Italy, Caporetto, Peace?

[Kaiserboi]

Many have speculated that Italy could have made a separate peace after the defeat at Caporetto had things gone worse. This has been disputed by others who argue that the CPs were not capable of causing greater damage, or that even if they did Italy would not just quit. I have some specific circumstances in mind for my TL and I wonder if they might shed some light on the possibilities.

The circumstances: No USW, US stays neutral, Kerensky sues for peace in August (more or less) with the loss of Poland, Lithuania and Courland, and Romania probably quits soon afterwards. All of which would hurt allied morale, make the prospect of victory seem less likely, and would free up more CP troops from the eastern front to concentrate on Italy and the west. Austria-Hungary in particular might transfer its focus to the Veneto front.

Now, my first question would of course be, how would the battle be affected, and what might its results be? Is a peace in 1917 feasible, and how would the other Entente powers respond?

Second, if not how long would they stay in the war? What would it take to knock them out? Would the CPs devote their Spring Offensive to destroying Italy instead of France, since their eastern troops are now freed up and they don't have to worry about massive US troops coming soon?

Third, what sort of peace deal might Italy get? This may depend on the answers to the previous questions. I believe I read that after Caporetto they were offered a white peace by the Germans, but I'm not 100% sure, and I also am unsure how the Dodecanese would factor into this. Technically the Dodecanese were under "temporary" occupation for enforcing the 1912 Treaty of Ouchy, and I could picture even in a white peace scenario that they might be returned. At maximum I could picture Italy returning Libya and Venice and losing its colonies though that's a stretch for sure. Again, it all depends on the circumstances of the defeat.

As a bonus, speculation on post-war developments is welcome. Especially if they're directly related to the war (ie. a Soviet-style revolution that makes Italy collapse from within and make peace).

 

[lukedalton]

Peace after Caporetto (even a worse caporetto) mean revolution or Austrian vengence so no, nobody in Rome regardless of political credo, even the socialist, will sue for peace. Full stop.

Now in the specific, ironically more men mean much much more problem for the CP due to logistic problem and the terrain; destroy Italy in the Spring Offensive and what? France will not surrender and trying attacking her from Italy is a move so stupid that anybody even suggest it will be demoted to a role even lower of aspirant recruit and the only result will be wast resources for the CP

 

[Roland Traveler]

Peace after Caporetto (even a worse caporetto) mean revolution or Austrian vengence so no, nobody in Rome regardless of political credo, even the socialist, will sue for peace. Full stop.

Now in the specific, ironically more men mean much much more problem for the CP due to logistic problem and the terrain; destroy Italy in the Spring Offensive and what? France will not surrender and trying attacking her from Italy is a move so stupid that anybody even suggest it will be demoted to a role even lower of aspirant recruit and the only result will be wast resources for the CP

If Italy is reduced to such a position that an attack against France from it is possible, that means Lombardy is under CP occupation. So either Italy is out of the war, which means the KuK can partially demobilize and reduce strain on the Habsburg economy, and/or the local harvest and livestock can be confiscated for the CP. Now, I’m no expert on the agricultural output of Lombardy in the 1910s, let alone during fall/winter, but I imagine there’d be something capable of reducing logistical problems in the short term.

Personally, though, I think knocking out Italy and withdrawing, partially demobilizing the KuK in the process, would be much better for the CP than trying to push into France from the south. Such an action would require continued mobilization by the KuK, the occupation of northern Italy, and likely continued Italian resistance due to said occupation, and while it would draw off some French forces, I’m not convinced the continued damage the Habsburg Empire would be taking would make the entire thing worth it.

 

[lukedalton]

If Italy is reduced to such a position that an attack against France from it is possible, that means Lombardy is under CP occupation. So either Italy is out of the war, which means the KuK can partially demobilize and reduce strain on the Habsburg economy, and/or the local harvest and livestock can be confiscated for the CP. Now, I’m no expert on the agricultural output of Lombardy in the 1910s, let alone during fall/winter, but I imagine there’d be something capable of reducing logistical problems in the short term.

Personally, though, I think knocking out Italy and withdrawing, partially demobilizing the KuK in the process, would be much better for the CP than trying to push into France from the south. Such an action would require continued mobilization by the KuK, the occupation of northern Italy, and likely continued Italian resistance due to said occupation, and while it would draw off some French forces, I’m not convinced the continued damage the Habsburg Empire would be taking would make the entire thing worth it.

