1918: Germany attacks in Italy instead of France

I'm just reading Hemingway's book "A farewell to arms" and thought about this:

1917 Germany had knocked out Russia with the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk and tried to win with a last offensive in the West. Without success, as we know: they conquered a few square miles of land, but then lost against several million well-equipped and fresh American troops.

But WI they had chosen to attack the Italian front instead? In 1917 Austrian and German troops already managed to break the Italian lines and almost conquered Venice, before they were stopped with French and English help. They could have stood by the Siegfriedlinie (defense line during 1917) in France, transported their troops from the East to Northern Italy (that's a shorter way than to France anyway) and attack the weakest link (sorry, Italy).

How would that turn out? I doubt they could win WW1 either way, but if they managed not only to break the lines (they did so in France, so they certainly could do in Italy too), but to conquer Venice, Milan or even the old capital Turin, then they could do better than in OTL.

Only disadvantage: They can never conquer France before America has landed even more troops, but they couldn't in OTL either.

Advantage: They could attack earlier (shorter ways and better weather), and the Allies would need some time to send help to Italy.

So, what would happen next?
 
Bright day
Eh? There was no Siegfriedlinie in 1917 as there was no Maginot line, repair me if I am wrong. And as far as I know they did not break lines on western front only moved them, by a bit. And I do not really know about late Italian front, was it still in mountains? Would it not work to German disadvantage?
Only thing I see is no Axis in WWII from this.
 
Well IMHO the Germans and Austrians could well have capitalised more heavily after trouncing the Italians at Caporetto, esp if they committed in force by 1918 on the same scale as OTL Op MICHAEL on the WF. Could the Hapsburg position be possibly a bit stronger with a victory in Italy by 1918, so's that the Hapsburg throne survives to a better extent ?

Of course, you'd also have the impact of German and Austrian GEBIRGSJAGERS or mtn troopers + the elite stormtroopers equipped with LMG,s trench mortars, flamethrowers, etc which would've scared the hell outta the average Italian conscript despite their elite ARDITI and ALPINI formations.
 
Last edited:
Gladi said:
Bright day
Eh? There was no Siegfriedlinie in 1917 as there was no Maginot line, repair me if I am wrong. And as far as I know they did not break lines on western front only moved them, by a bit. And I do not really know about late Italian front, was it still in mountains? Would it not work to German disadvantage?
Only thing I see is no Axis in WWII from this.

There could be a Siegfried Line in 1917, but since the Maginot Line was built until the late 1920s and throughout much of the 1930s there can be no Maginot Line. The Germans would have held some fortified lines opposite Anglo-Franco forces while directing their attack against the Italian positions.

I would conceed that the Germans would still have to contend with the arrival of US troops into France and even knocking Italy out of the war wouldn't have helped them in the long run.
 
David S Poepoe said:
There could be a Siegfried Line in 1917, but since the Maginot Line was built until the late 1920s and throughout much of the 1930s there can be no Maginot Line. The Germans would have held some fortified lines opposite Anglo-Franco forces while directing their attack against the Italian positions.

I would conceed that the Germans would still have to contend with the arrival of US troops into France and even knocking Italy out of the war wouldn't have helped them in the long run.

Thanks, but what was i getting is, I read that both Siegfried and Maginot were part of the same build-up. :)
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Its an interesting question and raises two points

1. Would even knocking Italy out of the war achieve enough for the Central Powers ? I can't see Italy allowing occupation etc, it would simply have to fold. Therefore, they don't gain an additional frontier or ports or anything, they just lose a front and free up troops.

2. The Michael offensive broke established German defence lines which were never thereafter restored when the Germans were later forced back. Thus, without the attacks, the stronger more established defence lines would be able to stand up to any Allied counter-attack better.

Grey Wolf
 

Diamond

Banned
Gladi said:
Only thing I see is no Axis in WWII from this.

That could be interesting in and of itself. Assuming Mussolini still comes to power, he's obviously not going to be any kind of idealogical 'mentor' to Hitler, even briefly. How does this affect German National Socialism, inter-war politics, military buildups, etc etc?

(Or maybe Mussolini and Hitler would reach some kind of rapprochement between their two nations, giving the rest of the world some illusion that Hitler & Mussolini might be after peace after all?)
 
Gladi said:
Thanks, but what was i getting is, I read that both Siegfried and Maginot were part of the same build-up. :)

Max Sinister was undoubtedly referring to the Hindenburg Line, not the Siegfried line. Just a little confusion about names, that's all.
 
In German it's called the Siegfried line. Nothing comparable to the Maginot line, simply a better reinforced trench line. When Hindenburg + Ludendorff took over, they decided to retreat some kilometers in France to better defendable positions, i.e. Siegfriedlinie.

@Grey Wolf: Good point. However, if Hitler comes to power, he might manage to win Mussolini as an ally - he even wrote in Mein Kampf that he didn't wish to get back South Tyrol from Italy, and it's even less possible that he might consider someone else. Of course, Mussolini might also fall, which would solve a lot of problems...

So, what's the possible outcome?
1. The Axis, er, Central powers manage to push the Allies a bit, until they are stopped. They only conquer Venice, maybe Padua and Verona, but not much more. There's some unrest in Italy, but there's also enough time to stall them until the cavalry arrives. Then the Germans defend their lines until an Allied breakthrough in inevitable. They war is prolonged for a few weeks, nothing else. The absolute minimum the CPs could do.

