Could Italy Occupy Corsica . . .

Irioth

Banned
ISTR that IOTL A-H tried a land offering to Italy, but didn't manage to pull it off.

They made a tightfisted, reluctant show of it, under German pressure, but actually they dragged their feet, stalled, and offered nothing really significant. Italy tired and signed with the Entente offer.

Especially from the south and east, it would be relative easy to invade from the north and west. But it did give me a idea, Germany could invade through Switzerland and then Italy could close the supplyroutes down to the Swiss strongholds.

Indeed. A combined 3-way invasion is very hard for the Swiss to defend against, even if Germany's southward thrust will be the killing blow. Then the Germany and Italy armies join hands and make a combined attack on France, which has to resist an offensive on a front running from the Channel to Nice. Can we say overstretch ?
 

MrP

Banned
They made a tightfisted, reluctant show of it, under German pressure, but actually they dragged their feet, stalled, and offered nothing really significant. Italy tired and signed with the Entente offer.

Ah, cheers, old man. :)

Indeed. A combined 3-way invasion is very hard for the Swiss to defend against, even if Germany's southward thrust will be the killing blow. Then the Germany and Italy armies join hands and make a combined attack on France, which has to resist an offensive on a front running from the Channel to Nice. Can we say overstretch ?

We can . . . but for which side? ;) Is German violation of Swiss neutrality ITTL instead of violation of Belgian neutrality or as well as? If Germany doesn't go for it in the north, she has more forces to face Russia and to defend against France, as well as men to take Switzerland. But France doesn't lose the Briey Basin, giving her far more resources in a long war, and winning Germany fewer resources. It's certainly an interesting idea to have Germany invade Switzerland, but it's far easier to support an attacking army through Belgium and northern France than through Switzerland. A successful conquest of Switzerland will take some time, during which France may push through Germany's defences in the north. Which armies were you thinking of allocating to take Switzerland? I'll see if I can dig out my figures on Swiss military strength later on. :)
 

Irioth

Banned
We can . . . but for which side? ;) Is German violation of Swiss neutrality ITTL instead of violation of Belgian neutrality or as well as? If Germany doesn't go for it in the north, she has more forces to face Russia and to defend against France, as well as men to take Switzerland. But France doesn't lose the Briey Basin, giving her far more resources in a long war, and winning Germany fewer resources. It's certainly an interesting idea to have Germany invade Switzerland, but it's far easier to support an attacking army through Belgium and northern France than through Switzerland. A successful conquest of Switzerland will take some time, during which France may push through Germany's defences in the north. Which armies were you thinking of allocating to take Switzerland? I'll see if I can dig out my figures on Swiss military strength later on. :)

I was thinking of Switzerland being invaded later, to open a third front on France, when Italy enters the war. And doing it as a 3-way combined CP effort: I'm sure Italy and A-U have some armies to spare for the invasion, as the Alps border front was rather shorter for Italy than A-U border front was. And A-U hasn't to fight Italy, so besides sending more troops on the Russian front, it may spare some for the Swiss. IIRC, there were standing CP technical plans to send Italy spare troops on the German front in case of war. They could dust off those pland and send troops in Germany to support the invastion from the north. If they do it as a 3-way combined effort, it won't be an overstretch.

And anyway, it would only be an option to be exploited, in tha case that the simple effort of fighting both Germany and Italy on their respective borders doesn't cause France to collapse. Mind it, even if the Alps are ill-suited for a breakthrough, the Italian Army was in much better shape, compared to the French one, in 1914-15 than in 1940. Paris would have to committ a substantial amount of its Army on the Alps front to hold it, likely at least 25-30% of its forces. And that assuming the CPs don't use those transfer protocols. Can France survive the drain, even with British help ? With the 1918 American troops, they maybe could, but America is not coming in 1914-15.
 
