Italy stays with Central Powers 1914

If Italy could have been persuaded that Austria/Hungary and Germany were going to win could they have been bribed to invade Southern France in 1914

Would this have resulted in an end to the War in 1914 with a Central Powers victory?

Alternatively if France survived might WW1 have gone on LONGER?

Whether the Central powers win or not, depends whether the US will join the war or stay out...

OK, I try to improvise a TL (only the things changed):
1914: Italy declares war on France, Britain and Russia. Italy starts offensive in Southern France, but is blocked in the French Alps.
1915: Since the Central powers don't have to fight on the Italian flank, they can overwhelm Serbia, Montenegro and Albania. Greece is indifferent; Britain wishes they would join them, but they don't dare to.
1916: Falkenhayn tries the Verdun strategy again. Romania joins Allies, but they are stopped. (Not sure whether Russia would become a republic.)
1917: Falkenhayn gives up, after one million Germans have fallen in the West and almost nothing has been achieved. Now it's Hindenburg's and Ludendorff's turn. They go east, as in OTL. Romania, Riga and the Baltic islands are conquered. Russia (being cut off from the Allies for two and a half years) asks for peace. This time, Germany is less desparate while Russia is more. They lose Poland, the Baltic states, Bessarabia and some areas at the Turkish border, but they keep Finland, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Transcaucasian republics. Serbia and Montenegro become Austrian, Albania goes to Italy, Southern Serbia and some other pieces to Bulgaria.
1918: As I said, it depends on the Yanks... if they didn't and don't join, the Central powers have quite a chance. Since all parties are quite tired, France and Britain might ask for peace, too. Let's say, they lose Savoyen, Nizza, Tunis, Malta, Djibouti and Somalia to Italy, Kuwait, Cyprus and Aden to Turkey and Longwy-Briey, Luxemburg, Zanzibar and the Congos to Germany which has to retreat from Belgium in return.
In the US should join, however, war can go on until '19...

Italy joining the Central Powers from the outset would make an enormous difference, and the war could end before the US gets involved.

The Entente will be very hard pressed to retain control of the Med facing the combined Italian and Austrian fleets. The offensive potential of Austria and the Ottomans would be greatly magnified, and Russia is going down much harder.

Rumania won't enter unless it's on the CP side, and Greece stays out - Bulgaria comes in earlier.

CP victory in 1916.

John (Pasha) has made some good points. I thing to note is that one of Schlieffen's assumptions is that he would have Italian divisions avaialble for the defense of Alsace Lorraine. This would be as important if not more than the Italian offensive into southern France. It would free up German forces for other tasks. I am a great disbeliever that the Schlieffen Plan could work (logisitics, logistics, logistics), but there is some possibility that the Germans could have formed their line on the Marne and held Amiens which has several advantages in the Race to the Sea--some good chance of destroying most of the Belgian Army and capturing at least Dunkirk. Also possible is that they succeed at Revigny which forces the French to evacuate Verdun (and if Sarrail dawdles a portion of Third Army could end up encircled). With Verdun a done deal and most of the French alpine troops facing the southern Italian offensive Falkenhayn might try a Caporetto style offensive in the Vosges looking to trap the French forces in the Belfort Gap.

Participation of Italy in WW1 with the Central Powers would certainly have affected British/French strategy in the Med, but I'm not sure it would have resulted in eviction of the Allies. It is quite possible that The Ottoman Empire might not have been drawn into the war. Assuming the war started as in OTL in 1914 and SMS Goeben and Breslau were steaming around, one might well expect them to seek harbor in Italy, not Turkey, and the presence of three European Central Powers states in the Med might well have led England to be more accomodating to Turkish sensibilities and proceed with the transfer of the ships they were building for them. Thus, Turkey might remain neutral or enter in the Allies's side, making for a completely different dynamic - but one not unlike WW2.

Nonetheless, I would image the additional Italian forces in either Alsace/Lorraine or S. France would free up Germans - and Austrians would no longer have to be tied down in the Alps. Perhaps, if France were defeated early, the war might be over before the USA got involved. If France was able to survive the initial onslaught, Churchill would probably have gone for the "soft underbelly" in Italy rather than the Dardanelles, possibly with the same unexpected difficulties as in WW2 if the Germans intervened directly.

Another interesting long term result if the Allies won, with Turkey on their side, might be the survival of the Ottoman Empire and the squelching of pan-arab nationalism - and zionism - in its tracks...and a much more peaceful Middle East today. John would like this.

