AHC: A Competent WWI Italy

Italys reputation in WWi tends, IMHO, to suffer from back projecting WWII in to the prequel (something not unique to Italy). With better preparation and critically better leadership I think that Italian performance in the Izonzo (or wherever elee) could have been more obviously decisive.

As a possible divergence let's take a personal favorite and say that Alberto Pollio survives into the war itself. Italy still enters the war on the Entente side, but does so after a year of studying the western front and amassing material, and better command. One of the key shortcomings was Cadornas tendency towards massed frontal assaults, combined with a complete lack of adequate equipment. TTL they have better leadership and presumably better tactics as well as better gear, and as a consequence Austria collapses completely under the Brusilov offensive in 1916.

The bigger issue is that a negotiated peace in 1916 (if at all possible) is going to be very different- the Arab Revolt is basically a non starter, and Germany is still sitting on a lot of key french territory. TBH I feel that Italy staying out in 1915 probably has her not joining the Entente at all; I can believe that a relatively austrophile Chief of Staff does not meaningfully delay her entry in 1915, even if it results in a limited breakthrough at the Izonzo- up to Ljubjana seems at the limit and that's pushing it. Still with Trieste in Italian hands and part of the Carnian ridge I suspect Italy could withstand a german counteroffensive a la the Piave, even if forced back to the Izonso itself.

At this point of course the Western front starts coming into play, And the question of whether Germany could force a status quo any in Europe. Woild Britain stick it out for Alsace and a Tsarist claim to Prussia and the Straits? Alternately I suppose Germany could be allowed Austria (sans south tirol) in return for the corridor and Alsace. This would probably require a republic.
 

Deleted member 94680

I don’t see the PoD as producing the benefits you require.

Italys reputation in WWi tends, IMHO, to suffer from back projecting WWII in to the prequel (something not unique to Italy). With better preparation and critically better leadership I think that Italian performance in the Izonzo (or wherever elee) could have been more obviously decisive.

As a possible divergence let's take a personal favorite and say that Alberto Pollio survives into the war itself. ... One of the key shortcomings was Cadornas tendency towards massed frontal assaults, combined with a complete lack of adequate equipment. TTL they have better leadership and presumably better tactics as well as better gear, and as a consequence Austria collapses completely under the Brusilov offensive in 1916.

So you’re contending in 320-odd days the Italian Army retrograded in equipment tactics and leadership (at all levels)? If Cardona was so bad (and he was pretty terrible) where and who by did the Italian Army develop its skill set that Cardona inherited? Merely studying the Western Front won’t make the Italian Army a peer of the British, French or German. The poor equipment you mention can fairly well be blamed on Pollio as well

At this point of course the Western front starts coming into play, And the question of whether Germany could force a status quo any in Europe. Woild Britain stick it out for Alsace and a Tsarist claim to Prussia and the Straits? Alternately I suppose Germany could be allowed Austria (sans south tirol) in return for the corridor and Alsace. This would probably require a republic.

Nobody felt to be winning or holding Germany to a draw would countenance Germany gaining Austria.
 
Well someone different from Cadorna can make the italian situation better, not in the immediate but in the long run; the man for all his fault (and were too many) was succesfull in a crash program to re-equip the italian army from the start of the war to Italy enter in the conflict (the italian army due to the economic situation and the greater expense for the war in Lybia had been negletted for the last years and not refill the material lost) and in a quick and massive logistical U turn from the French border to the A-H one.
Say that, someone that will not dismiss anyone that disagree with him or fail (or simply to cover his ass), that had a much better relationships with the political body (a lot of problems were due to the fact that Cadorna was informed at the last minute of the imminent war with A-H because relations with the goverment,were extremely frosty) and/or someone that like Diaz try to take in consideration the living condition of the soldiers and is not a rigid supporter of the so-called 'Mystical sadism' in term of discipline.
 
In terms of what happens the issue is mainly that, aside from technilogy and yerrain, the Italian generals followed the general Entente pattern (ie Haig, Nivelle) of just bashing their heads against the wall. But- this is critical- like the Entente they eventually got their act together- the tenth and 11th battles show examples of how to work around Tednch warfare- continuous offensives across the entire line, concentrated artillery barrages, attacking at weak points etc. The issue as by that time Iraly had largely run low kn manpower (but so had Austria- it was German reinforcements which tipped the balance, and neither the Fench nor the British offered substantial direct aid to Italy) and critically failed to capitalize on their local breakthroughs.