Last edited:
We can . . . but for which side? ;) Is German violation of Swiss neutrality ITTL instead of violation of Belgian neutrality or as well as? If Germany doesn't go for it in the north, she has more forces to face Russia and to defend against France, as well as men to take Switzerland. But France doesn't lose the Briey Basin, giving her far more resources in a long war, and winning Germany fewer resources. It's certainly an interesting idea to have Germany invade Switzerland, but it's far easier to support an attacking army through Belgium and northern France than through Switzerland. A successful conquest of Switzerland will take some time, during which France may push through Germany's defences in the north. Which armies were you thinking of allocating to take Switzerland? I'll see if I can dig out my figures on Swiss military strength later on. :)
Probably those Troops that von Moltke Ordered Sent to The Eastern Front that EVERYONE'S Always Crowing about, Plus The Lion's Share of The Italian Army Excluding whatever Remains Deployed against France and Even Austria-Hungary ...

My Gut Instinct Tells me it'd Inextricably Lead to an Entente Victory Anyway, Otherwise Italy would've been Screaming for The Swiss Alps Instead of South Tyrol All those Years!

And because MrP Still has Me on Ignore ...

:p
 

Susano

Banned
Who the hell in their right mind would violate Swiss neutrality? I mean, yes, sure, despite Swiss national myths Switzerland can be taken, but its just not worth it!It would be a hole in the Triple Alliance, but that hole can be enclosed by German and Italian troops meeting in the Rhone valley ;)
 

Irioth

Banned
My Gut Instinct Tells me it'd Inextricably Lead to an Entente Victory Anyway, Otherwise Italy would've been Screaming for The Swiss Alps Instead of South Tyrol All those Years!
:p

It's more complex than that.

You see, during the 1870s Italy had two enemies, France and A-U. They had grown more and more cold vs. France after the Second War of Independence alliance, as Napoleon had stationed troops in Rome to stop Italy liberating it form the Pope, and later the Third Republic was acting hostile towards Italy, getting in the way of Italy's colonial mabition in Tunis, and Italy had substantial irredentist claims vs. France anyway. A-U was the old enemy, and it still had substantial Italian territories too.

Italy is too weak to face two powerful enemies, so in 1882 it seeks alliance with Germany. The price is a detente with A-U. They make it, but half-hearted (picture the "cold peace" between Egypt and Israel), whileas the friendship between Italy and Germany (esp. in the 1880s between Bsimarck and Crispi) grows rather more warm and sincere. So for the 1880s and 1890s France is the designated enemy of Italy in an European war. In the 1900s, there is somewhat of a diplomatic detente with France, but it's nothing definitive, rather Italy begins to flip-flop a bit diplomatically. When war breaks out, they declare themselves neutral both for internal reasons(the leftists were downright hostile to the war, differently from other countries, the country was divide, it took the splitting of the Socialists in a pro-war party and the organization of a nationalist right-wing pro-war counter mass movement, to surmount the opposition to the war) and because they seek the best deal from either party. They seek a deal with the CPs first, since they are still the official allies, but old Franz Joseph is too stubborn and tightfisted against ceding anything really substantial about the ethnically-Italian A-U territories, they stall and draw feet, Italy eventually tires out and makes a final deal with the Entente powers instead.


If A-U had been less stingy, and/or Germany had applied more pressure to persuade it, it is certain that Italy would have eventually honored the alliance with Germany, and instead of pumping up the propaganda machine about the irredentist claims on Trent, Gorizia, and Trieste, they would have done it on Nice, Savoy, and Corsica.

Both sets of claims, on A-U and on France, did exist as a recurring element of Italian policy from 1870 to 1915, but they were alternatively trumped up or downplayed by the ruling elites, according to the alliances of the moment. E.g. irredentist agitation vs. A-U was suppressed in the 1880s and 1890s , when A-U was an ally. Similarly, claims vs. France were suppressed during WWI, nd vented back by Mussolini in the 1920s and 1930s especially.
 

Irioth

Banned
Who the hell in their right mind would violate Swiss neutrality? I mean, yes, sure, despite Swiss national myths Switzerland can be taken, but its just not worth it!It would be a hole in the Triple Alliance, but that hole can be enclosed by German and Italian troops meeting in the Rhone valley ;)

Indeed it's an option to be used only in the (rather unlikely) case that Germany and Italy pounding on France from their respective borders, isn't sufficient to cause the collapse of France by exausting their manpower reserves, even with British help.
 

