John Fredrick Parker
Donor
With no PoDs prior to January 1915, how can Italian entry into the war be prevented? What are the effects of this, and the PoDs used to achieve it, on the course of the war?
AHC and WI: Italy Neutral in WWI
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
- Status
Hmm. It's hard to see how it could have been stopped that late, to be honest. If you were to go with a POD later than 1910, however, it's doable. On March 3rd, 1912, around 1,500 Turkish irregulars assaulted Italian lines at Dernah; the Italians, outnumbered, managed to hold the line. Despite extensive reinforcement of the Turkish force, the Italians were able to seize victory. Let's say it goes the other way. The Turks narrowly win, and the Italians are forced back. Not-yet-Ataturk is able to follow up in the west with another victory at Tripoli, managing to reconquer the city and annihilate Italian troops within. The Italians are forced, unlike OTL, to flood more troops into the other enclaves of control and bloodily conquer Libya inch by inch. Although Italy is ultimately victorious, the substantial number of casualties and the painfully incompetent conduct of the war by Italian commanders creates a large dove party in the Italian legislature. By 1915, Italy is by no means willing to either betray the Triple Alliance nor enter into a war with the Entente. Italy lasts out the war without intervention on either side. After the war, however, with the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the Italian army, somewhat better-trained, -equipped, and -led than IOTL, is able to snatch significant portions of Dalmatian territory from the successor states, as well as South Tyrol.
Sounds good?
Sounds good?
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I did a search, as it happens; figured since the last time this was discussed was \, there'd be no issue just asking straight.
Well, it's not like we're trying to get Italy to join the CP here; considering a majority of the Italian cabinet was in favor of neutrality, and that the London Pact was made without the approval of Italy's parliament, I would think internal politics would give us plenty of potential to work with.
Well at this stage, the only PoD that come in my mind is Giolitti taking the job of prime minister when the King offered him.
This will probably cause a little constitutional crisis due to the mentioned Pact and this was one of the top reason Giolitti deciding to not taking the role in this manner Salandra (the previous prime minister) get back the job and shepered Italy into the war.
In any case, a neutral Italy usually mean a CP victory due to the sheer cascade effect and barring immense stupidity from any part
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Got me reading the (translated) Italian Wikipedia page on this period; according to this page, at least, the issue was that Austro-Hungary resisted German pressure to make concessions to Italy in February and March, which hurt the credibility of the neutralists (led by Giolitti). So maybe Austro-Hungary picks someone less resistant to Germany than Stephan Burián von Rajecz to replace Berchtold? Or maybe something less extreme is needed to get AH to just buy Italy off?
I tend to agree, though I'm always curious to discuss details.
The problem with A-H is that giving up anything risk to upset the equilibrium of the empire as the Magyar fear that selling Trent to Italy will give the same idea to Romania; the secondary problem is that everyone in Italy know that any promise to give to Italy the land after the end...is false.
Giolitti just want to 'buy it' as he thing that at least can bargain that 'promise' for something else at the peace table and also cynically hope that the war last enough that by the end of it A-H will not in the state to renege that treaty.
Well except for the obvious lack of an Italian front, there are other butterfly, the second invasion of Serbia will go more smoothly as there will be more troops and any attempt to save the Serbian army will be more difficult as no italian ships or port will be available and i doubt that the italian army (that control South Albania ) will help.
Italy itself can be the conduit for some merchandise for the CP, not too much as Rome need to find a balance between commerce with Germany and A-h and not make the Entente though at an embargo towards Italy or some military action...the good news is that threatening a Great Powers is different than deal with some minor power like Norway or Netherlands, so even GB and France need to be cautious.
France will need to kept troops on the italian border...unless some agreement is found between Paris and Rome, it's not much but anything help...or hinder.
Good news for Switzerland, now had a fellow neutral nation to commerce
yourworstnightmare
Banned
I think Austria- Hungary need to agree to cede some minor consessions to Italy for them to be neutral.
