia joining the German states in the declaration of the empire; Hungary and Croatia declared an autonomous kingdom (under an Habsburg king??), and Italy grabbing Dalmatia, Istria, Trentino and South Tirol, with Slovenia made into a semi-autonomous principality under joint Italo-German protection.Russia might get Galicia and Austrian Poland, as compensation.
This would surely change the future.
OTOH, supposing AH stays put, I still would expect a strong tie between Germany and Italy, which might ultimately end up either in a cooperation on colonial issues (just a thought: France already had interests in SE Asia in 1870. The peace treaty did not mention any colonial settlement - Bismark was not very eager to go for colonial aggrandizement, he preferred to find an European lebensraum for Prussia But it would surely be interesting a joint Italo-German protectorate over Indochina. During the late 1860's Italy was - quite shily - sniffing around those areas, as well as in the Red sea).
Ultimately, I would expect that the Italo-German alliance might decide to crack the AH nut (1890??). This might open very interesting scenarios: Russia might be a willing partner (a la partition of Poland ); France might be still recovering (and the peace treaty might have been worse). UK would not be amused for sure. Still, without a strong continental ally its option would be reduced...

At last! Some good news for France in the military region!

I think that part of the reason Italy didn't get involved, apart from the fact they did so badly in the Austro-Prussian War, was that they again had a secret agreement with Prussia not to become involved until x amount of time had passed. They had the same agreement during the Austro-Prussian War and really annoyed Bismarck as they came in early and managed to get well and truely stuffed by the Austrians-several defeats on land and a good part of their navy sunk with little if any loss to the Austrian Fleet. I don't think they wanted to annoy Bismarck again as the defeats strengthened Austrian resolve against Prussia (hey I can remember A Level Modern History from 15 years ago!).

Perhaps what is really needed is a better Italian performance in the Austro-Prussian War so Italy is seen as a worthwhile ally not a liability

That certainly makes sense as a good POD, have the Italians give a decent performance against Austria. Best way I can think of for that to happen is if they have some good leaders and better doctirnes ... maybe have the Italians put Garibaldi in command of their army and have some Prussian advisors improving the way the Italian army works?

If the Italians perform better in the war against Austria, they might get some of the goodies they didn't get in OTL...supposedly Germany took a look at how uselessly their army was and did not support their in their bid for some territory. They wanted the Venice era and something else, but the only got one of it.

Matt Quinn said:

If the Italians perform better in the war against Austria, they might get some of the goodies they didn't get in OTL...supposedly Germany took a look at how uselessly their army was and did not support their in their bid for some territory. They wanted the Venice era and something else, but the only got one of it.

Click to expand...

Got a point there, maybe they can get the Tirol and/or Trieste too if they perform better war.

Chengar Qordath said:

That certainly makes sense as a good POD, have the Italians give a decent performance against Austria. Best way I can think of for that to happen is if they have some good leaders and better doctirnes ... maybe have the Italians put Garibaldi in command of their army and have some Prussian advisors improving the way the Italian army works?

Click to expand...

The poor performance of the Italians in the 1866 war was mostly due to the difficult integration of the other regional armies (in particular the army of the Sicilian kingdom) into the piedmontese army (which, as a rule, had performed pretty well in the previous wars, in particular in the 1859 one). Rampant jealousies among the corps commanders was also one of the main reasons of the defeat at Custoza. If I remember rightly, there were 3 columns moving into Veneto, but their progresses were completely uncoordinated, and the result was a defeat in parcels.
Lissa (the single major naval engagement of the war) was also quite typical: the Italian navy performed in a completely uncoordinated way, and was defeated by an inferior AH fleet. The commanding admiral (Persano) was court martialled after the defeat, and, again by memory, cashiered.
Garibaldi always performed well as a commander of irregular troops (as a matter of fact, he performed pretty well in the 1866 war too, fighting in trentino and Sud Tirol). OTOH, I've strong doubts on his possible performance as commander-in-chief.
Everything considered, I'm still of the opinion that Italy staying out of the war may be mostly due to political and financial problems.
Btw, at the peace treaty, Italy got just Veneto and Venice itself, but neither Trento nor Trieste.

Sounds like you know a lot more in terms of details about the war than I do, so I will defer to your judgement on the matter. It sounds like the Italian Army had some massive problems though, so it is not really feasible to have them do much better in the 1866 war. Maybe after the 1866 fiasco we have Italy get Prussian help for a massive military reform, so that when 1870 comes the Italian army is actually capable of fighting in a moderately skilled manner. I suppose it would help if we had a more solid knowledge of why Italy did not join the war, but if they have military reforms they would likely be more inclined to join simply so they could redeem their reputation after the damage 1866 did to it.

