If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?

CaliGuy

Banned
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?

Basically, I have read on another thread here that Kaiser Karl wanted to make peace in 1917 but that a significant obstacle to doing this was Italy's large-scale territorial claims on Austria-Hungary. Thus, what if--for whatever reason--Italy would have remained neutral in WWI? Would Austria-Hungary have then been able to make a separate peace in 1917?

Also, if so, what exactly would the consequences on this have been on WWI, the post-WWI peace settlement, and the decades after the end of WWI?
 
If Italy remains neutral Austria-Hungary does not have to make a separate peace. The Italian front cost Austria Hungary over 350,000 casualties before 1917 and distracted them from Russia, resulting in the disastrous Brusilov offensive. Add to that Italian aid helping keep the Serbian Army viable into 1916 plus Italian troops in the Balkans. In addition Italy being neutral would weaken the blockade, making A-H's supply situation better. Italian Entry may also have contributed to Romania entering the war. The generally better course of the war for the CP may have bigger butterflies (IE USW and Zimmerman) but those could be ignored

In short Italy being neutral makes things so much better for A-H and the CP as a whole they would not consider a separate peace.
 
Might seconde @naraic
Though a possible CP-win might have a ... sour taste for A-H, as it will have to "pay" something to Italy to stay neutral (Triest ? Dalmatia ? Trentino (at least) ?, or all of it ? ).

How about more nefariously- I doubt A-H will have to give up territory it has, when it can give recognition of Italian "dominance" of Albania to begin with, and more generally split the Balkans between them, in an Italy neutral world it brings into question whether the Ottoman Empire joins the CP or not. Bulgaria could take land from Romania (Dobruja) and Macedonia from Serbia; A-H could take the rest of Serbia, Walachia and Moldova, Italy can make client states of Albania, Montenegro, and even Greece with outright annexation of Albania and Montenegro by the 1930s under secret protocols with A-H.
 
Might seconde @naraic
Though a possible CP-win might have a ... sour taste for A-H, as it will have to "pay" something to Italy to stay neutral (Triest ? Dalmatia ? Trentino (at least) ?, or all of it ? ).

Depend, it's not that Wien ever had any real intention to honor the promise made to Rome so to keep Italy neutral...but one must also consider the fact that even in case of victory in 1917 A-H will not be in great shape and greatly risk going to war against the only fresh great power on the continent will not bode well for an already tired population; plus in that case German support will not be automatic as risk another conflict for just the sake of Austrian pride will not be a very loved politic in Berlin.

How about more nefariously- I doubt A-H will have to give up territory it has, when it can give recognition of Italian "dominance" of Albania to begin with, and more generally split the Balkans between them, in an Italy neutral world it brings into question whether the Ottoman Empire joins the CP or not. Bulgaria could take land from Romania (Dobruja) and Macedonia from Serbia; A-H could take the rest of Serbia, Walachia and Moldova, Italy can make client states of Albania, Montenegro, and even Greece with outright annexation of Albania and Montenegro by the 1930s under secret protocols with A-H.

Giving Albania to Italy mean that Rome control the Adriatic so it was not an easy decision for Austria and in any case giving up even Montenegro is a big no no; plus in general Austrian policy in this general scenario is: demand everything but give up nothing...and this include any sphere of influence in the Balkans
 
How about more nefariously- I doubt A-H will have to give up territory it has, when it can give recognition of Italian "dominance" of Albania to begin with, and more generally split the Balkans between them, in an Italy neutral world it brings into question whether the Ottoman Empire joins the CP or not. Bulgaria could take land from Romania (Dobruja) and Macedonia from Serbia; A-H could take the rest of Serbia, Walachia and Moldova, Italy can make client states of Albania, Montenegro, and even Greece with outright annexation of Albania and Montenegro by the 1930s under secret protocols with A-H.
If the Ottomans stay out you undo a lot of the benefits that Italy staying out brings the central powers. Austria can concentrate on a smaller front but so too can Russia.
 