MrP

Banned
I was thinking of Switzerland being invaded later, to open a third front on France, when Italy enters the war. And doing it as a 3-way combined CP effort: I'm sure Italy and A-U have some armies to spare for the invasion, as the Alps border front was rather shorter for Italy than A-U border front was. And A-U hasn't to fight Italy, so besides sending more troops on the Russian front, it may spare some for the Swiss. IIRC, there were standing CP technical plans to send Italy spare troops on the German front in case of war. They could dust off those pland and send troops in Germany to support the invastion from the north. If they do it as a 3-way combined effort, it won't be an overstretch.

And anyway, it would only be an option to be exploited, in tha case that the simple effort of fighting both Germany and Italy on their respective borders doesn't cause France to collapse. Mind it, even if the Alps are ill-suited for a breakthrough, the Italian Army was in much better shape, compared to the French one, in 1914-15 than in 1940. Paris would have to committ a substantial amount of its Army on the Alps front to hold it, likely at least 25-30% of its forces. And that assuming the CPs don't use those transfer protocols. Can France survive the drain, even with British help ? With the 1918 American troops, they maybe could, but America is not coming in 1914-15.

OK . . . so everything goes as OTL up till Italy joins the CP in '15. Which resources/armies were you thinking of using? Are we cancelling the pincer movement against the Russians in Jan/Feb? This'll redirect British and Imperial forces away from the Dardanelles, and to France proper. And it'll doom Przemysl - but it was lost IOTL anyway, so no biggy. If the Russians decide now to launch an offensive, things could get tricky, mind, since the Austro-German troops that IOTL mucked them up are now punching the Swiss. I expect the French First and Third Armies either still to attack in Meuse-Argonne in April to take advantage of what they assume is a weakened enemy, or to redeploy into Switzerland with Swiss gratitude.

In short, outcome is: Russia runs rampant in the east, Germany defeats Switzerland, but is probably still hung up on the border, where remnant Swiss forces are receiving French aid. Several French and British offensives have been cancelled, allowing for the diversion of troops to the new Italian front. With Russia doing so well, we might see Romania join in earlier than IOTL, too.
 

Irioth

Banned
OK . . . so everything goes as OTL up till Italy joins the CP in '15. Which resources/armies were you thinking of using? Are we cancelling the pincer movement against the Russians in Jan/Feb? This'll redirect British and Imperial forces away from the Dardanelles, and to France proper. And it'll doom Przemysl - but it was lost IOTL anyway, so no biggy. If the Russians decide now to launch an offensive, things could get tricky, mind, since the Austro-German troops that IOTL mucked them up are now punching the Swiss. I expect the French First and Third Armies either still to attack in Meuse-Argonne in April to take advantage of what they assume is a weakened enemy, or to redeploy into Switzerland with Swiss gratitude.

In short, outcome is: Russia runs rampant in the east, Germany defeats Switzerland, but is probably still hung up on the border, where remnant Swiss forces are receiving French aid. Several French and British offensives have been cancelled, allowing for the diversion of troops to the new Italian front. With Russia doing so well, we might see Romania join in earlier than IOTL, too.

Why are you assuming the CPs immediately use the Switzerland option ? I didn't. Instead, assume OTL until Italy attacks France in the Alps in Spring '15, and develop from there.
 

MrP

Banned
Why are you assuming the CPs immediately use the Switzerland option ? I didn't. Instead, assume OTL until Italy attacks France in the Alps in Spring '15, and develop from there.

OK, Italy attacks France in Spring, cancelling the aforementioned Meuse-Argonne offensive. This means that they can't possibly attack Switzerland with the forces used against Russia, so that proceeds either well or badly depending on butterflies. Too canny to split their efforts in yet another direction (they've already got Serbia, France and Russia to worry about), no attack is made on Switzerland until 1916, instead of the OTL Verdun Kesselschlacht. As a result, the planned French offensive goes ahead with the British Somme experiment, which is pushed less hard than IOTL because there's less need to relieve pressure on the French at Verdun. The French may have evacuated the salient already, and the British likewise Ypres, as a result of needing to shift men south to cover the Italians, so there's no tempting target on the Western Front. 1916 is the OTL year of the Brusilov Offensive in the East - but this depends to some extent on what happened in the East in '15, of course.

