AHC: CP Italy and Sweden, Entente wins

Eurofed

Banned
Here is the strategic and diplomatic challenge: Sweden joins the CP in August 1914 thanks to the Admiral Essen PoD, Italy joins the CP in May 1915 because the first PoD makes the Entente look weak enough or Germany strongarms Austria to cede Trento and Gorizia and in any case they are promised Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia. Turkey and Bulgaria still join the CP as IOTL. The Entente still wins the war. Italy withstands the fight as well as and as long as IOTL or as Austria-Hungary, whatever you deem plausible, but please no Italy crapping in its pants and collapsing or throwing in the towel at the first significant military reversal or blockade-related economic hardship, the clichè is loathsome and wrong.

Please discuss how the Entente may net this seemingly wildly improbable victory, as well as the post-war world if you like.
 
Last edited:
Italy explodes :D

no but seriously, hmm I guess Italy losses something to the newly minted Yugoslavia and sweden gets some reparations to pay but thats all i got.

good to see you eurofed how you been
 
The maximum Italy would ever lose is the Aosta Valley, part of Friuli, the western point of Turin, Sardinia, and its colonies.
 

Eurofed

Banned
no but seriously, hmm I guess Italy losses something to the newly minted Yugoslavia and sweden gets some reparations to pay but thats all i got.

Oh, absolutely. As it concerns the peace deal, both Italy and Sweden would have to pay reparations and suffer military limitations. Italy would lose Briga and Tenda, Aosta would get the Saar deal, Austria would keep Bolzano (not Trento), Yugoslavia would gobble Gorizia, Trieste and Istria, and Italy would lose the colonies. I cannot think of any plausible territorial loss for Sweden, especially if Russia still collapses into revolution.

The interwar world would be quite interesting. Sweden would likely settle back into neutralism, but Italy would turn as fiercely revanchist as Germany, probably after a crushed Communist revolution. An Axis with a well-prepared Italy would certainly be an interesting scenario.

However, the main topic is how the Entente could win this uphill fight. Tentatively, I'd say that America joining the Entente in 1915 is an absolute prerequisite.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The maximum Italy would ever lose is the Aosta Valley, part of Friuli, the western point of Turin, Sardinia, and its colonies.

Agreed on Aosta in a worst case scenario (although if France is getting its way so much, it is also getting Saar). The colonies are a given. Slight border revisions to give France better control of the Alps watershed are quite likely, just as it was done in 1947 with Briga and Tenda (which may be easily done ITTL). But getting any substantial part of Piedmont is ASB.

Sardinia is theoretically possible but I'm not so sure that France would bother to own it, Corsica has proven troublesome enough, and differently from Corsica for Italy, Sardinia is not an idelaized irredentistic claim for France. It might happen.

I very much doubt that Yugoslavia would get anything better than the 1866 border at the best. Yugoslavia did not have that much clout with the Entente, compare the 1947 border when Italy was in the doghouse.

If France wants to get greedy and to enforce an harsh peace (and it likely does, ITTL the Entente victory is surely even more pyrrhic than OTL), that's another matter entirely (although Britain is going to step in and veto any outrageous demands, they didn't spill their blood to make France the overlord of Europe, so they would not want Germany or Italy too weakened). Of course, a pissed-off revanchist Italy is a bad long-term deal for the Entente.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Italians have a better reason to go revanchist?

No doubt, and in all likelihood they would prepare for the rematch as seriously as the Germans and Russians did, not to mention espousing this Axis idea from the start. This is surely going to make the interwar period and *WWII interesting. For once, an openly revanchist Italy from the beginning on top of Germany and Soviet Russia is going to send Britain and France into appeasement fatigue faster.

Any idea on how the Entente may win in the first place ?
 
U.S. involvement is probably necessary ASAP, possibly Norway? Maybe a better performing Russia?
 
Russians playing defense instead of launching risky offensives? Too late to avert Tannenberg, however, with the Essen POD.
 
For heaven's sake, no Gallipoli.

Definately. Perhaps have Lloyd-George convince Churchill to focus on the Arab revolt organised by Lawrence, perhaps with more funding it can expand to more of Syria and Mesopotamia by 1916/17. That at least always had the potential to cause enough internal difficulties to force an Ottomon withdrawal. I think that would cause Bulgaria to withdraw, which in turn probably prompts the Greeks and Romanians to join the Entente for last minute gains.

It would be difficult, but not impossible to get Norway in the Entente.
 
