So, if the Austrians managed to get, say, Verona after the Battle of Caparetto, Italy would exit the war?
If Italy leaves the War in 1917, then AH has only the Balkan Front. and a tremendous moral boost.Likely. However you wouldn't see some massive territorial shift in favor of Austria Hungary , in 1917 it was on the brink of collapse , for many reasons that I don't have to name , and would likely settle with war debts , some reparations, and possibly some naval rights for Germany in Italian East African Colonies.
Only taking Verona would not be enough. Holding onto it, however, might do the trick. Verona is an extremely important spot, since it lies in the junction of the two natural ways that join Milan and Venice, and Italy and the Brenner Pass. Controlling Verona, the CP essentially control the gate of all the communication ways in northern Italy, and even if it is not enough to force the Italians to the peace table, sweeping Lombardy and the Po Valley is now much easier, together with giving the CP the initiative: they can attack anywhere in northern Italy, while, if the Italians want to take back the lost terrain, their only option would be to retake Verona. This puts Italy in a very difficult strategic position. And I am not even entering into the morale blow that losing two historic cities such as Verona and Venice would be for the Italians.
Worse, Verona is at the heart of the italian industrial area. I don't know about 1917, but today the plain between Milan and Venice is the most densely industrialized region in all of Europe.![]()
Just a thought, but Italy kind of did collapse in WWI. Caporetto was an unmitigated disaster for the time period. There really weren't too many offensives in WWI which were as successful, and I can't think of many examples of a nation hanging in the war after such a sudden, devastating blow.
Capretto limits of advance were all that the Austrians were logisitically capable of at the time. They just could not go further without a pause. Now if the Italians were to continue to flee and were not stiffened at the Piave, then I could see something happen, but as it was, once they regrouped behind the river, they stayed solid for the rest of the war and got quite good by the time it ended.
Capretto limits of advance were all that the Austrians were logisitically capable of at the time. They just could not go further without a pause. Now if the Italians were to continue to flee and were not stiffened at the Piave, then I could see something happen, but as it was, once they regrouped behind the river, they stayed solid for the rest of the war and got quite good by the time it ended.
Just a thought, but Italy kind of did collapse in WWI. Caporetto was an unmitigated disaster for the time period. There really weren't too many offensives in WWI which were as successful, and I can't think of many examples of a nation hanging in the war after such a sudden, devastating blow. Italy collapsing after Caporetto is possible, perhaps eve likely (especially if verona falls). But it is noteworthy to remember that, somehow, they did manage to hang on , enough to win (with substantial help) at Vittorio veneto.
But as the German army collapsed in November 1918, the Italian was very close in late October 1917, and only a combination of luck, foreign intervention and very brutal effort to resurrect order by the Italian commander Cadorno (described in Hemmingway's "Farewell to Arms")
The British could pump in more troops from say the Middle East; they already had some troops there. My grandfather fought on the Italian Front.If Italy had collapsed in 1917 as well as Russia then I think that morale in Britain and france would have sunk leading to a willingness to reach a peace settlement. At the sametime the US might have deceided not to enter the war but to encourage a peace settlement.