Italy honors triple alliance in 1914

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if Italy joins the war on the Central Powers side during the July crisis? Promises of French territory and colonies overpower their desire for Austrian territory, which grants its Italian subjects greater privileges to appease the Italian nation.

What happens next? I doubt the Italians would get transported to Germany to hold the left wing, as suggested by Schlieffen, rather they would probably be used in Nice and Savoy as intended by their general staff. But would this make a difference in August 1914? Sure the French would be forced to leave their troops in the area that were used elsewhere, but the Germans will still have the fundamental weakness in their logistics which ultimately caused their invasion to fail. I don't know if the French military would give up so easy despite the heavy odds. What does the AH community think?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Not really, Italy would only honour the Triple Alliance if Austria would agree to border revisions.

True, promises of autonomy for Italian subjects of Vienna shall not be enough.

What is required for Italy to join in 1914 is Germany acting quickly and putting overwhelming pressure on Austria to cede at least some of its Italian claims to Rome. Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca, in addition to recognition of all Italian claims on French territory and colonies, shall do the trick.

Alternatively, a different sequence of WWI onset which would bind Italy to the defensive Triple Alliance more strongly. I.e. Germany does not adopt the Schliffen Plan, (and so does not need to beat France and Russia to the gun), Russia declares war to A-U first, Germany declares war to Russia in response, France declares war to Germany, Italy declares war to France.

I doubt the Italians would get transported to Germany to hold the left wing, as suggested by Schlieffen, rather they would probably be used in Nice and Savoy as intended by their general staff.

They can easily do both, since even after deploying their fully mobilized potential alongside the Alps French front (which was rather shorter and less well fortified than the OTL Austrian one), they are going to have a significant surplus, and the Triple Alliance protocols to send troops on the Alsace-Lorraine front have been standing for a long while. It's just optimal use of the CP resources, and Italy wants the defeat of France as much as Germany at this point.

However, other areas where they are going to need some troops is to defend their mainland and Sicily (Sardinia is undefensible in such a war, but losing it for the duration fo the war is not a great loss) from Anglo-French landings, sending an expeditionary corps from Albania to backstab Serbia (which ensures its total defeat when Bulgaria joins the CP, the Serbian army is completely encircled and surrenders, Greece shall stay fully neutral, so no Salonicco front). They may try and defend the colonies, but in all likelihood, they shall face problems as big as the Germans (OTOH, if they can get their act together with the Ottomans, Egypt amy be caught in a vise).

The combination of Italian, Austrian, and Ottoman navies may make the Mediterranean contested with the Anglo-French.

But would this make a difference in August 1914? Sure the French would be forced to leave their troops in the area that were used elsewhere, but the Germans will still have the fundamental weakness in their logistics which ultimately caused their invasion to fail. I don't know if the French military would give up so easy despite the heavy odds.

Well, the French just got their front enlarged by one-third. And the Battle of the Marna was a close affair. The Italo-Germans shall sure face many logistical problems, but CP Italy from the start makes it a rather more uphill struggle for survival in 1914.

However, in the long term, barring outstanding Entente military performance or abysmally bad CP one, a CP Italy dooms the Entente. The Anglo-French are facing an horribly overextended Western front and the French a increasingly crippling manpower gap, Austria is free to throw all its potential against Russia, Serbia shall go down very quickly, Greece shall be a true neutral, CP navies can contest the Mediterranean, so the RN shall have to divert resources here, weaking itself in the North Sea, or France shall have severe problems getting manpower from the colonies.

In all likelihood, CP Italy means a Russian collapse in 1915-1916, Germany sees victory in sight and is less exhausted, so uses no unrestricted submarine warfare, the USA stay neutral, and combined Italo-German-Austrian manpower overwhelms overstretched France in 1916-1917, Britain and Japan sue for a compromise peace after the collapse of France.
 