This is the conundrum, Austria-Hungary was not really in the 'mood' to give any territorial concession to Italy...expecially before the end of the war and Italy was not really trusted his suppposed ally to fullfill his promise once the conflict was over; and is better understand that what we call minor concession...and frankly from a pure objective pow they were, expecially in consideration of the supposed gain, for Vienna they were almost overwelming due to internal situation among other things.
As a note, with Italy neutral, there will be a continued afflux of seasonal workers in France and this mean less use of the colonial in that role.
LordKalvert
Banned
The Austro-Germans are going to have to have some major battlefield victories so that the Italians actually think the Entente might lose. Hard to see how they can accomplish much that late
If they could launch Gorlice Tarnow a month earlier it would do far more to achieve Italian neutrality than any offer of territory
If they could launch Gorlice Tarnow a month earlier it would do far more to achieve Italian neutrality than any offer of territory
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Would it make sense for A-H to decide that neutralizing the threat of an Italian Front was the best way to get a secure negotiating/military position against Romania? After all, it was Romania's coveting of Hungarian lands that really concerned the new Joint Foreign Minister, and it was his fears that concessions to Italy would embolden Romania that got him to stall on concessions; would it be plausible for him to view the strategic situation differently?
LordKalvert
Banned
Before the war, it would have done Austria a lot of good to secure Italian neutrality but by 1915 its pretty late in the game. At that point, the Italians are looking for maximal gains and the first question they are asking themselves is "Who will win?" because any offer from the losers is not going to be worth anything.
A strong German showing on the battlefield is what would make Italy receptive to offers. Such offers don't have to be at the expense of Austria- Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco could also be put in play. It would be a very tempting offer
The problem is trust, always been trust, basically at this stage for any offer to be believeble it need to be paid up front, the time of credit is over...otherwise is just the italian goverment that pretend to believe his patner knowing perfectely that the treaty is not worth the ink used to wrote it and hope for the best.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
LK mentioned the Gorlice Tarnow Offensive, and that got me thinking -- the London Pact was signed less than a week before said offensive began. That's to say nothing of Italy officially entering the war in the middle of said offensive (for example, Przemysl was retaken about a week after Italy made the declaration). What I'm getting at here is, if events in Italy's entry into the war were delayed by a matter of a week or two, would that be enough for Austro-Hungary's OTL military achievements at the time to dissuade Italy from entering the war even longer, or even convince them the the Central Powers are winning the war?
Pretty much describes the London Pact, doesn't it?
Pretty much describes the London Pact, doesn't it?
LordKalvert
Banned
I think that a very decisive showing such as Gorlice Tarnow would get the Italians thinking "Maybe the Germans will win" and delay their entry. One would expect caution before joining an alliance that is doing so poorly on the battlefield.
So yes, if Italian entry can be delayed a month or so or the Gorlice Tarnow offensive launched a month earlier or a combination of those, the Italians may have stayed neutral
A solid offer from the Germans of compensation at the expense of France and Britain coupled with defeats on the battlefields for the Entente might have even got them thinking they should join the Germans
Italy despised both Austria and France and is likely to go after whoever is going to lose. From an Italian perspective, a victorious Austria might have been the easier power to deal with- Germany would no longer need them and would have no interest in seeing Austria expand at Italy's expense. So a German, Romanian Italian alliance against Austria would be a plausible post war world.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
TBC, we're still talking about an Italy that remains neutral during the Great War itself?
LordKalvert
Banned
Sticking to Italian neutrality rather than joining the CPs (which would delight the Germans as a means of evading the blockade)-
The Russians are going down even sooner than 1917. Italy diverted about 1/6 of the Austrian army so freeing that up would boost their war effort tremendously
The blockade would have been much less effective- its one thing to bully the Netherlands but Italy is a different animal. The British couldn't have been so high handed that they drove the Italians into the war- another big boost for the Germans
Finally, the Romanians are very unlikely to join the war. They delay too long and their entrance is of little consequence by the time they do enter but everything helps in a close war.