There is the alpine border, something that make attaking the maginot line naked and armed only with a toy gun something of a much more usefull effort and if the CP; and if the Hapsburg thing that by pillaging Lombardy expecially in winter they are up for a big surprise...we already were on a situation of near famine, there were very few to confiscate especially in winter and especially in the north, sure it will help as something is better than nothing but expect a lot of resistance as it seem strange people don't like be starved

 

[The Undead Martyr]

The Central Powers are running on fumes by 1917. Taking a new offensive such as this means taking away from forces elsewhere; and leaving France alone is not a good idea. The Western Entente were on the offensive in Flanders and would probably break the German lines more or less by when they collapsed historically.

More to the point Italy's defeat in Caporetto owed to factors that largely don't apply for a follow up offensive. Cadorna was replaced with Diaz, the army reformed and rallied its morale, and the terrain shifted so rather than being overextended they have strong lines with ample reserves. Critically also Caporetto was a German led offensive, AH by herself never inflicted a serious defeat on Italy and by the contrary was losing her war and ultimately lost it after Victorio Veneto.

 

[LordMartinax]

Frankly, Caporetto went perhaps as good as one might realistically hope. Any further advance was close to impossible, due to the utterly overstretched supply lines. While the Austro-German advance was stopped at 1. Monte Grappa, the supply lines were so overstretched by this point, that even a victory would, at best, mean a better possitions for the next offensive. More troops would not really help, those would be more usefull later on, here the are more likely to slow the advance due to even greater supply issues.. As for a peace, you are not likely to have the Italians at a point where they would be willing to surrender, considering the situation on the ground would not be that difficult, and any government that agrees to such a thing, is likely to be hanged in the streets, for failing to complete Risorgimento, and loosing so many men, for absolutely nothing.

Second, if not how long would they stay in the war? What would it take to knock them out? Would the CPs devote their Spring Offensive to destroying Italy instead of France, since their eastern troops are now freed up and they don't have to worry about massive US troops coming soon?

Now, with the circumstances you outlined, I would actually say you have a much better chance of a decisive Austrian victory at Piava, in coordination with the Spring offensive. There, the presence of more CP troops, not currently bussy in the East with occupation duties, plus the lack of US involvement, would be highly important.
Now, some of the Italian OTL advantages will still be present, such as the army reform by Diaz. However, with the lack of US involvement, I would say it is highly possible for the 5 Anglo-French divisions to not be present, having to cover the Western front. With KUK capable of gathering larger force then OTL, perhaps with few spare German divisions to augment the attack, thee advantage could swing in KUK army advantage. COULD. Frankly, actually deciding on one assault doctrine, and on supreme commander between Boreovic and Hotzendorf would be even better. There is still a good chance of the offensives failure, though with this situation, especially if you add better positions thanks to victory at 1. Monte Grappa, I would say it gives better chances to KUK.
As for attacking southern France.... no. Just no. If the KUK can achieve a decisive victory over the Italians, it can certainly advance, but trying to reach the French border would utterly ruin the supply lines. However, what is I think quite possible, is France having to send at least some of its forces to cover the border, as thhe mere threat of Austrian advance towards Marseilles, would be taken highly seriously. It depends wheter the French realize that the KUK has basically burned through all of its reserves, and it is close to impossible for the KUK to threaten the border for many months, if ever.
If this empty threat is taken seriously, perhaps combined with the absence of the US, the Spring offensive could be much more successfull, though the degree of sucess is... debatable. The chance of actually taking Paris is rather low, though perhaps the Germans might achieve good enough possitions, that they can then defend, to get the allies to the negotiating table.
I'd say this is the most optimistic scenario the CP can hope for at this point. A knockout blow to the Italians and favourable terms in the West.

 

[Julian]

No US entry into the war makes it less likely 12th Isonzo even happens. A big motivation for the failed Kerensky Offensive was tying US loans to offensive action by Russia. No US loans for Russia, much less likely Kerensky gets his offensive. Which means Germany can’t transfer troops from the East to counterattack Italy in Fall 1917.

 

[Fernan3451]

No US entry into the war makes it less likely 12th Isonzo even happens. A big motivation for the failed Kerensky Offensive was tying US loans to offensive action by Russia. No US loans for Russia, much less likely Kerensky gets his offensive. Which means Germany can’t transfer troops from the East to counterattack Italy in Fall 1917.

