Sweden and Italy on CPs side

[Grey Wolf]

Some points need to be made

-1- The Franco-Italian front, apart from the strip of coastline is a mountainous one and could be held by relatively smaller French forces than what the Italians would need to be using in attacking. There is also SOMETHING in the treaty ceding Haute Savoie that may end up triggering Swiss entry if anyone tries too much here (Again I forget the details)

-2- Why are people assuming that Italy will lose its colonies in the war ? The Senussi are unlikely to revolt against an ALLY of the Ottomans, whilst co-operation may even gain them some autonomy for Cyrenaica.

British-controlled Egypt is now sandwiched in between Italian Libya and Ottoman Palestine, and any major offensive in one direction is going to risk being attacked from the other, and if things start to go bad risk an Egyptian uprising

What forces does France have available to defend/attack from Tunis ? Arguably only those which were sent to Gallipoli/Salonika, but since some of these would be being used in the SE against Italy, its not as if there's a colonial steamroller about to descend on Tripoli.

Italy is basically strategically free to make its own choices here. Other than ensure that Savoy is defended (in case the French surge in), they can afford to take time and concentrate their forces to attack where and when they want - Egypt or Tunis would be logical

Italy also has a fleet. The RN will not be able to dominate the Med. In fact Italy's first strategic goal may very well be Malta

Far from being smashed, and losing Sardinia (who to ?) they are likely to go onto the offensive


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Lord Insane]

Some points need to be made

-1- The Franco-Italian front, apart from the strip of coastline is a mountainous one and could be held by relatively smaller French forces than what the Italians would need to be using in attacking. There is also SOMETHING in the treaty ceding Haute Savoie that may end up triggering Swiss entry if anyone tries too much here (Again I forget the details)

IIRC, it is demilitarized, with Switzerland being obliged to intervene against the one that broke it, but my memory is probably faulty.

 

[Oddball]

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?

Norway would never, ever seriously contemplate going up against Britain.

What LordInsane said. OTL Norway was only neutral during WW1 in theory. This was because of our merchant marine and a traditionaly close conection to GB. For all practical purposes we were a client of GB during all of the timeframe 1814-1945 .

The Norwegian fleet would anyway been of marginal benefit to Germany at Jutland. It was exclusivly costal.

A very interesting question tough would be the Norwegian reaction to a Swedish entrance as an Central Power!

 

[Cornelius]

-1- The Franco-Italian front, apart from the strip of coastline is a mountainous one and could be held by relatively smaller French forces than what the Italians would need to be using in attacking.

But the border runned along the watershed. This means that the french would have been in a less advantageouse position than austrian OTL, which held all the passes and the strategic positions. The italians would have had problems attacking, true, but the french would have had problems defending too. If Italy had joined the Central Powers, french would have matched the italian army at least on a 1:2 basis to keep them out of France. And IIRC Italy sent nearly 300000 men to the front in the first weeks of war OTL (memory rusty, I stand to be corrected, though).

Why are people assuming that Italy will lose its colonies in the war ? The Senussi are unlikely to revolt against an ALLY of the Ottomans, whilst co-operation may even gain them some autonomy for Cyrenaica.

I think that the problem would have been supplying those colonial troops. Mind you, losing colonies would have been hardly a problem for Italy and a boon for Central Powers. The more entente troops used to fight in Africa, the less to protect Paris.

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.

Yes and no. If war drags on, Italy is going to suffer a lot and probably her economy could crumble. On the other hand, the entente will lose a consistent part of her troops to the italian front, giving the opportunity to a german offensive to smash through the french lines and capture Paris. If the fall of Paris brings the french to the peace table (something I wouldn't be so sure, though), the central powers victory is quite probable.
So the whole crux of this scenario is deciding if italian and swedish help can lock enough entente troops to allow a german victory over France.

 

[bobbis14]

If Russia is getting this badly mauled won't the Japanese try and take advantage - by at least trying to gain a sphere of Influence in Manchuria

 

[Eurofed]

Some points about Italy:

1) While Italian economy may suffer some hardship from Entente blockade, it is unlikely that it would suffer crippling economic collapse in the time (1-1.5 years at most, likely) that it would take to bring Russia and France on their knees. Italy had much less of a food deficit than Germany or Austria, so blockade would harm it much less than other CP powers. You would see much more of Italian countryside turned to grain than export agrucultural products. Similarly, Italian industry would need coal first and foremost, and Germany may supply it, moreover Italian railway system was (and is) mostly concentrated in the northern-central half, where the industry was concentrated. So the difficulty in using railways to ship coal would be reduced, especially since (as it is most liekly in wartime) the government take control of the railway system (which was nationalized since 1905) to optimize the shipping of strategic commodities.