I can think of two main possible divergences. Cadorna being gone, and/or Italy delaying her entry for a year, allowing her to be better prepared. Or alternately a more limited divergence could be at the eleventh Izonzo, with the Italian army pressing the attack and achieving a general breakthrough, forcing the Austrians back to Ljubjana.


This has knock on effects for Caporetto, as a major part of that disaster was that the Italian positions were too front loaded and so were fragile- once the Germans achieve a breakthrough and critically followed up they were able to isolate and destroy many sections of the Italian line. With a more successful 11th offensive the Italian positions would have much more depth, possibly even taking Trieste and allowing resupply by sea- hence my suggestion that Alt!Caporetto could fallback on the Izonzo itself rather than the Piave.

I have just ordered a book on the front (something I should have done a while ago) and though I have strong idea for the latter I am intrigued by the former. The issue of course being that it is much more involved, with the war altered rapidly and thus requiring significantly more work upfront on my end- an Austrian collapse in 1916 has major ramifications; not only is the US still neutral and Russia still in the war, but Gemrany is still relatively strong and the allies relatively weak, and critically the Ottomans are still holding steady, with the Arab revolt being largely dead in the water. In that regard part of the opportunity (and difficulty) is trying to foresee how the alliances would react- Italy and Russia have effectively broken Austria with a joint Brusilov+Izonzo breakthrough into the Danube and Adriatic littoral, but the rest of the fronts are still locked in a bitter stalemate moderately tilted towards the central powers- Germany has leverage to force a compromise peace in the west or maybe even the Levant even if she has to throw Austria to the wolves. Put another way if eg Hungary and Czechia revolt, offering crowns to Savoy and Romanovs respectively, then Romania joins in- well, will Russia fight on for Alsace or Posen, or even the straits? What about Britain?

The other issue being that Italian neutrality in 1915 has dire ramifications for Russia. It's not impossible that Italy staying out a year results in an earlier russian collapse. I am assuming that even if Russia gets a tougher time she can still hold on long enough- and potentially Italy can demand more, not only the treaty of London but Fiume, a savoyard Croatia and Hungary, maybe even a slice of the Middle East (Yemen? Syria to troll France? Maybe arabia?) If the Entente get desperate enough.

In the latter scenario, terms could be something like Romanov Poland+Posen and Galicia (Duchy of Warsaw+Galicia borders essentially), Alsace to France, South Tirol, Istria and Dalmatia to Italy, Transylvania to Romania as a Russian client, Hungary with a Savoy king, Montenegro abdicating to Serbia and becoming king of Illyria, and Bosnia getting split between Serbia and Croatia/Illyria, plus Albania partitioned a la Treaty of London. Greek neutrality complicates matters somewhat in the Balkans but is probably beneficial to Italy, since at worst she can trade eg smyrna for concessions elsewhere from Britain.

In the middle east the turks might try for status quo ante but I doubt they would get it- at minimum russia will want Armenia and access through the dardanelles and Italy, France and Britain will want their pound of flesh, and Italy at least should be able to demand far more than she got OTL for the price of staying in the war after all her objectives have been achieved in the Balkans- Yemen and part of Arabia or the gulf seem possible at the utmost though would the Italians ask? I could see Britain accepting Italian (Saudi?) Arabia, grudgingly, given they control the Suez and can strangle the Italian economy more or less at leisure. Perhaps TTL they back the Hashemites more fully to prop up a grand Syria as a buffer against Russian Great Armenia. France will be pissed but given the facts on the ground perhaps not able to complain overly much, or reduced just to Lebanon or Cilicia.

Then what happens to Gemrany? Is she dealt with more mildly out of necessity, or does the Entente press onward and go for a harsh peace no matter the cost in blood? Absent wilson and with Russia in the war weimar borders arent happening- the treaty was IMHO exceedingly fair to germany but with imperial Russia and revanchist France in the picture there's nothing but vestigial British concern for the balance of power (or I suppose familial concern for Wilhelm's throne) to stand up to harsher demands, particularly in the east. I'm imagining something like the Saarland annexed outright to france and the rhineland made a separate protectorate with eventual plebiscite for reunification a la the Saar republic, with borders in the east intermediate between the Oder and Weimar- say upper silesia and east prussia to Poland, possibly a few adjustments in Pomerania in polands favor.
 
Top