I also agree that an early entry by the US would be a necessity; otherwise the odds are too far stacked against the Entente without additional butterflies in their favor. Though an alternative would be a more defensive strategy by the Russians, which might turn the Eastern Front into a stalemate of trench warfare similar to the Western Front.

The post-war situation is going to be quite interesting, though.
- Italy might very well lose her colonies. If the Entente is already gobbling up Germany's, then they might think that they could just as well go all the way. This would have a large impact on the fighting in North Africa (if there is even any at all).
- The Anschluss might happen a lot earlier without Italy's opposition. Which, in turn, might motivate other German (or Italian, depending on the territory it loses) minorities to agitate for (re-)union with their respective father nations.
- Sweden... actually depends a lot on the course of the war, and the final peace treaty. It doesn't have any colonies the Entente can take, but perhaps they extract heavy reparations in raw materials as they did with the Saar region in Germany? Also a factor would be whether it was left to fend for itself, or whether Germany and/or any of the other CP members sent expeditionary forces to help the Swedes against the Russians. All in all, I think from a neutral Sweden, to an Axis-member Sweden, and everything in-between would be possible.
- Different leaders will probably come to power due to butterflies. The main question, of course, is "Who?"

- Kelenas
 
There are ways of punishing Sweden. Scania could be given to Denmark, Kiruna to Norway. There is precedent for ceding territory to neutral countries, as Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark after WWI. I don't know ow likely that would be, though, since unlike the other CPs Sweden had reasonably good relations with it's neighbors.
 

Eurofed

Banned
For heaven's sake, no Gallipoli.

Definitely, although if you leave Churchill in charge, he's very likely to press for another of his dumbass "big ideas" landings, that would fare no better than Gallipoli, such as Denmark-northern Germany or Sicily-mainland Italy. Perhaps it is better to throw Churchill under a bus.

As others have said, the Entente needs America to join in 1915 or so, the US needs about a year to send troops to Europe and if they come after Russia collapses it shall be too late with these odds. Have Wilson somehow get a declaration of war out of *Lusitania.

The CP need to get some of the stupid bug, and waste their own advantages. Keep the Falkenyan-Cadorna wooden heads duo dominant and dead-set on wasting troops in a seemingly endless row of futile bloody offensives on the Western Front that sap morale, while the Eastern Front is neglected and Sweden, Austria, and Turkey are largely left to their own devices. No coordinated CP effort to bleed Russia white, or to encircle and crush Serbia (its downfall is still inevitable, but if an Italian expeditionary corps does not show up in Albania fails to trap the retreating Serbian army, the OTL Balkans scenario shall repeat itself instead of the region becoming a CP playground).

On the opposite side, remove Churchill and his megalomanic landings, purge the Entente armies of butchers like Nivelle and Haig. Let the Entente assume a strict defensive posture in the West, Britain sparing its own manpower to support the overextended and bled-white French until the Americans can come into line. Some peripheral offensives in the Middle Eastern threater like Alex Richards said, but otherwise let the blockade and monting casualties sap CP morale.

Russia may benefit from a moderate defensive posture, but not too passive, and only if the CP stick to the faulty "France first" stategy. No matter how much defensive Russia goes, spaces in the Eastern Front were so vast that trench warfare was never going to be anywhere as effective as on the Western Front. Too passive a defense, and Russia risks to suffer substantial casualties and/or territorial losses anyway, which would cripple morale and accelerate the timetable of the revolution anyway.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
It would be difficult, but not impossible to get Norway in the Entente.

Norway would be well aware that betraying the 1905 settlement and attacking Sweden is tantamount to send it a standing "this independence stuff was a big mistake, please re-annex me, everything is forgiven" card. ITTL the Entente looks like the weaker party to neutrals. Even if the Entente wins this round, this would throw Sweden in Germany's arms for the ages. Can Norway trust that Britain and France shall always be able and willing to protect their independence against the big and mean German-Swedish axis ? Doubtful. True, Norway was a British client, and Britain can blackmail Norway by holding its merchant fleet hostage, but would they deem diplomatic patronage and economic comfort more important than gambling their own independence on the Entente's fortunes ?

Otherwise, if Norway says no, the Entente can try bluffing and threaten it with invasion, but this might explode in their faces.

To sum it up, it is theoretically possible, but less easy than you can think.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The post-war situation is going to be quite interesting, though.
- Italy might very well lose her colonies. If the Entente is already gobbling up Germany's, then they might think that they could just as well go all the way. This would have a large impact on the fighting in North Africa (if there is even any at all).