How about more nefariously- I doubt A-H will have to give up territory it has, when it can give recognition of Italian "dominance" of Albania to begin with, and more generally split the Balkans between them, in an Italy neutral world it brings into question whether the Ottoman Empire joins the CP or not. Bulgaria could take land from Romania (Dobruja) and Macedonia from Serbia; A-H could take the rest of Serbia, Walachia and Moldova, Italy can make client states of Albania, Montenegro, and even Greece with outright annexation of Albania and Montenegro by the 1930s under secret protocols with A-H.
The Ottomans signed a secret treaty with Germany on August 2nd 1914, Russia declared war on the Ottomans on November 2nd 1914. Italy did not agree to join the war until April 26th 1915. Ottomans are already in the war
 
A neutral Italy would make Austria much stronger. This would let them keep some semblence of independence from the Germans. After Russia is defeated, the Austrians would be satisfied. They would have no interest in defeating France or Britain and would like to keep both as a check on Germany. Yes, a separate peace is quite possible
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If Italy remains neutral Austria-Hungary does not have to make a separate peace. The Italian front cost Austria Hungary over 350,000 casualties before 1917 and distracted them from Russia, resulting in the disastrous Brusilov offensive. Add to that Italian aid helping keep the Serbian Army viable into 1916 plus Italian troops in the Balkans. In addition Italy being neutral would weaken the blockade, making A-H's supply situation better. Italian Entry may also have contributed to Romania entering the war. The generally better course of the war for the CP may have bigger butterflies (IE USW and Zimmerman) but those could be ignored

In short Italy being neutral makes things so much better for A-H and the CP as a whole they would not consider a separate peace.
Interesting perspective. :)

Could this contribute to the war ending in 1917?
It could if the Central Powers don't already win WWI by that point in time (which, for the record, I think is unlikely).

A neutral Italy would make Austria much stronger. This would let them keep some semblence of independence from the Germans. After Russia is defeated, the Austrians would be satisfied. They would have no interest in defeating France or Britain and would like to keep both as a check on Germany. Yes, a separate peace is quite possible
That would actually be interesting--indeed, would the Entente agree to this?
 

Deleted member 1487

If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?

Basically, I have read on another thread here that Kaiser Karl wanted to make peace in 1917 but that a significant obstacle to doing this was Italy's large-scale territorial claims on Austria-Hungary. Thus, what if--for whatever reason--Italy would have remained neutral in WWI? Would Austria-Hungary have then been able to make a separate peace in 1917?

Also, if so, what exactly would the consequences on this have been on WWI, the post-WWI peace settlement, and the decades after the end of WWI?
If Italy stays neutral, likely the Central Powers win in 1916-17. There would be no need for a separate peace and in face the changes from 1915-17 as a result of no Italy would change so much that Kaiser Karl's OTL behavior couldn't even be factored into this scenario with a vastly improved CP situation. Russia is in real trouble in 1915-16 without Italy in the war and Serbia gets taken out sooner, which changes the Gallipoli situation too. I'm saying a negotiated overall peace no later than 1917 with a de facto CP moderate victory from the resulting terms.
 
How Neutral though? Is Italy strictly neutral and just minding its own business, or aiding one side or the other without actually fighting?
 
A neutral Italy would make Austria much stronger. This would let them keep some semblence of independence from the Germans. After Russia is defeated, the Austrians would be satisfied. They would have no interest in defeating France or Britain and would like to keep both as a check on Germany. Yes, a separate peace is quite possible

How the austrians can bail out just after the germans managed to save them from the perceived russian aggression and throw those same germans to the wolves? What would prevent the Entente, including Russia, to curbstomp them after a german defeat?

