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

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.


Step back for a minute. Austria entered its alliance with Germany to get help against Russia. Russia has no been defeatedd and is no longer a threat. The whole basis for the german alliance is gone

Yes, you are a t war with France and Britain but what on Earth does Austria gain by having France and Britain destroyed? What do France and Britain want from Austria? Nothing

Sure they offered your lands to everyone but they've all been beaten If that's your only quarrel with Britain and France, then epace is now achievable. So you offered Bosnia to Serbia? So what I get Belgrade. Do the british and French care if the Serbs have Belgrade? not really They are only concerned with checking Germany getting her out of Belgium and France. Now does Austria have an objection to that? No

Austria nd Britain were loe friends, allies in all but nam from the Crimea to the entente. There is nothing to prevent reconciliation

The countiries in the various coalitions all have their own interests- Britain wouldn't mind Russia being beaten as long as France is still strong for example

This is why European wars almost always end in seperatte peaces- the allies aren't interested in their partners winning too much

That Karl even made the feelers (unrealistic as they were) is asign that he had thoughts along these lines. With Italy neutral, the Austrians are much much stronger They would be strong enough to negotiate from srength.

What your asking the AUstrians to do is send millions of their men to fight in France for nothing
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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 ? ).

Yes, you can write that ATL. You can also write one where nothing is given up. Italy joined the war after Pemberg fell on March 22, 1915. It looked like the Austrians were about to collapse. Italy joined on Arpil 26. First shots fired May 24. Gorlic Tarnow started on May 2. Any POD that saves Pemberg or delays Italy entering the war by more than a couple of weeks likely means Italy never finds a favorable time to join, and the Central Powers win the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

Step back for a minute. Austria entered its alliance with Germany to get help against Russia. Russia has no been defeatedd and is no longer a threat. The whole basis for the german alliance is gone
That....is not how alliance work. It wasn't simply aimed against Russia, it is part of an international order, there were major economic ties between the two countries, and major German investment in Austrian industry. Plus A-H had at least 4 division on the Western Front in 1918 and earlier. They were committed to total victory; the only reason Karl wanted to make a separate peace because he realized the A-H was collapsing due to the privations of war and thought the war was lost already; if the war was being won he was in it to win it, because the privations would be relatively minor compared to OTL situation and being on the winning side had major benefits. There is a reason Kerensky tried to stick out the war he thought was going to be won to the destruction of his regime.
 
Step back for a minute. Austria entered its alliance with Germany to get help against Russia. Russia has no been defeatedd and is no longer a threat. The whole basis for the german alliance is gone

Yes, you are a t war with France and Britain but what on Earth does Austria gain by having France and Britain destroyed? What do France and Britain want from Austria? Nothing

They want Austria to be either dismembered or severely reduced in size in order to satisfy their main partner, Russia, and other smaller states that the Entente courted to their side OTL. So, your consideration that France and United Kingdom don't want anything from Austria isn't correct.

Sure they offered your lands to everyone but they've all been beaten If that's your only quarrel with Britain and France, then epace is now achievable. So you offered Bosnia to Serbia? So what I get Belgrade. Do the british and French care if the Serbs have Belgrade? not really They are only concerned with checking Germany getting her out of Belgium and France. Now does Austria have an objection to that? No

Helping your enemies to "check" your main ally - an ally that is the reason for your country to exist right now - looks like an irrational policy.

Austria nd Britain were loe friends, allies in all but nam from the Crimea to the entente. There is nothing to prevent reconciliation

There's actually the largest conflict in history of manking where Britain sided your enemies and offered your Empire to her allies as spoils.

The countiries in the various coalitions all have their own interests- Britain wouldn't mind Russia being beaten as long as France is still strong for example

It is of Austria interest to see that her main enemy and it's allies, which actually presented an existential threat to her Empire, either defeated or severely reduced in power. It's not of Austria interest to see her only reliable ally, the one which just saved them, defeated and severely reduced in power.