The big question is: would Italian entry into the war lead the Germans to abandon their mad gamble on unrestricted submarine warfare. I think the answer is "yes". With the Austrians freed of the Italian front, the Russians are likely to be defeated before 1917. Can't be sure but the Germans go to USW about the time of the Russian Revolution. If the Russians collapse a few months earlier, the Germans may not have felt they were in such desperate straits and delayed or avoided the conflict with America
A German victory is very likely with Italian neutrality
Neutral Italy is best for the CP Imo. It grants them the freedom of an somewhat allied neutral that the Entente would be hard pressed to totaly shut of.
Together with that it would allow the Austrian Navy to do something. Even if only using up French and British warships in another costly blockade.
But the main point I see is that the Russians are the main focus of Austria-Hungary. So no massive offensives in Italy and the Brussilow-Offensive may die an inglorious death. That would Imo play marry hell in the already volcanic Russian situation and could indirectly strenghten the K.u.K. Monarchie to the point it will survive at least the war.
So if Brussilow in 1916 (was a mayor point against Somme and Verdun) tanks the Western Effecvts may see better German results. If the French then decide that enough is enough (Verdun was a moral boost OTL IMO) then I could see them collapsing after Russia opts out.
If that is combined with a better German supply situation (via Italy) and a more inteligent naval strategy then the big USA entry may also not occure.
In all the Italiens would be the "grain of sand" that tipped the scales into the Entente camp OTL. Here it would be that the scales slowly tilled to the CP side.
Together with that it would allow the Austrian Navy to do something. Even if only using up French and British warships in another costly blockade.
But the main point I see is that the Russians are the main focus of Austria-Hungary. So no massive offensives in Italy and the Brussilow-Offensive may die an inglorious death. That would Imo play marry hell in the already volcanic Russian situation and could indirectly strenghten the K.u.K. Monarchie to the point it will survive at least the war.
So if Brussilow in 1916 (was a mayor point against Somme and Verdun) tanks the Western Effecvts may see better German results. If the French then decide that enough is enough (Verdun was a moral boost OTL IMO) then I could see them collapsing after Russia opts out.
If that is combined with a better German supply situation (via Italy) and a more inteligent naval strategy then the big USA entry may also not occure.
In all the Italiens would be the "grain of sand" that tipped the scales into the Entente camp OTL. Here it would be that the scales slowly tilled to the CP side.
BlondieBC
Banned
I think you need months of delay to keep Italy out of the war. Probably it is more like July or August before their is enough clear information to show the CP is not falling to outside observers. Go read the papers of the time, it was very hard to tell who was winning at the time in the east due to UK cutting the cables.
IMO, the last chance for a military win by CP to keep Italy out of war is to save Pemberg. It seemed to be the part that persuaded the Italians that A-H was about to collapse. Now maybe if you could just retreat the forces from Pemberg to avoid surrender,that might be enough.
BlondieBC
Banned
It is clearly yes.
1915 can be written several ways. Probably the troops or at least the supplies used fighting Italy go towards fighting the Russians. The Russians lose more land and the line of stalemate is farther east than OTL. Or maybe Serbia falls early.
By 1916, it becomes a lot clearer. The Russians will launch another attack in the east. Serbia will have fallen. Austria can't attack Italy, so they can't pull out the best forces out of the east. They also have more units (men) than OTL. So at best, Brusilov achieves minor gains. Romania will not be tempted to enter the war. Italy will leak imports to the CP. France goes better for Germany in 1916. So we get to the winter of 1916/17. The food situation is a lot better. The east was a draw or a win for CP. Germany is ok with this because Germany has been focusing west. Falkenhayn stays in power, and he was not a supporter of resume USW.
IMO, the mindset in German GHQ will be that they are winning. Russia is neutralized, or put another way, they can easily be stalemated on battlefield and Germany plans another grand offensive in west in 1917. Also compared to OTL, the Germans will be pulling units out of east. The chain is a high % of losses against Italy by A-H will be found in units ITTL in the east. We are talking about several corp (at least an army). This means that we see from several corp to maybe army and a half more of German troops in France. So we see a totally different mindset.
- Status