I'm not so sure about Eurofed's arguments - the Central Powers were kinda anxious to appease the USA when Wilson asked them about war aims in OTL. Italy's presence in WW1 could (and I use that loosely) tip public opinion into the court of the Entente, making them think the Central Powers were all about territory grabbing. Unlikely, but not impossible, the USA enter the war trying to help restore the balance of power in Europe rather than wait for 1917.

Besides which, the French and British navies would have been able to make mincemeat of the Italian Navy in 1915 and could have bombed the crap out of most Italian coastal cities. Sod the Gallipoli campaign, a "Roman" campaign would have been easier to undertake. Sicily first, restoring the Kingdom of Sicily and then fracture the fledgling Kingdom of Italy.
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
Alternatively, a different sequence of WWI onset which would bind Italy to the defensive Triple Alliance more strongly. I.e. Germany does not adopt the Schliffen Plan, (and so does not need to beat France and Russia to the gun), Russia declares war to A-U first, Germany declares war to Russia in response, France declares war to Germany, Italy declares war to France.

Could imagine that would be enough. Always wandered what would happen if the Russians Jump the gun and start Mobiziling faster ( or at an earlier date) than the Germans expected or atleast the perceptiion of that in Berlin.

That is unlikely unless you have a over estmation and a PoD making Germany think Russia will be mobilizing faster, And not going to be able to knock out France before massive Russian invasion.

Go on the Defencive in the west and despite it not being the main plan it does excist as a plan.

Flow on effects Italy delclares war before they realise the British will be joining in. After slowed declaration due to Belguims boarders not being crossed.



They can easily do both, since even after deploying their fully mobilized potential alongside the Alps French front (which was rather shorter and less well fortified than the OTL Austrian one), they are going to have a significant surplus, and the Triple Alliance protocols to send troops on the Alsace-Lorraine front have been standing for a long while. It's just optimal use of the CP resources, and Italy wants the defeat of France as much as Germany at this point.

However, other areas where they are going to need some troops is to defend their mainland and Sicily (Sardinia is undefensible in such a war, but losing it for the duration fo the war is not a great loss) from Anglo-French landings, sending an expeditionary corps from Albania to backstab Serbia (which ensures its total defeat when Bulgaria joins the CP, the Serbian army is completely encircled and surrenders, Greece shall stay fully neutral, so no Salonicco front). They may try and defend the colonies, but in all likelihood, they shall face problems as big as the Germans (OTOH, if they can get their act together with the Ottomans, Egypt amy be caught in a vise).

A knock out Blow to Serbia earlier is rather likely and a chance to get a Rail link to The Ottomans.

Can imagine an attempt of a Gallipoli like operation on the Italians instead, biig winners here are the Ottomans and a race to see if they can close the Cannel.

More likely thought it is the Itallians getting in a Vice between Egypt and Tunsia in Libya

The combination of Italian, Austrian, and Ottoman navies may make the Mediterranean contested with the Anglo-French.

Do not forget the French Navy having to come out and fight,

Yes might have to spread the British navy too thin.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Italy's presence in WW1 could (and I use that loosely) tip public opinion into the court of the Entente, making them think the Central Powers were all about territory grabbing.

German-Americans and Italian-Americans are both lobbying for the CPs, and they are the biggest European immigrant communities in the USA.

Unlikely, but not impossible, the USA enter the war trying to help restore the balance of power in Europe rather than wait for 1917.

Wholly, utterly ASB. The isolationist 1914 American people don't give a rat's fart about the balance of power in Europe. If Wilson asks a declaration fo war on this justification he would be laughed out of Congress. Welcome to a sure electoral defeat.

Besides which, the French and British navies would have been able to make mincemeat of the Italian Navy in 1915 and could have bombed the crap out of most Italian coastal cities. Sod the Gallipoli campaign, a "Roman" campaign would have been easier to undertake. Sicily first, restoring the Kingdom of Sicily and then fracture the fledgling Kingdom of Italy.