Italy losing its colonies is pretty much a given. They are too strategically valuable and too close to Anglo-French possessions. Their lack, and Italy's need to overcome the Entente naval advantage in the Mediterranean, would indeed turn this *WWII theater interesting. Hmm, with the defeat-driven push to innovate, they might easily adopt some lessons from the Japanese. Build an AC-centered Regia Marina, use them to sink the Entente fleets, make strategic landings to seize bases. A PH-like attack on Touloun and Alexandria, quick seizure of Malta, a large-scale landing in North Africa ? Would the Germans try to adopt the example of their long-standing allies ? An AC-centered Kriegsmarine, and a surprise attack on Scapa Flow ? If both Germany and Italy adopt innovative naval strategies, the RN would be in for a world of hurt.

The Axis would also likely pull all stops to make Turkey join them for the rematch, but I dunno how successful they might be.

- The Anschluss might happen a lot earlier without Italy's opposition. Which, in turn, might motivate other German (or Italian, depending on the territory it loses) minorities to agitate for (re-)union with their respective father nations.

Very true. I would also add that with both Germany and Italy actively revanchist and closing ranks very soon, and unless the October Revolution is butterflied away (possible but quite doubtful, it is not going to be a victory any easier than OTL for the Entente), they might enter appeasement mood earlier than OTL. This might butterfly *WWII out entirely, or make Germany and Italy getting even more prepared for the rematch, depending on how much and how quickly Germany and Italy get concessions about ending the reparations and satisfying irredentist claims. However, I would say that the Axis would at the very least almost surely start limited wars against Poland and Yugoslavia, which the Entente may or may not join.
 
An AC-centered Regina Marina and, through cooperation, Kriegsmarine, would be interesting, though I'm not sure how feasible it would be for the Germans. How were their shipbuilding capacities compared to the Italians?

I do like the idea of Pearl Harbor-like sneak attacks on major British bases, though. Wouldn't it be difficult for the Kriegsmarine to sneak up on Scappa Flow, however? It isn't nearly as exposed as Hawaii, and the North Sea is a good deal easier to keep an eye on than the entirety of the Pacific.

What else might a closer German-Italian(-Swedish?) cooperation bring in terms of military innovations? Improved aircraft, due to their research for carrier purposes? Perhaps some infantry gear intended for amphibious or airborne landings?

Personally, I like the idea of Germany and Italy trying to get the Turks into the Axis; something like an effort to revive the old WW1 alliance, where the Ottomans where quite steadfast allies. Plus, it would give them interesting strategic options for attacking the Middle East.

Question, though; how would the government/regimes of Germany and Italy look like? The butterflies probably flap away the Nazis (it was a pretty close and lucky thing how they came to power OTL), but I don't know how easy or difficult Mussolinis rise to power was.

- Kelenas
 
There are ways of punishing Sweden. Scania could be given to Denmark, Kiruna to Norway. There is precedent for ceding territory to neutral countries, as Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark after WWI. I don't know ow likely that would be, though, since unlike the other CPs Sweden had reasonably good relations with it's neighbors.

Well, you could do that but Scania is and was completely Swedish culturally, and it had closer ties to Sweden economically as the Sund was more of an obstacle back then. There is also the issue of effectively dooming Sweden to mass-starvation as all its good farmland is taken away, and the fact that you'd be given Denmark complete control of the Sund and thus all Baltic-Atlantic trade routes.

Kiruna to Norway is even worse. Norway would end up with a huge patch of essentially empty wilderness with no viable land connections to get there. The Swedish-Norwegian border is the way it is for a reason, that being inhospitable mountains and swampland. Norway would effectively be cut off from its new spoils.

The only even remotely possible land concession on Sweden's part is the Torne Valley to Finland (or Russia, I guess) but even that is pretty doubtful, mostly because the area at this point in history was almost uninhabited and didn't have anything to offer economically.
 
To make that Uber-CP loose the best way would be bad leadership, right? Constant competition among Eastern and western front, worse handling of the economy, bad leadership at seas costing the CP the High-Seas fleet earlier and the Regia Marina as well, leaving Britain truly ruling the waves, dumb-Gallipolli-like ideas by the CP...

I'd agree that Sweden and Italy would get rather lenietn terms. Nevertheless, Italy would likely become revanchist and a close ally of Germany from the start. That implies the Weimar Republic having a close ally throughout the twenties, quite a difference.
 
Top