This is why European wars almost always end in seperatte peaces- the allies aren't interested in their partners winning too much

This is wrong. Both Britain and France accepted things like russian control of the straits - something they fought a war just to prevent the possibility of that happening 70 years ago . France wouldn't move a finger if Russia decided to annex half of Europe as long as she take her lands back from Germany. A point to note is that Versailles was also influenced by the american presence and general war fatigue. Without it, Versailles could've been much more an imperial conference on the Entente favour.

That Karl even made the feelers (unrealistic as they were) is asign that he had thoughts along these lines. With Italy neutral, the Austrians are much much stronger They would be strong enough to negotiate from srength.

Feelers that were sabotaged by state officials because they, contrary to the Kaiser, knew the reality of their situation.

What your asking the AUstrians to do is send millions of their men to fight in France for nothing

I'm asking them to do the obvious and send millions of men to help their main ally that actually did the heavy lifting against Austria's most dangerous enemy - an enemy that'd actually defeat Austria quite badly, if not for this same ally. So, a fair demand on my part, I'd say.
 
I'll not comment on the many details presented here. All above my weight class.

Will venture that the probable results lead to more large scale European warfare within a couple decades.
 
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
This thread is about Italy staying on the side of the Central Powers when war begins, which is what they originally were on the side of. It was later through British and French bribery of lands in Africa expanding Libya that the Italians joined the Entente. Italy would be on the side of the Central Powers from the beginning and BEFORE the Ottomans. You may want to research the timeline better and understand the Italians were allied to A-H and Germany.
 
No it's about Italy remaining neutral, not joining with the Central Powers as they were treaty bound but balked at, and not joining the Entente either. They are in effect using both sides against each other to get the most out of them without the risk and expense of entering the war.
 
This thread is about Italy staying on the side of the Central Powers when war begins, which is what they originally were on the side of. It was later through British and French bribery of lands in Africa expanding Libya that the Italians joined the Entente. Italy would be on the side of the Central Powers from the beginning and BEFORE the Ottomans. You may want to research the timeline better and understand the Italians were allied to A-H and Germany.
I know Italy was allied to Germany and A-H before WWI. Admittedly that Alliance did not require them to join an offensive war, but not being part of it does not preclude them from being neutral

The thread title is Italy remains neutral in WWI. Nowhere is the Central Powers or Triple Alliance mentioned in the OP. Italy staying neutral does not require them being part of the Triple Alliance (1882)[1]

[1]One must distinguish it from the other Triple alliances
 

NoMommsen

Donor
I know Italy was allied to Germany and A-H before WWI. Admittedly that Alliance did not require them to join an offensive war, but not being part of it does not preclude them from being neutral

The thread title is Italy remains neutral in WWI. Nowhere is the Central Powers or Triple Alliance mentioned in the OP. Italy staying neutral does not require them being part of the Triple Alliance (1882)[1]

[1]One must distinguish it from the other Triple alliances
I assume you meant :
"..., but not being part or being part ..."

However, Italy started to complain in Vienna about the A-H vs. Serbia war almost immediatly after the DoW against Serbia. ... and not because it was a "war of aggreesion" instead of defence, as - officially - was the reason of the alliance.
It was because
  1. Italy hadn't (properly) be informed (asked) before the DoW and more important
  2. Italy hadn't been offered a proper "compensation" before
The alliance had a secret clause, that in case A-H "moves" on the Balkan in terms of widening its sphere of influence, Italy had to be "offered" a compensation due to its relative "loss of weight" against the relative "gain of weight" of A-H in such a case.
And Vienna didn't do that, they "forgot" to bribe Italy "properly" beforehand. Therefore the italians refused to support A-H. The "official" reason about aggression and/or defence was just for the press (IIRC they "informed" Berlin and Vienna via diplomatic channels already on 1st and 2nd August before declaring their neutrality officially on the 3rd August).

Some days later Berlin as well as Vienna "acknowledge" Italys claim for a compensation and the bargaining started (though without a "result" until A-H's situation became worse and the offers of the Entente bigger).
 
Top