LordKalvan said:

Btw, at the peace treaty, Italy got just Veneto and Venice itself, but neither Trento nor Trieste.

Click to expand...

I was aware of that, I was speculating that a better performance in the 1866 war might have allowed Italy to gain Trento and Trieste as well.

Chengar Qordath said:

Sounds like you know a lot more in terms of details about the war than I do, so I will defer to your judgement on the matter. It sounds like the Italian Army had some massive problems though, so it is not really feasible to have them do much better in the 1866 war. Maybe after the 1866 fiasco we have Italy get Prussian help for a massive military reform, so that when 1870 comes the Italian army is actually capable of fighting in a moderately skilled manner. I suppose it would help if we had a more solid knowledge of why Italy did not join the war, but if they have military reforms they would likely be more inclined to join simply so they could redeem their reputation after the damage 1866 did to it.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the integration of the other armies into the Piedmontese one started in 1861, after the unification. Additionally, during the early 1860s there was a serious issue with brigandage in the Southern regions which effectively required a military occupation of the same.
While 1870 is just 4 years after 1866, it practically doubles the period allowed for integrating the different officer corps into a single army. Additionally, you may always hope that the stupidest of them may have been court marshalled and cashiered after the 1866 fiasco. (do not expect too much, though - probably the best way to improve things is to get some German advisors in 1867, and that might be not enough).

Chengar Qordath said:

I was aware of that, I was speculating that a better performance in the 1866 war might have allowed Italy to gain Trento and Trieste as well.

Click to expand...

Probably I misled you. Veneto and venice is what Italy got OTL at the piece treaty (actually, AH refused to give Veneto directly to Italy, and gave it to France which retroceded it to Italy).
If the Italian Performance had been better, I would expect that Trentino, Sud Tirol (Garibaldi was very close to Innsbruck when the cease fire was announced, and almost refused to stop!), Trieste and Istria would have been awarded to Italy. Possibly the turning point was Lissa. If Persano had not abismally mismanaged the battle (Admiral Tegethoff, the AH commander, sent Vienna a message which went "iron heads on wooden ships have soundly defeated wooden heads on iron ships" ), the Italian strategy was to land troops in Dalmatia, and menace an encirclement of the Austrian Troops in Veneto. Maybe the strategy was too ambitious, but in those days Dalmatia and Istria were mostly Italian-speaking (in particular in the cities), and an insurrection was quite likely. A successful landing on the Dalmatian coast would have threatened Trieste and Pola (where the fleet was anchored - with no option other than trying to force the Adriatic gauntlet), and would have made very real the danger of igniting an insurrection in Hungary (which actually came up in 1867). Persano's blunder was very, very costly

Bismarck will definitely not concede Tyrol's cession to Italy if they do better in the Austro-Prussian War, being that Germans live in the region. Bismarck wasn't really looking to weaken Austria and upset the balance of power. His intentions were to establish Prussia's dominance in German affairs in the grand road to German unification (Kleindeutsche). The most Italy can hope for in addition to Veneto is Istria. Tyrol, Fiume and Dalmatia would still be an issue between Austria and Italy, but the Italians would be in a better state and the Austrians would at least still have naval access in the Adriatic, though the loss of Trieste will be a huge blow to their prestige.

Italy may be able to push for the Habsburgs to lose their dual-protectorate with the French over the Papal States, but the huge blow to their prestige as well as a strong Italian performance may keep Austria in line in 1870, assuming butterflies don't get in the way. However, if Austria enters the war, it could make things interesting if the Italians decide to settle their claims. Things could get pretty nasty.

Ace Venom said:

Bismarck will definitely not concede Tyrol's cession to Italy if they do better in the Austro-Prussian War, being that Germans live in the region. Bismarck wasn't really looking to weaken Austria and upset the balance of power. His intentions were to establish Prussia's dominance in German affairs in the grand road to German unification (Kleindeutsche). The most Italy can hope for in addition to Veneto is Istria. Tyrol, Fiume and Dalmatia would still be an issue between Austria and Italy, but the Italians would be in a better state and the Austrians would at least still have naval access in the Adriatic, though the loss of Trieste will be a huge blow to their prestige..

Click to expand...

Agreed, Bismarck was not looking toward destroying the European balance. And it is also likely that he preferred to have Catholic Austria out of the german empire. However, the best Italy could look forward in the 1866 war was the Sud Tirol, up to the Alpine watersheds. On the Eastern front, there should be no doubt about Istria and Trieste. Things might be more difficult for Zara, Pola and the Dalmatian litoral. It would depend how the war actually develops. My point was that an Italian landing in Dalmatia would have created a lot of ripples, and possibly given a chance to a successful Hungarian raising.