Britain is also busy containing the HSF and can't spare all that much for the Mediterranean, and the RM, which was no lightweight, shall be supported by the Austrians and the Ottomans. Rather than bombing any coastal cities, the Entente navies shall be busy keeping their own lifelines open and secure. An attempt to land in Sicily or mainland Italy shall be a remake of Gallipoli.

Restoring the Bourbons ? Fracturing Italy ? Oh, God, can we have just one WW thread without ridiculous Britwank claims of late ? Why not the CPs landing in Scotland and restoring the Stuart, then ?
 
An attempt to land in Sicily or mainland Italy shall be a remake of Gallipoli.

Why? The Dardanelles could easily be closed by laying mines - closing the entire Italian peninsula? Bit more difficult. Besides which, the Gallipoli campaign was doomed because there were only a couple of good landing zones whereas Italy has more to offer on both sides of the Adriatic and it'd be easier to resupply any army. Libya would quickly be an Anglo-French target and would fall in short order before the Entente hit Italy.

Of course with Italy overtly joining the CP, I don't see any reason why the Entente nations can't make more obvious/desperate overtured to Spain. If Portugal could join and contribue their navy, why can't the Spanish? Say, in exchange for Libya?
 

Typo

Banned
German-Americans and Italian-Americans are both lobbying for the CPs, and they are the biggest European immigrant communities in the USA.
Not significantly, and only among the least assimilated immigrants (which isn't all that big). They were, in fact, not even the most important opposition to the war. And seen as too "unamerican".
 

Deleted member 1487

Why? The Dardanelles could easily be closed by laying mines - closing the entire Italian peninsula? Bit more difficult. Besides which, the Gallipoli campaign was doomed because there were only a couple of good landing zones whereas Italy has more to offer on both sides of the Adriatic and it'd be easier to resupply any army. Libya would quickly be an Anglo-French target and would fall in short order before the Entente hit Italy.

Of course with Italy overtly joining the CP, I don't see any reason why the Entente nations can't make more obvious/desperate overtured to Spain. If Portugal could join and contribue their navy, why can't the Spanish? Say, in exchange for Libya?


If anything Spain would be more inclined to join the CPs in this scenario, as France looks that much weaker and easier pickings. Not to mention Gibraltar and the fact that the only powers which Spain would want to gain from are Entente nations...

Also, why does everyone think that landings in Italy are even going to be considered? France is harder pressed than historically, Austria-Hungary weaker, and more nations thinking about jumping on the bandwagon to gain off of the Entente. The Entente will need to be focused on the ground war in France. OTL Gallipoli was done with a lot of help from the French, who won't be able to spare the troops and will be begging more from the British. Not only that, but the Serbs will be taken out earlier and totally with Italian help, which means that they won't be around as manpower for the strapped Entente nations.

Also, as another poster mentioned, the CP cause in the states has the first, second, and third largest ethnic communities lobbying for it (Germans, Irish, and Italians in that order). This means that Wilson might be even harder pressed to allow the blockade and trade with the Entente.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Why? The Dardanelles could easily be closed by laying mines - closing the entire Italian peninsula? Bit more difficult. Besides which, the Gallipoli campaign was doomed because there were only a couple of good landing zones whereas Italy has more to offer on both sides of the Adriatic and it'd be easier to resupply any army. Libya would quickly be an Anglo-French target and would fall in short order before the Entente hit Italy.

Italy is narrow and all the really good landing places that would allow to advance quickly in the interior can also be easily reached by railroad, allowing quick concentration of Italian troops to trap the landing into a deadly vice. Whileas the landing points with too bad logistics for a quick counterattack have it also too bad for allowing expansion in the mainland in any significant strategic sense. All the Allied landings in Italy in 1943-44 came very close to failure and the attackers had much more technological advantages than in 1914.

Yeah, they may easily lose Libya. Same as german colonies in Africa. This won't give the Entente any real significant advantage, although, apart from easing pressure on Egypt.