2) As other posters have commented, the Anglo-French would have to face the combined opposition of the Italian, Austrian, and Ottoman fleets in the Mediterranean. No doubt that the Entente would have a free hand in stopping Italian-bound merchant shipping in the Atlantic, but it is far more dubious they would have so much of a naval supremacy in the Mediterranean itself as to sink Italian coastal merchant shipping, esp. if Austrian and Ottoman fleets move to Italian ports.

3) Franco-Italian border was not so heavily fortified by the French nor so unfavourable (it was on the watershed) to an Italian offensive as the Austro-Italian one. So the Anglo-French shall need more men to hold it than the Austrians. At least 200,000 men is a reasonable assumption. While a Italian strategic breakthrough is unlikely unless the Germans are attacking on the other front and/or French manpower is depleted (something that is bound to happen with this lineup sooner than later), available Anglo-French strategic reserves to plug CP offensives shall be much lower. Germans and Italians are likely to start coordinating their offensives sooner or later, something that may cause very serious problems to the Entente.

4) Since the Franco-Italian border is rather shorter than the Austro-Italian one, even after sparing the troops to protect the coasts, Italy is likely to have a troop surplus. Their first employment shall likely be to backstab Serbia from Albania, but Serbia shall be overrun quickly, esp. if Bulgaria joins the war at the same time (total encirclement of Serbian army). After wards, they can be used to shore up the CP in Alsace-Lorraine or Russia. IIRC there were old Triple Alliance militayr protocols to send Italian troops in A-L.

 

[RGB]

2) As other posters have commented, the Anglo-French would have to face the combined opposition of the Italian, Austrian, and Ottoman fleets in the Mediterranean.... esp. if Austrian and Ottoman fleets move to Italian ports.

The Ottoman ships, I am quite sure, are not leaving anywhere. The Goeben did a fantastic job tying up Russia's PDNs, but became a non-factor as soon as Empress Maria sailed, and the Russians took up very solid defensive positions.

If the Goeben etc. are out and about in the Med, the Russians may very well go on the offensive themseves instead.

 

[Eurofed]

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

They accelerate Russian collapse. If it happens before 1917, Germany does not use unrestricted submarine warfare, combined Austro-German-Italian manpower smashes through undermanned French trenches without the Americans to butter up the Entente.

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 WWI Eastern Front was much less constrained by trench warfare, so more CP men means more Russian territory conquered and more Russian casualties, hence a quicker Russian collapse.

Its is true that if used on the Western Front before the fall of Russia, extra CP manpower would be used less efficiently, however in this lineup, France would have a serious manpower shoirtage in the long term, even with British help. It is more likely that German-Italian offensives eventually accomplish a strategic breakthrough (after the fall of Russia, it is sure).

Maybe Japan could be offered some more German Colonies in exchange for sending an Expeditionary Force?

Maybe, but the German colonial Empire in the Pacific was not that vast. What esle could the Entente offer which they had not yet offered when Japan joined their side ? Eastern New Guinea, IIRC.

Could the US intervention be butterflied away without the Germans being so desperate?

If Russia falls in 1915-16, surely. No two fronts warfare, vicotry in sight for the CPs, no unrestricted submarine warfare, no Zimmerman telegram, no reason for the US to join the fray.

 

[Eurofed]

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

And Italian-Americans & Swedish-Americans joining German-Americans in lobbying for the CPs.

 

[Eurofed]

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.

Your argument is a mostly valid resume of the situation, but in my estimation, a German government that moves earlier and more forcefully than OTL (as you say, IOTL it was too little, too late) to persuade Austria to cede some of the Italian irrednetist claims may be enough. Trieste itself may not be strictly necessary. If the offer to cede Trento comes somewhat earlier and is accompanied by Gorizia and Gradisca and the CPs are generous in promising Italy all its French claims, it may be usfficient. Moreover, even if Trieste too would be necessary to move Italy to CP side, it was not the only seaworthy Adriatic port that A-H may have. Fiume, too, can become a valid substitute of Trieste with a little logistic adjustment.

The majority in the Italian parliament was in favor of neutrality,

This was of little import. The pro-war coalition of the King, the army, the industrialists, and the nationalists was not specifically interested in making war to the CP or the Entente specifically. They wanted to join the war to reap imperialist booty for Italy and affirm the country as a great power. They were quite successful in overcoming neutralist opposition in the parliment and the country, they could do it against A-H as well as against France, Italy had irredentist claims and long-standing rivalry with both.

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.

Yes, this likely ought to be the main PoD for a CP Italy.

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.