Italy may be able to push for the Habsburgs to lose their dual-protectorate with the French over the Papal States, but the huge blow to their prestige as well as a strong Italian performance may keep Austria in line in 1870, assuming butterflies don't get in the way. However, if Austria enters the war, it could make things interesting if the Italians decide to settle their claims. Things could get pretty nasty.

Click to expand...

A stronger Italian performance should keep Austria on its toes. Effectively, this was the case in OTL: Austria protested the annexation of Rome, but did not make any real move. Not even mobilitation (notwithstanding the strong appeals from the pope). But you never know. A harsher and more humiliating peace treaty in 1866 might push Austria over the brink. In such a case, the AH would end half a century before it did OTL

LordKalvan said:

Agreed, Bismarck was not looking toward destroying the European balance. And it is also likely that he preferred to have Catholic Austria out of the german empire. However, the best Italy could look forward in the 1866 war was the Sud Tirol, up to the Alpine watersheds. On the Eastern front, there should be no doubt about Istria and Trieste. Things might be more difficult for Zara, Pola and the Dalmatian litoral. It would depend how the war actually develops. My point was that an Italian landing in Dalmatia would have created a lot of ripples, and possibly given a chance to a successful Hungarian raising.

A stronger Italian performance should keep Austria on its toes. Effectively, this was the case in OTL: Austria protested the annexation of Rome, but did not make any real move. Not even mobilitation (notwithstanding the strong appeals from the pope). But you never know. A harsher and more humiliating peace treaty in 1866 might push Austria over the brink. In such a case, the AH would end half a century before it did OTL

Click to expand...

If Austria does collapse to a German-Italian coalition the results would be rather different than in OTL though. Most likely we would see Italy gaining most of the Adriatic coast, Germany taking Austria proper and Bohemia, Galicia going to the Russians, and the rest of the territory formed as a large Kingdom of Hungary.

Chengar Qordath said:

If Austria does collapse to a German-Italian coalition the results would be rather different than in OTL though. Most likely we would see Italy gaining most of the Adriatic coast, Germany taking Austria proper and Bohemia, Galicia going to the Russians, and the rest of the territory formed as a large Kingdom of Hungary.

Click to expand...

Quite so. It would make for interesting times for sure. A diminished France might not be the kind of ally UK is looking toward on the Continent.
Germany and Russia can never really be friend in the long term. I would almost expect that UK and Russia have too many contentious bones (Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Constantinople straits and in general the Ottoman question, Persia, China) to be real friends.
It might be a bit farfetched, but the only likely trend might be to have Italy and Germany working very closely, and Hungary falling under Russian influence. Uk at this stage might be mostly interested in reaching a naval agreement with Germany and Italy, and possibly looking for a cooperation with the Chinese empire (a bit too early for Japan).
In Europe, a lot will depend where the (reduced) France will be going; I would not be surprised if French instability will be a constant of the last part of the 19th Century.
The big fighting place will be the Balkans, and the key to Europe stability will be an agreement between UK, Germany, Russia and Italy on the Ottoman question.
BTW, I would expect that USA will stay isolationist at least until the turn of the century.
Any thoughts?

Sounds pretty good. So we have a Russo-Hungarian alliance and a Italo-German alliance, with the UK uncertain about who to side with. If France manages to get a stable government revanchism would almost certainly try to ally with Russia and Hungary. The Balkans will make for an interesting problem, though as Hungary will have little interest in expanding and Bosnia will likely break free with the other Balkan states the Balkans might not be as bad as in OTL. Serbia and Romania would have territorial ambitions on Hungary though, so they would likely side with the Italo-German alliance. If Bulgaria is as unsatisfied with their share of the spoils as they were in OTL they would likely fall into the Russian alliance. Greece was close with the British, and so would probably be uncertain in its alliance.

How about the scramble for Africa? Presumably there will be more German and Italian presence and less French, but anyone want to go into more detail?

Also, would Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Denmark take an interest in joining either alliance?

Chengar Qordath said:

Sounds pretty good. So we have a Russo-Hungarian alliance and a Italo-German alliance, with the UK uncertain about who to side with. If France manages to get a stable government revanchism would almost certainly try to ally with Russia and Hungary. The Balkans will make for an interesting problem, though as Hungary will have little interest in expanding and Bosnia will likely break free with the other Balkan states the Balkans might not be as bad as in OTL. Serbia and Romania would have territorial ambitions on Hungary though, so they would likely side with the Italo-German alliance. If Bulgaria is as unsatisfied with their share of the spoils as they were in OTL they would likely fall into the Russian alliance. Greece was close with the British, and so would probably be uncertain in its alliance.

Click to expand...