Turkish Ships

I'd be VERY surprised to see Britian let the two dreadnoughts sail for Turkey. Tith another navy in the war, they will need all the ships they can beg, borrow, or (in this case) steal.
They might pay the Ottoman Empire for the ships to difuse the anger over the theft.
Note that this seizure is much unlike some others that Britain did. The ships were paid in full, and a crew in Britian to collect Agincourt (I'm not sure if Erin also had a crew.)
From what I've heard, the common people were most upset with this, not just the nobles.

I seriously doubt Italy could have been pursuaded to join from the start, you'd one monsterous POD to pull that one off ... but, WI they joined in late '14/early '15

This makes the CP team: Germany, A-H, Ottomans and Italy

the allies are suddenly facing one hell of a fight in the med, and quite frankly, having Churchill on the scene is a disadvantage rather then an advantage.

Anything the allies try down there wil turn into a Gallipoli ... only worse. And keep in mind that France will have almost nothing available to contribute.

With the beating the allied fleets take ... will the HSF be able to score a strategic victory? I kind of like their chances in this scenario.
And of course, a victory by the HSF means no unrestricted submarine warfare, the US never gets nervous, no Zimmerman telegram and thus no US!

On land, Russia faces the full force of Austria and probably the full force of the Ottomans. The Austrian line never collapses over a 300km stretch like in OTL.
That last little bit of Belgium will likely fall ... While the Belgians will keep fighting, expect desertion to go way up.
France will be stretched very thin (in OTL they had invalids working the fields to keep enough food coming in). With the HSF running relatively wild, limited amounts of food come in by sea.

I really don't see any way the allies can still win ... if they're lucky, a negotiated peace where they don't give up THAT much but a straight defeat is a definitly possibility, early 1917 by the latest methinks.

If Italy joined the Central Powers, is there any guarantee that the Ottomans would also join the Central Powers? Hadn't Italy just fought a war against the Ottomans a few years earlier, and taken Libya plus some islands? If Italy goes with the Central powers, maybe the Ottomans will join the side of the allies, with a promise to get back the territories that they lost to Italy. If Bulgaria still joins the Central powers, the Ottomans could try to get back land that they had lost to Bulgaria, too.

By 1915 the lineup could be:

Allies - Russia, France, Great Britain (and Dominions), Ottoman Empire, Serbia, Belgium, Japan

Central Powers: Germany, Austria Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria

In this setup, Greece might lean toward joining the Central Powers.

Having the Ottomans join the Allies would be very frustrating for the Russians - they can't try and seize more Ottoman territory now. Still, it might have been a better bet for the Ottomans for exactly the same reason - fighting Italy, Bulgaria, and Austria Hungary is a less daunting task than fighting Russia and the British.

An interesting POD for this does not need to CENTRE on the Italians bu could drag them in - there are a couple of ways this may occur

1. Sweden could declare for Germany. The add-on effect of this could bring Italy onside for the lands which Germany bullied Austria into offering to Italy

2. Greece could honour its treaty with Serbia. This could then open new opportunities for Italy to gain - eg Corfu, or even boost its position in Albania whilst being an ALLY of Austria

I agree with John (whats a zoomar btw ?) that Goeben and Breslau would have headed for Italy

Grey Wolf

Paul and Zoomar make good points.

It's extremely difficult to predict what the Ottomans would do because of the nature of the government in 1914. If Italy had begun the war with the CP, there is virtually no chance of Goeben going to Istanbul, providing Enver with the tool to force the empire into the war. On the other hand, with Italy, the CP are looking pretty sure to win, and that might persuade, if not the pro-Entente factions in the Ottoman regime, at least the neutrals.

My best guess is that they would wait, and as the war dragged on, the Entente would apply a lot of diplomatic pressure, and make some large concessions (like abolition of the Capitulations) to keep the Ottomans at least neutral.

The Grand Vizier, Said Halim Pasha, was against entering the war and was pro-Entente - and, BTW, Arab.

The Erin and Agincourt would still be appropriated by the British - if it was clear that Italy was firmly with the CP, perhaps Churchill would not be so contemptuous of the Ottomans and would make sure they were appropriately compensated.

I have a great deal of admiration for his performance in WWII, but in WWI he was a giant weenie, and I take great satisfaction in the fact that his underestimation of the Ottomans brought him down hard and it took him decades to recover.

"I agree with John (whats a zoomar btw ?) that Goeben and Breslau would have headed for Italy"

Zoomar was the name of a Martian who lived for a year or so in my big sister's closet when I was a wee tyke. Some people might say he was imaginary, but I know better.