So broadly speaking: No Verdun or Somme but instead an invasion of Switzerland by Germany. This ties down significant numbers of German troops, and makes the Entente believe the Germans too weak to defend themselves, so a major Entente offensive hits the German trenches after the invasion of Switzerland. Either the Entente make significant gains before the Germans send men back north or the Entente screw the pooch completely and Germany takes out Switzerland quickly, messing up the Entente's defensive plans, and reopening the possibility of mobile warfare. However, unless the French are completely useless (no jokes, please ;) ), they will have shifted troops to cover the Swiss front. Perhaps the OTL Salonika Expedition forces (about 9 divisions plus bits of French and Brits, a little over 230,000 men).

On Switzerland: Wiki gives a population of c. 3.3 million in 1900, so we can assume as a rough guide that the Swiss can field an army of maybe 300,000 post mobilisation, given that Serbia mobilised 460,000 from a population of 5 million in 1914. This is all a bit iffy, because I have no hard numbers for the Swiss, but it should enable them to field enough men to hold up the CP advance . . . provided sectarian strife doesn't work its "magic". They might have more if they were operating the "every man is a soldier" policy very strictly, or they might have less if they have severe problems with German Swiss going over to the German invaders, Italian Swiss to the Italians, and so on. I think I mentioned before that this was a real concern to the Swiss govt. pre-WWI IOTL.
 

Irioth

Banned
OK, Italy attacks France in Spring, cancelling the aforementioned Meuse-Argonne offensive. This means that they can't possibly attack Switzerland with the forces used against Russia, so that proceeds either well or badly depending on butterflies. Too canny to split their efforts in yet another direction (they've already got Serbia, France and Russia to worry about), no attack is made on Switzerland until 1916, instead of the OTL Verdun Kesselschlacht. As a result, the planned French offensive goes ahead with the British Somme experiment, which is pushed less hard than IOTL because there's less need to relieve pressure on the French at Verdun. The French may have evacuated the salient already, and the British likewise Ypres, as a result of needing to shift men south to cover the Italians, so there's no tempting target on the Western Front. 1916 is the OTL year of the Brusilov Offensive in the East - but this depends to some extent on what happened in the East in '15, of course.

So broadly speaking: No Verdun or Somme but instead an invasion of Switzerland by Germany. This ties down significant numbers of German troops, and makes the Entente believe the Germans too weak to defend themselves, so a major Entente offensive hits the German trenches after the invasion of Switzerland. Either the Entente make significant gains before the Germans send men back north or the Entente screw the pooch completely and Germany takes out Switzerland quickly, messing up the Entente's defensive plans, and reopening the possibility of mobile warfare. However, unless the French are completely useless (no jokes, please ;) ), they will have shifted troops to cover the Swiss front. Perhaps the OTL Salonika Expedition forces (about 9 divisions plus bits of French and Brits, a little over 230,000 men).

Err, the fact the Anglo-French have their front keep getting longer and longer, never causes them any manpower crisis :eek:? And the fact the Austro-Hungarians can now throw the whole of their army on Russia (minus the forces to deal with Serbia, and later Switzerland), doesn't it change anything :confused: ? A more powerful CPs, isn't it cause Romania and Greece to switch sides (not that it won't matter much, militarly, differently from Italy, which is a *major* change).

Sure, let's assume the Anglo-French keep throwing men into the furnace, to cover their longer and longer front. Doesn't it mean the French will meet their manpower crisis of 1917, way sooner, when economic blockade hasn't yet pushed the Germans to unrestricted submarine warfare (hence no American intervention, which saved the Entente) ? And the whole A-U Army on the Eastern front, won't it hasten the crisis of the Russians considerably, too ?
 

MrP

Banned
Err, the fact the Anglo-French have their front keep getting longer and longer, never causes them any manpower crisis :eek:? And the fact the Austro-Hungarians can now throw the whole of their army on Russia (minus the forces to deal with Serbia, and later Switzerland), doesn't it change anything :confused: ? A more powerful CPs, isn't it cause Romania and Greece to switch sides (not that it won't matter much, militarly, differently from Italy, which is a *major* change).