Kaiser Karl's proposal for an independent peace just shows he had no grasp of the reality and was undermined even by state officials. Hell, even the honesty of his proposal is suspicious: if he valued peace so dearly, he'd have accepted the italian claims (while he still had an army to negotiate) in order to preserve the Empire.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If Italy stays neutral, likely the Central Powers win in 1916-17. There would be no need for a separate peace and in face the changes from 1915-17 as a result of no Italy would change so much that Kaiser Karl's OTL behavior couldn't even be factored into this scenario with a vastly improved CP situation. Russia is in real trouble in 1915-16 without Italy in the war and Serbia gets taken out sooner, which changes the Gallipoli situation too. I'm saying a negotiated overall peace no later than 1917 with a de facto CP moderate victory from the resulting terms.
So, are you suggesting that Germany won't launch USW in this TL?
 
What does Austria gain by continuing the war with France and Britain? Absolutely nothing. In fact, France and Britain could be useful allies against Germany. Please remember that Germany or really Prussia is just as much of a threat as Russia. After all, in 1864 the Prussians had gotten the Austrians to fight the Danes and then attacked them two years later. In 1870, the Prussians defeat the French and annex their smaller German allies

A strong Germany is to be feared and there's nothing to gain by letting Germany grow any stronger
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Potentially it may not last long enough for it to even be an issue.
Are you thinking of a Russian collapse in 1916 in this TL?

What does Austria gain by continuing the war with France and Britain? Absolutely nothing. In fact, France and Britain could be useful allies against Germany. Please remember that Germany or really Prussia is just as much of a threat as Russia. After all, in 1864 the Prussians had gotten the Austrians to fight the Danes and then attacked them two years later. In 1870, the Prussians defeat the French and annex their smaller German allies

A strong Germany is to be feared and there's nothing to gain by letting Germany grow any stronger
Not that you don't have good points here, but Austria and Germany were already allies for almost 40 years by 1917.
 

Deleted member 1487

Are you thinking of a Russian collapse in 1916 in this TL?
Possibly. Something like the Brusilov offensive cannot happen, while Serbia and the advance in Ukraine in 1915 can be fought, so there is no 'Herbstsau' after the conquest of Serbia, when the advance after Gorlice-Tarnow in Galicia was put on hold to reinforce the Serbian Front only to have the later attack renewed and smashed by recovered Russian forces. They could keep up the pressure to the limits of logistics and create a much more favorable situation for 1916 and deny the Russians morale renewing victories in 1915. Plus then without the Italian Front and offensive against Italy in 1916 the Austrians have at least 1 million more men and a lot more equipment for the Russian Front come 1916, their only active front, which then saves the Germans some 350,000 casualties rescuing Austria from Brusilov in Summer. At that point a major offensive against Russia in Ukraine or at least a very successful defense was all likely. A major feature in Austrians defeat against Brusilov was that the Eastern Front had been stripped bare to put together forces to attack Italy in 1916.
 
What does Austria gain by continuing the war with France and Britain? Absolutely nothing. In fact, France and Britain could be useful allies against Germany. Please remember that Germany or really Prussia is just as much of a threat as Russia. After all, in 1864 the Prussians had gotten the Austrians to fight the Danes and then attacked them two years later. In 1870, the Prussians defeat the French and annex their smaller German allies

A strong Germany is to be feared and there's nothing to gain by letting Germany grow any stronger

What? What does Austria gain by making peace with those that wanted to break their Empire apart and were allied with a nation (Russia) that coveted big chunks of their territory, either direct or indirectly? Your proposal is, curiously, in order to avoid a potential and distant, future threat, Austria should acquiesce to the immediate and much more dangerous threat that surrounds her.

I'm also curious to know how Germany is much of a threat for Austria as Russia. Austro prussian rivalry was decided once the german question was resolved in 1871. Note that Austria refrained to intervene against Prussia in the franco-prussian war, despite the fresh memories of enimity, because it was unatenable to attack a fellow german state fending off french aggression. Now, you want Austria, already at war against both France and the United Kingdom (a war that Austria wanted to start, after all, and asked for german help) to bail out in order to prevent your stalwart ally that has no dispute against you (contrary to France and UK, that just offered your lands to almost all the surrounding states) to become potentially even more powerful than your actual enemies? Sorry but your reasoning is video game like and unrealistic.
 
Top