2. Their attack is more successful, they can build up a new defense in the South along the Po river or even in the mountains. They are stopped somewhere around Milan. Italy has to go through a difficult time - people will be upset, maybe the head of government falls. The Allies might have to help a lot with diplomatic means, lots of money and troops to restore order and hold Italy by their side. If they succeed, there's no way to prevent them from winning, though the war might end not before 1919. Italy could demand a bigger share in the peace - maybe they'll get Fiume / Riyeka or German Togo.

3. The Germans manage to conquer all of the North Italian plains, including the former capital Turin. The Italian government falls, everywhere's chaos, and the other Allies can't help fast enough. Maybe a Socialist movement demands Peace Now, no matter what, and the Germans could try to pull another Lenin manoeuver to knock out Italy from the war. Even if the government doesn't fall or make peace, they'll have to deal with mass riots, tying troops they could use against Germany otherwise. (Of course I'm assuming all the time that the Central powers won't be so stupid to demand another Siegfrieden with Italy, because they'd never accept that.) I don't think that Italy would switch sides, whatever happens. But they could be forced to leave the war, so Germany could transport all of its troops to France. Not that this might help them win the war - even if the Allies are tired, they won't let Germany own half of Eastern Europe. But they could stall the Allies for some more weeks or months (anyone knows how many divisions were in Italy?) very well.
 
Of course there's another thing: If the war in the West is prolonged, because Germany doesn't waste men for a useless attack and A-H also can stay longer because there's no / less a threat from Italy (in OTL, Ludendorff lost his nerves when Bulgaria capitulated and Turkey and A-H were close to do so), this also means that the Allies can't interfere in the Russian Civil War. So Lenin has the opportunity to bring down the Whites without being disturbed. (However, the main phase of the RCW didn't start until May 1919, according to Wikipedia. But we have to consider that it'd take some time for the Allies to move troops after Germany's finally down.) And what might that mean for the development in Germany? Will the hungry people endure another winter of war, or is the revolution inevitable? Or might the OHL even be willing to work together honestly with the Social Democrats (instead of tricking them into government responsibility after everything is screwed up royally as in OTL)?
 
Hm. If the central powers break through the italian lines and into the north italian plains, they have the industrial heartland of Italy. This is a liability concerning food,
but if Italia sues for peace, could it be that the moral blow to the entente would be decisive and they are offering an armistice? think about it: russia out- italia-out, and no entente soldier has his foot on the soil of the Reich which isn´t a POW.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Max Sinister said:
this also means that the Allies can't interfere in the Russian Civil War. So Lenin has the opportunity to bring down the Whites without being disturbed. (However, the main phase of the RCW didn't start until May 1919, according to Wikipedia. But we have to consider that it'd take some time for the Allies to move troops after Germany's finally down.)

This looks backwards to me. The Allies were only able to intervene after the Great War ended, but prior to that a large area of the post-war USSR was under Central Powers occupation, including the Ukraine and Georgia.

In addition, by the Autumn of 1918 Ludendorff was supporting Yudenich's plans for a march on Petrograd, and Mannerheim from Finland was IIRC going to launch an attack too. It could be that by 1919, the Bolsheviks have lost Petrograd, a White government (Grand Duke Kyril as Regent ?) is installed there, and the Reds are based firmly on Moscow

Grey Wolf
 
Max Sinister said:
@Grey Wolf: Good point. However, if Hitler comes to power, he might manage to win Mussolini as an ally - he even wrote in Mein Kampf that he didn't wish to get back South Tyrol from Italy, and it's even less possible that he might consider someone else. Of course, Mussolini might also fall, which would solve a lot of problems...

Why didn't Hitler want South Tyrol?
 

Susano

Banned
According to Hitler, the "old germanic drive southwards" has to end, as it never was has doen any good fo rthe germanic people. Instead they should focus eastwards now. So fighting over a southern annex of German ethnical space would have been contradary to this part of Hitlers ideology.
 
Germany did not have alpine troops in WW1: the Kaiser Jaegers were Austrian and already on the front.
The Piave river is quite fast flowing, and wide. The idea of crossing it in spring is not a good one.
Finally, the available front for the attack was a limited one: you cannot just pile division over division, otherwise you defeat your own purpose.
The Central powers made the attempt to kick Italy out of the war (Caporetto), which actually gave much better results than it was expected.
If no further push was attempted in the spring of 1918, I believe there was a reason.
Additionally, a break-through in France would have meant a real chance to win the war before the American intervention has any effect. A break through in Italy does not have the same strategical benefits
 
LordKalvan said:
Germany did not have alpine troops in WW1: the Kaiser Jaegers were Austrian and already on the front.

Actually i read Rommel´s "Infantry attacks" book a few years back and he was transfered to an alpine unit that saw action in the eastern and italian fronts
 
LordKalvan said:
Germany did not have alpine troops in WW1: the Kaiser Jaegers were Austrian and already on the front.

Of course they did. The Bavarian Gebirgsjaeger were quite famous.

Could Germany have pushed through northern Italy into southern France, opening a second front that couldn't be defended by the allies?
 
Top