Avoid the Italian Mutilated Victory

What would it take to avoid the Italian Mutilated Victory during the peace negotiations of WWI?


Dalmatia and Fiume (and Srdoci and Cantrida) would be the first places in which better decision-making could occur. But there's the issue in that Wilson was opposed to the Italians getting what he saw as non-Italian lands in secret agreements.

Are there further colonial gains or non-territorial gains (linguistic and education rights for Italains in France, Tunisia, and Malta for example) Italy could get that would lessen the sting? What about more colonial lands (Wituland, Aozou, perhaps Cameroon or Togo)?
1024px-Trattato_di_Londra.svg.png
 
You know looking at that map I'm surprised the Italians were so upset over not getting an extra little chunk of Dalmatia. I'm even more surprised they would even bother going to war and throwing away hundreds of thousands of lives over such meager gains.
 
You know looking at that map I'm surprised the Italians were so upset over not getting an extra little chunk of Dalmatia. I'm even more surprised they would even bother going to war and throwing away hundreds of thousands of lives over such meager gains.

1) It'd have meant control over the whole of the Adriatic, more or less.
2) Nationalism is a hell of a drug.
 
Maybe have Italy join the war late and throw in a few early CP screws to balance things out until around 1918 when Italy can join.

Something like Russia avoiding a disaster against Germany in 1914 and America joining the Entente in 1915 over the Lusitania while Italy sits out. With a better 1914 Russia can fight more effectively in 1915 and pick up some of the slack Italy did in 1915. But by 1916 the US still doesn’t have much impact yet and Russia is getting beat much worse without Italy. In 1917 Russia drops out while America builds a sizable European force, which is just enough to block a CP fall offensive in France. The Allies are desperate during the winter of 1917-18 and offer Italy basically anything they want in Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Albania while throwing in some Suez shares. Italy accepts and joins the Entente in early 1918, takes enough pressure off France to ensure a win by late 1918, and Italy is in a position of enough strength and willpower after only fighting for around 6 months to take whatever claims they want.
 

Deleted member 94680

Avoid the Treaty of London, giving the Italian public nothing to compare the post-War territorial assignments to.

Or make the Treaty of London more vague, limiting awards to lands “that do not impinge on the essential requirements of other Allied nations” etc etc.
 
Or make the Treaty of London more vague,
I wouldn't, the Italians tended to be ... optimistic when interpreting vague promises. Their colonial office interpreted the London Treaty's promise of "border adjustments" as British and French Somaliland, as well as a slice of northern Kenya, and the understanding that Ethiopia was under Italian influence.

limiting awards to lands “that do not impinge on the essential requirements of other Allied nations” etc etc.
I'd avoid anything that overtly smacks of "we value Serbia more than you".
 

Deleted member 94680

I wouldn't, the Italians tended to be ... optimistic when interpreting vague promises. Their colonial office interpreted the London Treaty's promise of "border adjustments" as British and French Somaliland, as well as a slice of northern Kenya, and the understanding that Ethiopia was under Italian influence.

Fair point. But the lack of definite promises makes blaming the WAllies harder come the post war period.

I'd avoid anything that overtly smacks of "we value Serbia more than you".

True. But a balanced declaration of facts that several allied nations have competing claims will require some adjustments on what individual allied nations desire might modify feelings of being cheated.
 
What would it take to avoid the Italian Mutilated Victory during the peace negotiations of WWI?

Without a pre-1919 POD, that's almost impossible. Even if you avoid the leaving of the Italian delegation, a few strips of colonial land here or there or cultural rights (which will be off the table anyways) should not change much.
 
Ok, all the drama for Italy at Versailles it's based in 2 factor:

1) Internal to Italy, the delegation was not united in his dealing, Orlanda was more for compromise and accepting not getting Dalmatia for Fiume and Sonnino (the foreign minister) that was for the full implementation of the London Treaty plus Fiume...and in this manner there were an uncoordinated answer to Wilson.
2) External to Italy, basically the UK (and France) worked to use Wilson for limiting Italy gain as they also considered them too much, but after all a treaty is a treaty...but Wilson was not bound by them, plus if Wilson is concentrated towards Italy don't give his full attention to them.

Plus there is the problem of perception, while the final deal give Italy in practice all his major objective in term of security and economic importance, the fact that the nation felt utterly humiliated in Versailles and showed to be not that important for his nominal allies, Wilson behaviour and the fact that many here considered him an hypocrite that desired 'get back his verginity' (in relations of the 14 points) after the treaty with Germany that created the myth of the mutilated victory.