My idea is that after Soviet Russia makes peace with the CP and defeats the rest of the Entente (without US supplies the Western Front is toast for them) the Germans would help Austria-Hungary in defeating the Italians (making them sue for peace).

Anyway, what do you think?

 

[marathag]

More important to AH isn't a platform to attack France, but to get foodstuffs

Also the main area for Rice.

Means a larger takeover of Northern Italy, they get the 1917 harvested crop, that would do much to to prevent the hunger problem, that was far worse in AH than in Germany

 

[lukedalton]

More important to AH isn't a platform to attack France, but to get foodstuffs
View attachment 654917
Also the main area for Rice.

Means a larger takeover of Northern Italy, they get the 1917 harvested crop, that would do much to to prevent the hunger problem, that was far worse in AH than in Germany

Nice, but it's not appliable to this case, because a lot of the camp were not in use and not seeded due to the lack of men...Italy at the time were on famine ration; in OTL they basically robbed blind Veneto of everything that was not attached to the wall and sometime they have took away even the wall and it was still hardly enough to make the situation much better

 

[kham_coc]

No US entry into the war makes it less likely 12th Isonzo even happens. A big motivation for the failed Kerensky Offensive was tying US loans to offensive action by Russia. No US loans for Russia, much less likely Kerensky gets his offensive. Which means Germany can’t transfer troops from the East to counterattack Italy in Fall 1917.

With no 🇺🇸 involvement and no loans, Kerensky makes peace.

 

[marathag]

Nice, but it's not appliable to this case, because a lot of the camp were not in use and not seeded due to the lack of men...Italy at the time were on famine ration; in OTL they basically robbed blind Veneto of everything that was not attached to the wall and sometime they have took away even the wall and it was still hardly enough to make the situation much better

With AH in control they will get more benefit of what was planted than Italy, who was starting to get anti-war protests at the start of 1917 over rationing at home,
as well as the reduction of Rations for the frontline Soldier to 3067 calories a day(British were at 4400), with most of the meat ration being 250grams of salted Cod or Sardines in Oil, 600 grams of black Bread and 200 grams of Pasta and then hard Cheese and dried figs

Part of the reasoning for the poor performance by Italian troops with Caporetto was in part blamed on that rationing at the Front, that was adjusted after that defeat

 

[lukedalton]

View attachment 654957
With AH in control they will get more benefit of what was planted than Italy, who was starting to get anti-war protests at the start of 1917 over rationing at home,
as well as the reduction of Rations for the frontline Soldier to 3067 calories a day(British were at 4400), with most of the meat ration being 250grams of salted Cod or Sardines in Oil, 600 grams of black Bread and 200 grams of Pasta and then hard Cheese and dried figs

Part of the reasoning for the poor performance by Italian troops with Caporetto was in part blamed on that rationing at the Front, that was adjusted after that defeat

There is antiwar protest and there is your biggest enemy occupy north Italy...hell after Caporetto even the socialist boarded the war cabinet and supported continuing the fight; the bulk of the food was bought aboard, the real constriction were money and logistic (it was very hard supply the troops especially in that terrain and with very few field kitchen. Plus it's almost assured that in case of A-H advance the army will go as OTL Caporetto making scorched earth everywhere they can

 

[Kaiserboi]

The Central Powers are running on fumes by 1917. Taking a new offensive such as this means taking away from forces elsewhere; and leaving France alone is not a good idea. The Western Entente were on the offensive in Flanders and would probably break the German lines more or less by when they collapsed historically.

More to the point Italy's defeat in Caporetto owed to factors that largely don't apply for a follow up offensive. Cadorna was replaced with Diaz, the army reformed and rallied its morale, and the terrain shifted so rather than being overextended they have strong lines with ample reserves. Critically also Caporetto was a German led offensive, AH by herself never inflicted a serious defeat on Italy and by the contrary was losing her war and ultimately lost it after Victorio Veneto.

So we'd probably see the Kaiserschlacht happen as in OTL. Would Germany be more likely to succeed with those extra troops, and how would this impact Italy?

 

[Kaiserboi]

Peace after Caporetto (even a worse caporetto) mean revolution or Austrian vengence so no, nobody in Rome regardless of political credo, even the socialist, will sue for peace. Full stop.

