Italy gets greedy in 1912

The Italians already had a base at the entrance to the Red Sea - Eritrea - and the British didn't declare war over that. Fact is, Britain can block the Suez and all of a sudden any hostile fleet is stuck in the Red Sea. Not to mention that Ottoman Yemen is mostly undeveloped desert, hardly a threat anyway.
Part of why I sometimes think Yemen would be a good bone to throw to the the Interwar period. Certainly fits with the spoils they got in the form of North African wastes.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Italy took al hasa on the Persian gulf instead of Yemen. It would be a sandbox. I wonder if the Italians could hold it sgainst wahabbi ikhwan. If they can, down the road it could be profitable.
 

Deleted member 94680

What if Italy took al hasa on the Persian gulf instead of Yemen. It would be a sandbox. I wonder if the Italians could hold it sgainst wahabbi ikhwan. If they can, down the road it could be profitable.

Was it Ottoman territory in 1912 and did the Italians express any interest in that area?

Off the top of my head, expansion in the Persian Gulf would be antagonistic to the British, so it’s unlikely.

Unless you believe the British would be no problem, that is.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Was it Ottoman territory in 1912 and did the Italians express any interest in that area?

Off the top of my head, expansion in the Persian Gulf would be antagonistic to the British, so it’s unlikely.

Unless you believe the British would be no problem, that is.

My recollection is it was Ottoman until 1914, although contested off and on by the al-Saud.

I don't believe the British would be a problem. In OTL the British were willing to see the Italians give imperialism a go in Eritrea, Somalia, Abyssinia around the Red Sea, and Libya in the eastern Mediterranean.

I figure an Italian operation and colony in the Persian Gulf is about the same level of provocativeness as them trying to get Yemen. The Brits might indeed be less bothered by an isolated Italian colony in the Persian Gulf than by an Italian presence on both shores of the Red Sea (the Eritrea-Yemen combo). In any case, it just depends how persnickety Britain feels that day, or how much the British press makes an issue of it. Ultimately, the British can feel pretty secure that the Italians are a power ultimately dependent on them and incapable of mounting a challenge, between their dependence on coal and British held chokepoints.
 

BooNZ

Banned
First Boonz, please tune down the passive-aggressive bordeline racist insult that yours comments usually have towards Italy...for me at lest have become a little tiresome.

Some independent assessments of the Italian army on maneuvers, which I provided to you in an earlier thread.

The French attache, Lieutenant-Colonel Messier de St. James, reported after the 1907 maneuvers that the soldiers sometimes allowed their rifles to get so dirty that the mechanism did not work properly...

...
The Italian field artillery practically never fired from defiladed positions during manuvers
...
All observers agreed the Italian cavalry failed to provide proper combat reconnaissance and security, consistently allowing units to colide without warning and causing chaos on the manuver field.
...
The instruction throughout "seemed paralysed in the field" to Messier; "the instruction to the troops appeared to me to be the most neglected sort, and one might even doubt, when watching them maneuver, whether they had received any training whatsoever in open country." PG 101-102

The French attache reflected in 1906 "One is truly entitled to ask whether the military spirit as we know it in France is compatible with this race, leaving aside the Piedmontese whose military atavism is unquestionable. Italian officers have the character of functionaries" PG 104

On the maneuver field, Hammerstein-Equord noted, "The Italian soldier does not exactly give the impression of possessing a particular relish for his job; and discipline, by our military standards, is unquestionably inferior" PG 104

Hammerstein-Equord shared this gloomy view of the Italian army's morale, but was not so sure that developments in foreign policy would leave it time for effective reforms. In one report at the end of 1908, he warned "The Italian army today finds itself in a very precaurious situation" due to the stirring-up of antagonism with its northeastern neighbour: "were Italian policy to force the ultima ratio and were the army to have to fight the Austrians in the foreseeable future, one does not have to be a phophet to predict that..., not only due to its inadequate state of organisation but above all due to its moral decadence, it would be headed for a third Custozza." Few in Europe would have argued with him. PG 105

Italy struggle against A-H was due more to the better defensive position of the Austrian (due to the border) than for the military austrian capacity and in this scenario is Conrad that launch an attack and during this period is the defender that had the advantage; plus while OTL survived Italy, Russia, etc. etc. she had a lot, and i mean a lot, of German help and in this scenario will not happen; worse the Hapsburg army is even less prepared to a general war than OTL

The northeastern border was virtually without modern defense works. When the General staff played out a map exercise in 1904 representing an Austro-Hungarian invasion, the Italians suffered total defeat. Their forces could not deploy in time at their main defensive position before the enemy overran it, even though it was a hundred kilometers inside Italian territory on the Piave river.
...
The military in Italy still languished in the disgrace of its appalling defeat at the battle of Adua in Ethiopiain 1896 - until that time by far the worst loss ever inflicted on a European colonial army by indigenous forces. The rout had signified not only the end of Italian colonial expansion in East Africa, but also a drastic fall in military spending, prestige and morale.