BTW - this gives me an idea for a new thread in the "Chat" section

Italian Army WWI

How much of a force would Italy's army have been in this ATL ? On the whole OTL they were very poorly regarded by both the Central Powers and Allies, due to their generally being poorly equipped, undertrained, and ineptly led (esp for the Alpine campaigns against the Austro-Hungarians on the Isonzo Front) resulting in the shattering 1917 defeat at Caporetto, from which Italy was only able to recover with significant British and French (plus to a lesser extent American- including with Ernest Hemingway's experience as an ambulance driver) manpower and materiel. Could this generally-regarded inferior army have made much of a difference on the CPs' side ?

IMHO its manpower and if the strategic direction is German for example, then perhaps advancing as part of Rupprecht's army in Alsace-Lorraine they could by their very presence force the French to fall backj

Grey Wolf

Melvin Loh said:

How much of a force would Italy's army have been in this ATL ? On the whole OTL they were very poorly regarded by both the Central Powers and Allies, due to their generally being poorly equipped, undertrained, and ineptly led (esp for the Alpine campaigns against the Austro-Hungarians on the Isonzo Front) resulting in the shattering 1917 defeat at Caporetto, from which Italy was only able to recover with significant British and French (plus to a lesser extent American- including with Ernest Hemingway's experience as an ambulance driver) manpower and materiel. Could this generally-regarded inferior army have made much of a difference on the CPs' side ?

Click to expand...

I once read that much of Italy's grain came from overseas, which could present a problem. With hideous losses in Savoy, starvation, and no end in cite, do we see an Italian revolution?

Edit: And I'm shocked that no one has commented on a successful crusade in the prince of peace.

Faeelin said:

I once read that much of Italy's grain came from overseas, which could present a problem. With hideous losses in Savoy, starvation, and no end in cite, do we see an Italian revolution?

Edit: And I'm shocked that no one has commented on a successful crusade in the prince of peace.

Click to expand...

Where overseas ?

And what Prince of Peace ?

Also, if Italy in the war ends it v soon then whatever negatives may never happen anyway

Grey Wolf

Melvin.

I was hesitant to get into an "Italians are worthless in war" discussion, but must admit your points have some real validity. I would counter with the observation that whoever has the Italians as an enemy still has to mobilize and station a large number of troops on their Italian front (and presume the Italian Navy is a credible fighting force). This could impact their effectiveness on other fronts. I would guess that if the Italians entered in 1914 when the war began, it could be just enough to give the Germans enough of an edge that France might get knocked out early (and I wonder if in WW1 the Brits would just not sign an armistice at that point). If the war dragged on, I agree with you that Italian participation might soon come to be a disadvantage to the Germans (as it was in WW2).

Grey Wolf said:

Where overseas ?

And what Prince of Peace ?

Also, if Italy in the war ends it v soon then whatever negatives may never happen anyway

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

The Americas, and the prince of peace is a timeline you'll see if you scroll down.

whatever negatives may never happen? What's that mean?

Grey Wolf,

"1. Sweden could declare for Germany. The add-on effect of this could bring Italy onside for the lands which Germany bullied Austria into offering to Italy"


Was ever a possibility, or did you offer this just because it sounds interesting? It was my understanding that the tradition of Swedish aloof "we're better than you" neutrality had already developed by WW1.

Faeelin said:

The Americas, and the prince of peace is a timeline you'll see if you scroll down.

whatever negatives may never happen? What's that mean?

Click to expand...

Not real sure anything different would happen to it than in OTL unless the British and French are about to try to interdict all US trade which in itself would seriously piss off the Americans even more than OTL

As for the navies, there had been tripartite exercises between Italy, Austria-Hungary and Germany and I tyhink the Italians would have committed their battleships more than in OTL if sailing with an allied heavy force of eg the four Viribus Unitis and the Goeben

Grey Wolf

zoomar said:

Grey Wolf,

"1. Sweden could declare for Germany. The add-on effect of this could bring Italy onside for the lands which Germany bullied Austria into offering to Italy"


Was ever a possibility, or did you offer this just because it sounds interesting? It was my understanding that the tradition of Swedish aloof "we're better than you" neutrality had already developed by WW1.

Click to expand...

There had been a kind of monarchical/aristocratic coup in Sweden and it was not beyond the realms of possibility that they would act in Sweden's ancient interest - i.e. to get Finland back from Russia

In August 1914 it was one of several imponderables alongside the position of Italy, Greece and Montenegro

And was certainly a realistic worry for the Entente

Grey Wolf