Now in the specific, ironically more men mean much much more problem for the CP due to logistic problem and the terrain; destroy Italy in the Spring Offensive and what? France will not surrender and trying attacking her from Italy is a move so stupid that anybody even suggest it will be demoted to a role even lower of aspirant recruit and the only result will be wast resources for the CP

So no peace in 1917. The knockout blow will have to be in France. Though, is it possible the Austrians could do better if they devote more resources to the Italian front? Not just troops, but supplies, infrastructure, etc. that would be freed up by an earlier Russian peace deal. They might also have more food if they're trading with Kerensky for grain (he needs cash badly).

 

[Kaiserboi]

Frankly, Caporetto went perhaps as good as one might realistically hope. Any further advance was close to impossible, due to the utterly overstretched supply lines. While the Austro-German advance was stopped at 1. Monte Grappa, the supply lines were so overstretched by this point, that even a victory would, at best, mean a better possitions for the next offensive. More troops would not really help, those would be more usefull later on, here the are more likely to slow the advance due to even greater supply issues.. As for a peace, you are not likely to have the Italians at a point where they would be willing to surrender, considering the situation on the ground would not be that difficult, and any government that agrees to such a thing, is likely to be hanged in the streets, for failing to complete Risorgimento, and loosing so many men, for absolutely nothing.

Now, with the circumstances you outlined, I would actually say you have a much better chance of a decisive Austrian victory at Piava, in coordination with the Spring offensive. There, the presence of more CP troops, not currently bussy in the East with occupation duties, plus the lack of US involvement, would be highly important.
Now, some of the Italian OTL advantages will still be present, such as the army reform by Diaz. However, with the lack of US involvement, I would say it is highly possible for the 5 Anglo-French divisions to not be present, having to cover the Western front. With KUK capable of gathering larger force then OTL, perhaps with few spare German divisions to augment the attack, thee advantage could swing in KUK army advantage. COULD. Frankly, actually deciding on one assault doctrine, and on supreme commander between Boreovic and Hotzendorf would be even better. There is still a good chance of the offensives failure, though with this situation, especially if you add better positions thanks to victory at 1. Monte Grappa, I would say it gives better chances to KUK.
As for attacking southern France.... no. Just no. If the KUK can achieve a decisive victory over the Italians, it can certainly advance, but trying to reach the French border would utterly ruin the supply lines. However, what is I think quite possible, is France having to send at least some of its forces to cover the border, as thhe mere threat of Austrian advance towards Marseilles, would be taken highly seriously. It depends wheter the French realize that the KUK has basically burned through all of its reserves, and it is close to impossible for the KUK to threaten the border for many months, if ever.
If this empty threat is taken seriously, perhaps combined with the absence of the US, the Spring offensive could be much more successfull, though the degree of sucess is... debatable. The chance of actually taking Paris is rather low, though perhaps the Germans might achieve good enough possitions, that they can then defend, to get the allies to the negotiating table.
I'd say this is the most optimistic scenario the CP can hope for at this point. A knockout blow to the Italians and favourable terms in the West.

I guess the only question I would have is whether the Austrians could strengthen their supply lines, since their focus would now be exclusively on the Italian front and on maintaining order at home (and in the occupied Balkan territories). Otherwise I think it's pretty clear now that Caporetto cannot be the knockout blow.

But you say we might see a Piave victory for Austria. How likely is this to succeed, and what will its results be? Would Italy sue for peace, or would they have to get the entire Entente to the negotiation table (possibly with a successful Kaiserschlacht)?

 

[Kaiserboi]

No US entry into the war makes it less likely 12th Isonzo even happens. A big motivation for the failed Kerensky Offensive was tying US loans to offensive action by Russia. No US loans for Russia, much less likely Kerensky gets his offensive. Which means Germany can’t transfer troops from the East to counterattack Italy in Fall 1917.

I've heard this before but I still haven't found sources on it. Russia had been swept by revolutionary fervor after the February Revolution and there was a sense that this might be enough to turn the tide decisively. I know the US told the Russians that they had to keep fighting in order to receive loans, but I haven't found any evidence that this affected the Kerensky Offensive.

I have, however, found that Kerensky told the US he needed another loan after the July Offensive to stay in the war; without this incentive I think he might have made peace, seeing how hopeless the situation had become and how much unrest there was at home.