This is a different PoD for CP Italy, an equally valid one, but it is fulfilled by Germany discarding the Schliffen Plan (possibly just beacuse they realize it shall bring UK in the war, and it may easily fail) and going for the Russia first option. Without a German invasion of Belgium timetable, Germany has not to rush mobilizing and declaring war before France and Russia, it may easily wait for Russia to declare war on A-H after they do it on Serbia, then declaring it it on Russia and letting France declaring it to them, and taking a defensive stance in the West. At this point, Britain shall lack any decent casus belli and staty neutral, in a few months Home Rule goes into effect and Ireland explodes, embroiling Britain in civil unrest. Two great powers have declared war on their allies, so Italy is bound to the terms of the Triple Alliance more forcefully AND without Britain it perceives the Entente as the weaker power, it may easily join the fray without any Austrian cessions, the perspective of ognring on French claims may suffice.

 

[Eurofed]

IIRC, it is demilitarized, with Switzerland being obliged to intervene against the one that broke it, but my memory is probably faulty.

I would make heavily bets that in this situation, with Switzerland sandwitched between Entente France and CP Germany, Italy, and Austria, the Swiss conveniently ignore that treaty. If they join the fray, their national territory is at high risk of invasion, in comparison to this the danger from the remilitarization of Savoy is neglegible.

 

[lothaw]

Italy's entry into the war would be a strategic nightmare for Britain and France. Not only does this free up all the Austrian troops they faught against OTL to be sent against Serbia and Russia, but France has to divert troops to defend the Franco-Italian border and Tunisia. So this means less French troops fighting on the German front.

Britain's also going to be in trouble. Not only are they going to have to actively defend Malta and Egypt from Italy's influence(regardless of if they chose to attack or not), but their naval superiority is going to be stretched thin. Not only will they be dealing with the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea, but the Regia Marina, while not being the force the Royal Navy is, is definitely capable of projecting power in the Mediterranian. Austria's fleet is nothing to sneer at, but now isn't hopelessly outgunned. Throw in whatever the Turks have, and suddenly you have the Royal Navy having to split it's efforts between the Mediterranian and North Seas. Meaning it's very possible the High Seas Fleet is able to break the blockade.

A sound strategy on Italy's part may be to man the French front, though not actively attacking and using the rest of it's military to attack Tunisia and Egypt, and possibly sieze the Suez canal and link up with the Ottomans. Instead of Italy having supply problems as earlier suggested, it's more likely the British would. Yes they have Gibraltar, Malta and the Suez, but to supply their men in Egypt and the Middle East, their supply ships would literally be running the gauntlet. Britain could well abandon all operations in the Mediterranian in favor of pursing other fronts entirely, which means Italy would then be knocking on France's back door with all their force.

Serbia certainly isn't going to last long, and as mentioned earlier Greece and Romania may very well jump on board. A rising tide lifts all boats after all. Coupled with Sweeden being against Russia, the Finnish uprising, Austria having more men on the Eastern Front, and an even tighter blockade in the Baltic, Russia's in a world of trouble.

Another possibility of this scenario is Japan, being ever oppurtunisitic as they are in this time period, could very well sign a treaty with Germany in exchange for their Pacific holdings(which they already took), they backstab the Allies. Specificlly Russia and Britain here. As the Royal Navy is already fighting a two front war, they wouldn't have much to resist the IJN in the Far East. Russia certainly isn't going to have a large, quality force to resist. I think this blow would be enough to bring them to the negotiating table.

Which then means Britain and France are going to be getting hit with everything the Central Powers have. Only wild card I could possibly see would be the USA. If Britain and France were in trouble, would that arouse public sympathy for their cause, enough to warrant a declaration of war? To be honest, I think the issue would be decided by the time the US got serious about thinking about it.

 

[Eurofed]

A very interesting question tough would be the Norwegian reaction to a Swedish entrance as an Central Power!

Yup, this is a most interesting question. Would they prfer to side with their British patron, and join the Entente, or at least alllow the Anglo-French to use their territory and strike to Sweden, or Scandinavian solidarity would prevail, and they would stay neutral, and deny passage to Entente troops ?

 

[lothaw]

Yup, this is a most interesting question. Would they prfer to side with their British patron, and join the Entente, or at least alllow the Anglo-French to use their territory and strike to Sweden, or Scandinavian solidarity would prevail, and they would stay neutral, and deny passage to Entente troops ?

I'd imagine they'd stay neutral. There's really nothing to gain by openly supporting either side. If they join the CPs, Britain may decide to open a Scandanavian front and where would the fighting suddenly be? The reverse is also true, though Germany and Sweeden probably would have a harder time than Britain getting men into Norway.

Also, what do they stand to gain in either scenario? I suppose Russia could start promising them control of Sweeden in the event of victory, but even that sounds like a hollow promise. Seems to me they stand to lose much more than they could gain by entering the war on either side.

If they just allow passage to Entente troops, Germany's just going to declare war anyways.

 

[Eurofed]

If Britain and France were in trouble, would that arouse public sympathy for their cause, enough to warrant a declaration of war?