Sure, let's assume the Anglo-French keep throwing men into the furnace, to cover their longer and longer front. Doesn't it mean the French will meet their manpower crisis of 1917, way sooner, when economic blockade hasn't yet pushed the Germans to unrestricted submarine warfare (hence no American intervention, which saved the Entente) ? And the whole A-U Army on the Eastern front, won't it hasten the crisis of the Russians considerably, too ?

I cannot decide whether to acknowledge that you have made good points or to point out that you're being rather patronising and dismissive. So I'll do both. I'm trying to be helpful. If I miss a few things it's not out of any blind love for the Entente or foolish hatred of the CP. It's because this is an internet discussion board and I'm not expecting to be peremptorily told off if I dash off a quick answer.

Obviously, there will be problems associated with an elongated Western Front. I did ask you very specifically above which German forces you wanted to use for this prospective invasion of Switzerland, and you didn't answer. So I started throwing around some vague guesses. I didn't expect to be chastised for that. IOTL the Somme ate up over half a million Entente troops, and Verdun almost another 400,000. Having sustained these losses IOTL the Entente was still capable of holding the OTL Western Front - though the fact that the Germans weren't attacking is obviously a factor in that.

Do you happen to know the strength of the Austrian units engaged on the Italian Front in Autumn of '15? I'm getting the sense that you know there's a lot there, but not precisely what. I recommend The World War I Databook. As to whether Greece and Romania might change sides - Romania might well, for all I know. Before the war broke out IOTL her General Staff was asking the Austrians where to deploy against the Russians, obviously not being in touch with the government. Greece is unlikely. Venizelos was pro-Entente and pro-war, and the monarch pro-CP and pro-peace. Greece is very vulnerable to Entente maritime attacks and her navy isn't in any condition to go toe to toe with even a small RN squadron. I think the army would go bonkers to be on the same side as the Ottomans, too. ;)

The A-H Army on the Eastern Front will certainly be stronger ITTL. Whether it's war-winningly stronger, I don't know. She can probably pull together two more armies from the OTL Italian Front troops, which gives her greater strategic flexibility and, at the very worst, should make her more resilient in the event of disaster.

The French might continue with a policy of offensives, or they might decide they've reached their limit and stop. Given that they'll be reinforced by an unknown number of Swiss (do you have any figures on that, btw? Without them we're not doing much) they'll be forced to field another army or army group in the south, depending how strongly the Italians push them. As for the impact on public opinion in America, invading a neutral doesn't look good, and there's little reason not to go for unrestricted U-boat warfare if one's already lost US public opinion. The major reason for not going for unrestricted U-boat warfare sooner was American opinion. That said, I'm not an expert on US politics of the Great War, and it could be that they'd just frown irritably while Switzerland's invaded.

As for the Americans saving the Entente - with loans? Yes. In terms of resources? Yes. Military intervention? Not so much. They certainly sped up the defeat of Germany, but they didn't save the Entente from certain defeat.

So let's recap.
  1. More A-H troops available for operations against Russia, possible earlier revolution.
  2. German armies engaged heavily in Switzerland and not at Verdun.
  3. No Salonika Expedition and no Gallipoli, freeing up Entente troops for redeployment to S France and Switzerland. Combined Total of these two IOTL is c. 25 divisions and change.
  4. Question mark over Somme & Verdun.*
  5. Italian troops heavily engaged in Switzerland and France, necessitating French defensive redeployment to S France.
  6. Question mark over American entry into the war.

* IOTL a major offensive was planned. With the Germans invading Switzerland and Italy attacking S France there are two options. 1) Stage the offensive. Weakened German defences might be penetrated or the Entente might be defeated. 2) Cancel the offensive and sit on the defensive in '16, planning for an offensive in '17.
 

Irioth

Banned
I cannot decide whether to acknowledge that you have made good points or to point out that you're being rather patronising and dismissive. So I'll do both. I'm trying to be helpful. If I miss a few things it's not out of any blind love for the Entente or foolish hatred of the CP. It's because this is an internet discussion board and I'm not expecting to be peremptorily told off if I dash off a quick answer.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be dismissive. :)Yours analysis was otherwise rather good, it was just that it seemed to me it did not gave the problem of the limited French manpower pool exausting in having to face offensives on two fronts, due consideration. So you assume that the Italian intervention moves the Entente to call off major offensives, and this will make up for the elongated front fully in the long term. Sorry if I felt like anything like chastising. :)

I didn't expect to be chastised for that. IOTL the Somme ate up over half a million Entente troops, and Verdun almost another 400,000.