Frankly if Sonnino remain home or Wilson decide to listen his aide (and the Anglo-French delegation) regarding the Tardieu Agreement we can avoid the italian delegation departure and the following humiliating return; colonially speaking, well obtaining immediately the same that Benny get during the following years will be ok
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Without a pre-1919 POD, that's almost impossible. Even if you avoid the leaving of the Italian delegation, a few strips of colonial land here or there or cultural rights (which will be off the table anyways) should not change much.

This is where you must start. The Italian military performance was a burden upon the Allies, rather than the dagger to the Austro-Hungarian heartland as expected. They started the war poorly prepared, with too few modern weapons, no real plan, and without properly considering the realities of modern war. Their successes in the Italo-Turkish War blinded them to the problems exhibited in Lybia.
Political leadership allowed the unimaginative Cadorna free rein to destroy Italian youth. The Navy had a very passive role in the war.

If Italy had made significant gains before the Armistice, and had stood on her own, she could had a firmer foundation for claims.
 
So a few problems for Italy. Wilson thought the Treaty of London a treaty from a bygone era and didn’t feel bound to it. The Treaty of London also applied only to Austria Hungary and it was felt the treaty didn’t apply now that Empire was gone. Britain and France also had the false impression that Italy didn’t contribute much to the war effort especially compared to Serbia. Serbia also took advantage of the immediate peace to immediately secure Croatia, Montenegro (over the objections of its King), and Slovenia before the Italians could react. The Italians also misplayed their response to this by threatening the food supply and infuriating Hoover and the Americans. Italy also needed to be more diplomatic at Versailles to win allies among the smaller powers which it found to impugn its honor. Compromising with Greece and choosing between Hungary and Romania would be a start.

With a 1919 POD the only way I can see this happening is if Serbia fails to expand and there is a Bolshevik Revolution in the Balkans. Pretty difficult given even red Hungary is more accurately described as red Budapest
 
Last edited:

elkarlo

Banned
Italy thought it was a first rate power. It also thought AH would roll over and die when it was attacked . That didn't happen and the Italians were badly led and trained for most the war.
It also didn't help that the Italians tried offensives in the alps. Should have left those areas alone. The Ah defenders in some places pushed over poles of rocks on the Italian for Petes sake.
This led to insane losses for little gain.
 
Was on Italian soil. They did not occupy any Austrian territory prior to the Armistice of Villa Giusti.

Pianta_Battaglia_Vittorio_Veneto.jpg

By the time the armistice took effect Italian forces had taken much of Tyrol and where along the Isonzo as well as having seized Trieste and had broken the back of the A-H Army. By November 11th Italy had forces throughout the A-H Empire and the Adriatic.
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
The Italian Navy had naval supremacy for long stretches of the war, yet did nothing with it. Italy wanted Dalmatia, yet made no attack upon the coast or islands. The only adaptation to modern warfare by the Army was to call upon the Arditi, a modern Forlorn Hope style unit. The Army's major victory of the war came as the Austro-Hungarians turned upon one another.

The Italian Army needed to consider innovative strategies and tactics, rather than shed their young men's blood upon the Isonzo line. They had just completed a war using amphibious landings in Lybia and the Aegean. Why not try a landing on the coast? Spread out the enemy troops. At least use your advantages against the enemies weaknesses.
 
Pianta_Battaglia_Vittorio_Veneto.jpg

By the time the armistice took effect Italian forces had taken much of Tyrol and where along the Isonzo as well as having seized Trieste and had broken the back of the A-H Army.
I was referring to when it was signed, which was the third (also the date when the Austrian high command ordered all its forces to surrender). I also don't recall disputing that the Austrian Army had been beaten by that point, so I'm not sure why you felt the urge to point that out.

By November 11th Italy had forces throughout the A-H Empire the Adriatic.
The armistice allowed all Entente armies to pass through the (former) empire. It was nothing remarkable that was going to sway opinions in Paris.
 
I was referring to when it was signed, which was the third (also the date when the Austrian high command ordered all its forces to surrender). I also don't recall disputing that the Austrian Army had been beaten by that point, so I'm not sure why you felt the urge to point that out.

Trento was taken by 1st of November while Trieste fell on the third. The Italians held chunks of A-H Territory before the armistice of was signed which makes this statement:
They did not occupy any Austrian territory prior to the Armistice of Villa Giusti.
false
 
Trento was taken by 1st of November
Your own map disagrees. Italian Wikipedia says it was occupied on the 4th*.

while Trieste fell on the third.
Triest was occupied without opposition on the 4th.

Your objection to my statement appears baseless.



*and the 3rd? probably not a reliable source, but your map certianly disagrees with it being occupied on the 1st
 
Last edited:
Top