Deleted member 94680
Agreed, but how does this relate to the thread?
Posters talking about the Italians closing the Suez. That’s as good as a DoW to the British. I was pointing out how unlikely this would be, owing to the position Italy was in.
Agreed, but how does this relate to the thread?
Interesting. I also understood there was a recommendation by the War Office in late 1916 to extend conscription to age 55. With reference to the content you provided, the austerity resulting from a lack of finance would not only restrict efforts to provide/purchase/produce mechanical assets (e.g. tanks and aircraft), but British manpower would also need to be further diverted from the front lines to either generate foreign exchange and/ or facilitate the production of materials no longer able to be imported.In regards to the issue of manpower. I'll repost my content from a previous thread on the topic of British Empire manpower during the war:
Thanks, I would agree and tend to think a neutral Italy would have been the sweet spot for the CP powers - and Italy.Posters talking about the Italians closing the Suez. That’s as good as a DoW to the British. I was pointing out how unlikely this would be, owing to the position Italy was in.
I agree, it's not ASB (for a while) but it's utterly suicidal.Posters talking about the Italians closing the Suez. That’s as good as a DoW to the British. I was pointing out how unlikely this would be, owing to the position Italy was in.
The Entente shipping losses leading into (i.e. the months before) the unrestricted U-boat campaign were already unsustainable - if the implementation of the convoy system is delayed several months (probable without US resources, naval assets, co-ordination and advocacy) the Entente tanker shortage likely extends to all shipping.One difference making factor here is whether the Germans are doing unrestricted U-Boat warfare.
The above may be academic, since in this scenario the Entente (down to only Britain and France) would lack the funds and/or access to credit, to spend their way to victory.
By the way, somebody mentioned it upthread I think, there was an Entente contingency plan to invade Dalmatia? Really? And was it, or was it not predicated on Italian participation on the Entente's side?
Curiously, I was looking through the following website as you posted to quantify the same...The Entente don't have to finance Italy or use resources against the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, so funds are greater ITTL
Curiously, I was looking through the following website as you posted to quantify the same...
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_italy
I understand the British accumulated debt of over six billion pound during the war, so a modest 50m loan to Italy would be silver well spent.basically there is no 50 million pound loan done by the UK or btw no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_theatre_of_World_War_I i say a nice gain for the Entente
I understand the British accumulated debt of over six billion pound during the war, so a modest 50m loan to Italy would be silver well spent.
We can scarcely burden the Italians with the blame for British fiscal malfeasance - at best, the British liquidity crisis hits a few months later than OTL without the need to prop up the Italian war economy.the 50m were spent by early 16, there were more lot more
We can scarcely burden the Italians with the blame for British fiscal malfeasance - at best, the British liquidity crisis hits a few months later than OTL without the need to prop up the Italian war economy.
Add to that the Gallipoli misadventure plus the Macedonian POW camp / front.And without the need of the entire ME front, better remember that
How bad do you think my memory is?And without the need of the entire ME front, better remember that
So the balance here seems to be:
For the Central Powers:
No Italy in the war frees up dozens of Habsburg divisions to be used against Serbia and Russia. Possibly no US war loans to the Allies (depending on how strict we are with neutrality). No Portugal/Greece/Romania are nice bonuses.
For the Entente:
In the first instance, it is still possible a neutral Ottomans empire might fetter traffic through the Dardenelles, but assuming this is not the case...Ottomans keeping the Straits open significantly benefits both Russia's domestic economy and the West's ability to supply it. ANZACs can be sent to the Western Front, though some would help mop up Africa.
IMO this all hinges on Russia; how much does Black Sea trade end up benefiting their war effort?