Of course with Italy overtly joining the CP, I don't see any reason why the Entente nations can't make more obvious/desperate overtured to Spain. If Portugal could join and contribue their navy, why can't the Spanish? Say, in exchange for Libya?

Maybe, but Spain is still very shell-shocked, war-weary, and politically instable from 1898, and doesn't give a damn about the war goals of the Entente. They may try, but it shall be a very hard sell (Libya won't suffice, try adding Kamerun). Spain is one the toughest WWI neutral powers to push to entry for either side.
 
With Britain's navy so thinly spread out, having to cover both the Mediterranian and counter the High Seas Fleet, don't forget ever oppurtunistic Japan may see this as a perfect chance to jump on Britain's holdings in the Far East.
 

Eurofed

Banned
If anything Spain would be more inclined to join the CPs in this scenario, as France looks that much weaker and easier pickings. Not to mention Gibraltar and the fact that the only powers which Spain would want to gain from are Entente nations...

Also, why does everyone think that landings in Italy are even going to be considered? France is harder pressed than historically, Austria-Hungary weaker, and more nations thinking about jumping on the bandwagon to gain off of the Entente. The Entente will need to be focused on the ground war in France. OTL Gallipoli was done with a lot of help from the French, who won't be able to spare the troops and will be begging more from the British. Not only that, but the Serbs will be taken out earlier and totally with Italian help, which means that they won't be around as manpower for the strapped Entente nations.

Also, as another poster mentioned, the CP cause in the states has the first, second, and third largest ethnic communities lobbying for it (Germans, Irish, and Italians in that order). This means that Wilson might be even harder pressed to allow the blockade and trade with the Entente.

All very true. In this situation, besides the OTL lineup, you may easily get Sweden and Romania deeming the Entente the weakeast side and looking at Finland and Bessarabia with greedy eyes...

With Britain's navy so thinly spread out, having to cover both the Mediterranian and counter the High Seas Fleet, don't forget ever oppurtunistic Japan may see this as a perfect chance to jump on Britain's holdings in the Far East.

And the Russian Far East. They didn't got all what they wanted in 1905, with the Russians busy in the West, it may look as the perfect opportunity for a rematch.

Not significantly, and only among the least assimilated immigrants (which isn't all that big). They were, in fact, not even the most important opposition to the war. And seen as too "unamerican".

As another posted said, you have the three biggest ethnic communities in the USA (Germans, Irish, and Italians) all lobbying for the CPs. The political impact is substantial, especially in the Northeast and Midwest, and Wilson has to tread carefully.

Moreover, with the CPs feeling more confident of victory, Germany is not going to use unrestricted submarine warfare, which means the American public shall not have any real reason of hostility to the CPs. And with Italy, an even bigger chunk of European trade is now unfairly blocked by Anglo-French blockade, which is no little reason of hostility to the Entente (America has fought wars over such issues with France or Britain twice already, 1798 and 1812).
 
Last edited:
I think this would give the Central Powers a fighting chance in the Mediterranean. If AH or Italy was bold enough in the beginning, they could pull of a raid on Gibraltar or on the Suez Canal. There is no way in hell that the Central Powers could take the two, but raids would make the UK more likely to stand on the defensive. At least for the first year of the war. The best thing the Italians could do, would be declare war and then sit on the defensive against France. The Italians had very little modern artillery, a small number of machine guns, and almost no ammunition reserves. If they tried to cross the border into France, it would be a bloodbath. Better to sit in the Alps, and let the French come to them. The real question here though, is after Italy declares war, what do the Greeks do. If there is a real naval conflict going on(with no dominant power), Greece might decide to stay neutral. If there is no Balkan front and no Italian front, AH does a lot better against the Russians.
 
The Italian and AH fleets combined wouldn't be a match for half the fleet that the RN put together for the Gallipoli campaign, a force sent without leaving the British vulnerable to the German High Seas Fleet.

Not to mention that Italian colonies and interests in the Balkans mean the Entente has some serious bargaining chips with Greece and the Ottoman Empire, the former likely to enter the war sooner and the latter possibly joining the Entente instead of the Central Powers.