Ok, if they call off the Somme, they have half a million more reserves. However, Verdun was a German offensive, ITTL the German high command has better perspectives of victory, no reason they would renounce it, unless they need those men on the other front, say the added A-U manpower is causing the Russian Army to buckle under pressure, and they use the troops to make a deeper penetration into Russia. Nonetheless, the Italians are not going to be idle on the Alps, Cadorna, the Supreme Italian Commander, was a believer in the virtue of repeated offensives. So I guess that the vast majority of what they spare on the Somme, they lose on the Alps front, defending against Italian offensives. AND they still need to man that second front, too. That's why I see them suffering a manpower crisis by late 1916 at most.

Having sustained these losses IOTL the Entente was still capable of holding the OTL Western Front - though the fact that the Germans weren't attacking is obviously a factor in that.

Yes, although by 1917 the French Army came very close to collapsing with the Great Mutinies. of course, much of that came from the French Generals using offensive tactics that caused huge losses, and we are hypothesizing the Entente goes on the defensive on the Western Front, which might partiallyu defuse it. OTOH, they have another front here, which will increase them of at least 30-35%.

As for the impact on public opinion in America, invading a neutral doesn't look good, and there's little reason not to go for unrestricted U-boat warfare if one's already lost US public opinion. The major reason for not going for unrestricted U-boat warfare sooner was American opinion. That said, I'm not an expert on US politics of the Great War, and it could be that they'd just frown irritably while Switzerland's invaded.

Highly doubtful they will do anything more than frown. No American lives or strategic interests were involved. Freedom of the seas for neutrals was a national security interest.

  1. More A-H troops available for operations against Russia, possible earlier revolution.
Yes. IMO at least one year earlier. Which would mean the Germans have the opportunity to throw the great offensives of 1918 at least one year before.
  1. German armies engaged heavily in Switzerland and not at Verdun.
The crucial issue is, if they indeed do take the Switzerland option, where the front stabilizes initially ? Are the Anglo-French able to stop the CPs before they are pushed to the French frontier and beyond ? That frontier isn't fortified, it would offer them better breakthrough options than Verdun.
  1. No Salonika Expedition and no Gallipoli, freeing up Entente troops for redeployment to S France and Switzerland. Combined Total of these two IOTL is c. 25 divisions and change.
Well, it depends on when the Italians attack. OTL, it went on May 24, and Gallipoli went on April 25. Now, it is possible that negotiations between the CPs and Italy conclude quicker, anticipating their attacks. It is also possible that the Italian attack in South France occurs when the Entente have already heavily engaged in Gallipoli, and those 25 divisions are not available. Surely, by early 1915 the Anglo-French still have the manpower to committ troops in Turkey, North France, and South France, but this will them considerably further down the line. Now, it is entirely possible that in the evidence of Italian attack, they cut their losses and reimbark. This will increase CP pressure on the Russians although.
  1. Question mark over Somme & Verdun.*
Yes, and above all, the fact that if Verdun (or any other major German offensive) still occurs, it's quite simple for the Italians to launch an offensive of their own in South France at the same time. Italian and German Staffs had been collaborating since the 1880s, protocols for transferring Italian troops were in place before the war, I think that even if a Joint Command isn't established immediately, such coordination is plausible. This makes it possible that the weakened Entente defenses are penetrated.
  1. Italian troops heavily engaged in Switzerland and France, necessitating French defensive redeployment to S France.
Yes. At least 30-35% of Anglo-French forces must be redeployed there for the duration of the war.
  1. Question mark over American entry into the war.
Yes. The presence of Italy gives the CP considerable additional resources (both A-U and Italian) to focus on France and Russia. An hastened Russian collapse is possible. This makes it less likely the German High Command will greenlight unrestricted submarine warfare, and without it, USA will stay neutral till the end of the war.
 

hinotoin

Banned
Well an invasion is simple, they take the island and then hold it. Then they will suffer counter-attacks.
 
Top