Yes, more or less on the lines you trace. France might be in for a number of very rough years, what with the defeat, the Paris Commune (which might be butterflied away, though. No siege of Paris since France collapses more quickly) and the reparations to pay. This time they are loosing not only Alsace-Lorraine, but also Savoy, Nice and Corsica as a minimum. The peace treaty might even limit their capacity of building warships, and in any case they would be limited in their colonial building (no Tunisia, no Indochina, no Madagascar for sure. Ditto for the Pacific Islands). When they will come out of the funk (maybe in a generation?) they will be willing ally of Russia/Hungary.
UK will be much more empire-oriented than in OTL, and they are likely to (slowly) try to set up a sort of preferential relation with USA (again it will take a generation, but it will give them a strong ally on both Oceans).
The Balkans will be messy. I believe that Serbia will still be looking toward Russia, their traditional ally. But in 1870 the situation is very fluid: the Ottomans are still in Bosnia, Bulgaria is not indipendent, same for the Rumenian principalities. All of these were settled at the conference of Berlin, in 1878. I would expect that UK, Italy and Germany will tend to support the Ottomans, at least to thwart the Russian expansionism in the area. Greece and OTL Romania should be the other beneficiaries of this policy. I would anticipate that the Germans will invest early and consistently in the Ottoman empire, which should put them in a much better shape. Italy will be looking at Cyprus and Crete, as traditional Venetian possessions, plus she will inherit France position in Lebanon and Palestine.

How about the scramble for Africa? Presumably there will be more German and Italian presence and less French, but anyone want to go into more detail?

Click to expand...

I posted that there might be a joint Italo-German protectorate on Indochine.This might be naturally expanded to Formosa, and the South of China. Overall, I see Japan much more boxed in, with a China supported in some ways by the British, the Russians expanding in the North-East and the Italo-Germans in the south.
The necessities of the China trade should push the alliance of I&G in taking a position in the Red sea, East Africa (where there will be a friction with the British) and Madagascar. Theoretically this expansion might butterfly away the Boer wars, since I'm quite sure the Boers will get German support. And the continuous presence of the Free Transvaal State should make more difficult the British expansion toward the North, from the Cape Colony.
They might end up in Congo, to bypass the Boers. So you could imagine Italians and germans pushing from East Africa, and the British from the south-west.

Also, would Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Denmark take an interest in joining either alliance?

Click to expand...

The Scandinavian countries and Holland may be inclined toward UK, as a counterweight to Germany and Russia. Portugal should also remain pro-British.
There might be a Hoenzollern on the Spanish throne

Italian troops in German mobilisation Aug 1914

I'm thinkin back to an issue I discussed when I wrote a paper on why the Schlieffen Plan failed during Aug 1914 in my 1st yr Modern European Hist, which relates to German mobilisation plans taking into account the possible employment of Italian troops during the advance into France. In TTL, would the alliance of Italy and Germany resulting from 1870-71 make inevitable Italian participation on the Central Powers' side during the invasion of France in Aug-Sept 1914 ?

Melvin Loh said:

I'm thinkin back to an issue I discussed when I wrote a paper on why the Schlieffen Plan failed during Aug 1914 in my 1st yr Modern European Hist, which relates to German mobilisation plans taking into account the possible employment of Italian troops during the advance into France. In TTL, would the alliance of Italy and Germany resulting from 1870-71 make inevitable Italian participation on the Central Powers' side during the invasion of France in Aug-Sept 1914 ?

Click to expand...

If there were a 1914 war, Italy in TTL would certainly stick with the German alliance. While some kind of confrontation is to be expected between Russia-Hungary-France on one side and Italy-Germany on the other, it would be surprising if it were in 1914. Actually, i would expect that the trigger for the new European war would be the Ottoman Question: another of the classic Russian pushes toward Constantinople.
I am quite sure that it would be a very different Europe, and Germany, clearly the leading continental power, would be much less confrontational than OTL toward UK. OTOH, Russian too would be stronger, and, since there is not much to do toward West, they would be likely to be more aggressive in the Middle East, Persia and Afghanistan. If you put together these two trends, it is quite likely that UK will be on the German side. I would anticipate that British intervention will be limited to the Gulf theatre and Afghanistan, and will mostly involve Indian troops, and troops from the Dominions. At the same time, they would support economically and industrially the Italo-German alliance, and the Ottomans (it's likely that in such a scenario they would also blockade the Atlantic ports of France).
This new conflagration might be as early as 1880, but I would not expect it to be later than 1905. The final result would not be in doubt, obviously.
The peace treaty would likely see Poland and Ukraine gaining "indipendence", under German princes. Same for the Baltic states and Finland. The Ottomans would recover lands in the Caucasus, but I would not be surprised to see a kingdom of Armenia created under an Italian prince.