Even if we assume the Italian and AH fleets work together, meaning that AH puts her fleet in line for destruction to help the very country the fleet was aimed against, Italy's near total dependency on sea travel due to lack of rail transport for just about everything in the area south of Rome, and Sicily and Sardinia, means that the only question is whether the economy for half the country is in ruins with or without the Italian fleet going down as well. So sitting on the defensive all but ensures disaster for Italy and a constitutional monarchy may not be able to hold up under those conditions.

Most likely a British squadron centered on a half dozen dreadnaughts begins smashing the Italian coast, forcing the Italian navy to accept a disastrous battle or face the possible collapse of the government.


Paul, there isn't the slightest chance of Germany changing the plan because Italy doesn't abandon the CP. If anything Berlin now feels more justified in trying to knock France out first.
 

Deleted member 1487

On the Eastern front a major difference will be had. The AH empire will be able to focus their entire strength against the Russians, which makes their efforts their much more likely to succeed. Though still under the control of Conrad the AH army will be able to focus their meager artillery and crack divisions instead of dispersing efforts.
 
Just to provide some stats...

When WWI began Austria-Hungary had two dreadnaughts in service, a third just entering service and nine pre-dreadnaughts of various classes.

Italy had six dreadnaughts in service or just entering service and as many as ten pre-dreadnaught and outright antiques including at least one dating from the 1870s(!).

The Ottoman Empire had nothing resembling a dreadnaught in service with the exception of the German battlecruiser Goeben/Sultan Selim.

For the record Japan had NO dreadnaughts, one battlecruiser and a second just commissioned in August 1914, and eleven pre-dreadnaughts including five Russian ships captured a decade previously.




Given the disparity of forces the odds of Japan turning on the British, which meant effectively surrendering the Japanese colonial empire, was extremely low. Far more likely would be Japan being offered another colony or two in return for a few divisions in Europe.
 

Typo

Banned
As another posted said, you have the three biggest ethnic communities in the USA (Germans, Irish, and Italians) all lobbying for the CPs. The political impact is substantial, especially in the Northeast and Midwest, and Wilson has to tread carefully.
No, you don't, you just completely ignored what I wrote. I also think your belief seems to indicate a poor understanding of American ethnic relations in general and, politics with regards to its ethnic immigration population and assimilation in particular.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
No, you don't, you just completely ignored what I wrote. I also think your belief seems to indicate a poor understanding of American ethnic relations in general and, politics with regards to its ethnic immigration population and assimilation in particular.

I'm perfectly aware of what you talk about, thank you. I am also well aware that complete loyalty of ethnic groups to America does not stop them from exercising their political rights to lobby for causes they feel strongly about, among them typically including American policies toward the country of their kinsmen. Need I to quote the Jewish-American lobby, or the Cuban-American lobby ? So please cut the patronizing attitude. Lobbying against American partecipation in a war that America has no stake in is no sign of disloyalty, and shall vibe well with the isolationist sentiments widespread amongst the WASP population.
 
I'm perfectly aware of what you talk about, thank you. I am also well aware that complete loyalty of ethnic groups to America does not stop them from exercising their political rights to lobby for causes they feel strongly about, among them typically including American policies toward the country of their kinsmen. Need I to quote the Jewish-American lobby, or the Cuban-American lobby ? So please cut the patronizing attitude. Lobbying against American partecipation in a war that America has no stake in is no sign of disloyalty, and shall vibe well with the isolationist sentiments widespread amongst the WASP population.

Using Cold War examples to make 1914 points is silly, sorry.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Using Cold War examples to make 1914 points is silly, sorry.

If you wish.. but there are certainly pre-1914 precedents of ethnic groups in America organizing for activism in favor of their ancestral homeland. Re: Fenian Brotherhood and Clan Na Gael. Noticeably, their activism was against Britain.
 
Top