Extracts from: The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War - DG Herrmann
 
There's no way that Germany will give Austria cover. If Austria sends thirty divisions against Italy, Germany would have to cope with France and Russia by herself which is impossible
At what point did the conversation jump from Austro-Italian War over Albania to WWI 2 years early? Neither Russia nor France have defensive agreements with Italy, let alone anything that would prompt them to defend a blatant land grab.

The other option for Austria is to make a deal with Russia- but Russia would demand the straits. Austria won't like that either
Actually the Austrians did secretly agree to diplomatically support Russian occupation of the straits in 1908 in exchange for the annexation of Bosnia. So it seems Austria wasn't too bothered by the idea of the Russian Black Sea Fleet patrolling the Mediterranean.
 
Some independent assessments of the Italian army on maneuvers, which I provided to you in an earlier thread.

Yes, yes, you like using that example very often, almost as you like point how the italian army will be quickly defeated, routed by the K.u.K. plus various jab at italian cowardice, btetrayal etc. etc. Unfortunely reality also know as World War 1 demonstrated things to be a little different isn't? The austrian army is not that precise and uberperfect war machine (the invasion of Serbia and the general performance in Russia are clear example of this) and if not supported by Germany had some big problem in any long term campaign and the italian army is not a pushover that will melt at the first contact with a modern army.

At what point did the conversation jump from Austro-Italian War over Albania to WWI 2 years early? Neither Russia nor France have defensive agreements with Italy, let alone anything that would prompt them to defend a blatant land grab.

Because a serious conflict between two great powers with the surrounding nations starting their own landgrab towards another Powers as an almost certain end result to start a general war.
 
Because a serious conflict between two great powers with the surrounding nations starting their own landgrab towards another Powers as an almost certain end result to start a general war.
Which is why Austria and Germany invaded Russia in 1904 yes? Oh wait no, they didn't, because countries aren't wolves that maul their neighbours the second they smell blood.

Besides this isn't even necessarily a serious conflict, neither power actually borders Albania so whoever wins naval superiority over the Straits of Otranto immediately wins the dispute (probably Austria given that at this time Italy had 0 dreadnought to Austria's 2).
 
Which is why Austria and Germany invaded Russia in 1904 yes? Oh wait no, they didn't, because countries aren't wolves that maul their neighbours the second they smell blood.

The Russo-japanese war was a conflict in far far asia that not involved much of the rest european powers interest; here we are the Italy vs Ottoman war that expanded with A-H launching a military expedition against a nominal ally all while the Balkan league launch their bid over the remaining european territory of the Porte...so you can see that the overall situation is a powderkeg so tense that one need only to look at her for starting an explosion.

Regarding Albania, Conrad plan was to pass through the alps and reach Venice to make know at the italian his displeasure.
 
Yes, yes, you like using that example very often, almost as you like point how the italian army will be quickly defeated, routed by the K.u.K. plus various jab at italian cowardice, btetrayal etc. etc. Unfortunely reality also know as World War 1 demonstrated things to be a little different isn't? The austrian army is not that precise and uberperfect war machine (the invasion of Serbia and the general performance in Russia are clear example of this) and if not supported by Germany had some big problem in any long term campaign and the italian army is not a pushover that will melt at the first contact with a modern army.



Because a serious conflict between two great powers with the surrounding nations starting their own landgrab towards another Powers as an almost certain end result to start a general war.


I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same Italian army that took years to go from mindstaggeringly incompetent to merely rather so?
 
so you can see that the overall situation is a powderkeg so tense that one need only to look at her for starting an explosion.
Which is why the great powers would be trying to break up the fight rather than saying fuck it lighting the fuse with a road flare.

Regarding Albania, Conrad plan was to pass through the alps and reach Venice to make know at the italian his displeasure.
Yes and as history has made very clear Conrad never gets what he wants, the other Great Powers (especially Germany) will be trying to get peace talks underway, so a Tsushima-esque naval engagement is the most that would realistically happen.

also just noticed this
Yes, yes, you like using that example very often, almost as you like point how the italian army will be quickly defeated, routed by the K.u.K. plus various jab at italian cowardice, btetrayal etc. etc. Unfortunely reality also know as World War 1 demonstrated things to be a little different isn't? The austrian army is not that precise and uberperfect war machine (the invasion of Serbia and the general performance in Russia are clear example of this) and if not supported by Germany had some big problem in any long term campaign and the italian army is not a pushover that will melt at the first contact with a modern army.
Potiorek went against War Plan R and launched the invasion of Serbia with a force that Conrad considered to only be suitable for defensive operations (and in the process actually deprived the Galician Front of an entire field army). It's a bit unfair to use a defensive army group's failure to accomplish a major offensive as proof that the entire military was impotent. I'm not going to defend Austria's performance in Galicia, but I will say that Conrad probably would have done better if Potiorek didn't steal a field army away from him, and if the Germans had been a bit more communicative durring the mobilization phase.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same Italian army that took years to go from mindstaggeringly incompetent to merely rather so?

No, the italian army that had fought for years in one of the most horrible and difficult terrain for any attacker that existed in Europe under one of the harshest discipline possible and with minimal support from his allies.

Which is why the great powers would be trying to break up the fight rather than saying fuck it lighting the fuse with a road flare.

Maybe yes, maybe not; looking at the various series of war scare it was only a matter of time before a general war erupted and this situation had become a little too widespread to keep easily contained.

Yes and as history has made very clear Conrad never gets what he wants, the other Great Powers (especially Germany) will be trying to get peace talks underway, so a Tsushima-esque naval engagement is the most that would realistically happen.
.

A-H had given Italy an ultimatum that she as not respected...this mean that old Conrad had much more leverage for a short victorious war than OTL and any Tsushima-esque naval engagement will be averted, the shallow water of the Adriatic are not the best place for this kind of engagement.

The German being more communicative will have not changed a lot; the war demonstrated that Conrad is not a good listener. I never said that was impotent, just that was not the well oil murder machine that Boonz make of it, it was underfunded and ill managed, plus more suited for short time operation than for longer war with big loss and OTL needed a lot of German help to continue to be operative.
Potiorek action will be against War Plan R but clearly demonstrate an almost criminal understimation of the enemy (or overstimation of your own) and with the general opinion that Conrad (and much of the A-H) enstablishment had of the italians in general...the recipe for a disaster are all in position.
 

Deleted member 94680

I still fail to see how Italy being greedy (“having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power”) turns her into a superpower, able to defeat Austria at a whim and turn other Great Powers to her side so easily.

As to the War with Austria; are we saying that Italy deploys troops to Albania whilst still finishing the war with the Ottomans? Is there a respite between the two? The Austrians will be marching from their home territory, will the better units of the Italian Army be spread all across the newly acquired lands?
 

BooNZ

Banned
Yes, yes, you like using that example very often, almost as you like point how the italian army will be quickly defeated, routed by the K.u.K. plus various jab at italian cowardice, btetrayal etc. etc. Unfortunely reality also know as World War 1 demonstrated things to be a little different isn't? The austrian army is not that precise and uberperfect war machine (the invasion of Serbia and the general performance in Russia are clear example of this) and if not supported by Germany had some big problem in any long term campaign and the italian army is not a pushover that will melt at the first contact with a modern army.
I never said the army needed to be modern...
 
I never said the army needed to be modern...

Sorry, i thought you wanted a real and adult discussion instead of throwing insult like a child...my fault for overstimate you, again sorry.

I still fail to see how Italy being greedy (“having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power”) turns her into a superpower, able to defeat Austria at a whim and turn other Great Powers to her side so easily.

As to the War with Austria; are we saying that Italy deploys troops to Albania whilst still finishing the war with the Ottomans? Is there a respite between the two? The Austrians will be marching from their home territory, will the better units of the Italian Army be spread all across the newly acquired lands?

I never said that Italy was a superpower but here we are talking about three wars happening more or less at the same time (A-H vs Italy; Italy vs the Ottoman; Balkan League vs Ottoman) and two of the nations involved are Great Powers (A-H and Italy), this mean that the overall situation is a dangerous mess that had come after a series of warscare (the last just some months before) and this will throw the entire continent in chaos; maybe there will be some attempt at mediation but it will be extremely easy (and much more probable) that something will go wrong and a general war will start.

Regarding Italy being short of troops to face the A-H expedition...in the war in Libya the invasion force was of 30.000 troops, numerous but not remotely crippling and any austrian mobilization (or movement of troops at the border) will start an italian one.
 
Top