If German subs are not sinking American ships, and if things are so good for the CPs as you put it, there is no reason they ought to, and with Russian aggression of Sweden balancing German aggression of Belgium as PR go, and with Italo-Americans joining German-Americans to lobby for the CPs, sincerely I see no reason whatsoever why the American public should feel any overriding sympathy for a losing Entente.

 

[Lord Insane]

Also, what do they stand to gain in either scenario? I suppose Russia could start promising them control of Sweeden in the event of victory, but even that sounds like a hollow promise. Seems to me they stand to lose much more than they could gain by entering the war on either side.

Norway wouldn't want control of Sweden, either- it's only nine+however long it takes for the war to end years since the Swedish-Norwegian Union was dissolved, after all, and if that isn't enough, a simple look at population numbers should be enough to convince the Norwegians that it's a stupid offer.

 

[Oddball]

Yup, this is a most interesting question. Would they prfer to side with their British patron, and join the Entente, or at least alllow the Anglo-French to use their territory and strike to Sweden, or Scandinavian solidarity would prevail, and they would stay neutral, and deny passage to Entente troops ?

I'd imagine they'd stay neutral. There's really nothing to gain by openly supporting either side. If they join the CPs, Britain may decide to open a Scandanavian front and where would the fighting suddenly be? The reverse is also true, though Germany and Sweeden probably would have a harder time than Britain getting men into Norway.

Also, what do they stand to gain in either scenario? I suppose Russia could start promising them control of Sweeden in the event of victory, but even that sounds like a hollow promise. Seems to me they stand to lose much more than they could gain by entering the war on either side.

If they just allow passage to Entente troops, Germany's just going to declare war anyways.

Norway wouldn't want control of Sweden, either- it's only nine+however long it takes for the war to end years since the Swedish-Norwegian Union was dissolved, after all, and if that isn't enough, a simple look at population numbers should be enough to convince the Norwegians that it's a stupid offer.

It is a difficult question.

Norway would desperatly try to remain neutral. And I would presume Sweden would want Norway to remain neutral also. Neither realy had territorial ambitions against eatchother anymore. I could see Sweden adopting some tough, if it came to blows...

OTOH both Sw and No are client states of Ge and GB, so it realy aint their choice anyhow. Im inclined to think Ge would prefere No remaining neutral in this case, but I defenetly see GB pressing even harder than OTL to have No joining.

 

[Grey Wolf]

If Russia is getting this badly mauled won't the Japanese try and take advantage - by at least trying to gain a sphere of Influence in Manchuria

Haven't they already got that ?

And OTL Japan did take advantage with the Lansing-Iishi agreement, and a list of points to China

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Kaiser is not going to agree to cede Tsingtao to Japan in return for a treaty with the Japanese. It might not seem realistic to us looking back now almost a century, but that would be his position. Besides, Germany in this scenario does not NEED Japan at all, so it has far more to gain in the East by retaining a state of war until Japan's allies crash, then demanding its territory back at the general peace conference

Romania was a vital economic asset to Germany, hence in OTL Mackensen ending up being based there to co-ordinate things despite his huge skills as a strategic commander in the field. If Romania throws in with the Central Powers (not certain, since there were very close Russian-Romanian ties at court level) then Germany gets a great boost from their economy fully joining the war effort

There's no reason for Norway not to remain neutral. If nobody is attacking them, and their merchant marine is free to trade, then they have everything to gain from neutrality

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

It is a difficult question.

Norway would desperatly try to remain neutral. And I would presume Sweden would want Norway to remain neutral also. Neither realy had territorial ambitions against eatchother anymore. I could see Sweden adopting some tough, if it came to blows...

OTOH both Sw and No are client states of Ge and GB, so it realy aint their choice anyhow. Im inclined to think Ge would prefere No remaining neutral in this case, but I defenetly see GB pressing even harder than OTL to have No joining.

Unless Britain has plans to attack Sweden through Norway, then a neutral Norway is probably of more use to Britain than an Allied Norway that would need defending and would be likely to end up conquered by the Central Powers

OTL Britain sought long to keep Portugal neutral, even though she was in no direct danger, simply because Britain knew that a Portuguese entry into the war would mean that Britain would end up paying for her.

It strikes me that there are no troops to spare (certainly not if the BEF is taking over an additional sector in the W Front, and Egypt is now an active front) so its much more in Britain's interests to have Norway as a buffer. If it fell to the Germans, can you imagine the strategic nightmare that would make for the Royal Navy, with the High Seas Fleet in its entirety able to operate out of Norwegian bases ?

Of course, THAT could be the deciding factor - whether Germany decides to embark on a "preventive" Norwegian expedition of its own, for these very reasons. Without developed air power as per WW2 it is certainly going to be tougher than in 1940, but with Sweden just across the border, Norway would collapse for certain. If Britain tried to intervene there would be the same disastrous overstretch as in 1940 - maybe they could in theory hold their positions, but at what cost, and what cost to other fronts ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf