Italy honors triple alliance in 1914

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Eurofed

Banned
Italy is likely to be the "bread basket of the CP", but that's not saying much compared to what larger nations can offer. Food is going to be the CP's real difficulty ITTL. A lot of rural peasants are going to go very hungry on the peninsula.

True, but food is not going to be worse of a problem for CP Italy than it was for Germany and A-H OTL, since as you say, Italy was closer to self-sufficency. It would be a serious problem if the war stretches all the way to 1918, but I very much doubt it shall last that long.

Note that Italy will be draining iron and coal resources from the CP since they have few to none of their own. How does this affect the G/AH war machine?

I would assume that Germany would have iron and coal to spare to feed the Italian war machine. Anyway, a properly refurbished Italy is an asset to Germany and AH much bigger than the need to cut something elsewhere.

The CP in the end needs a relatively quick victory, which is possible, but not guaranteed. AH with Italy can hold and push back Russia (Serbia is hosed) and Germany with Italy does better vs. France, but in a defensive war environment as *WWI is, they're fighting the clock before the blockade really starts to make things ugly.

All true, but it is by far most likely that one of France or Russia would be overwhelmed within 1916, and the other within 1917, before the blockade would bring the CPs to their knees. The opposite is quite possible, but its would require remarkably good Entente generalship or very crappy CP one, or the CPs doing something really stupid and unprobable to bring America or Turkey in the Entente.

Could still go either way, IMO, though the CP possibly has a better chance than OTL.

A much better chance, without major butterflies to the contrary.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Id say the Zone A border is as far as the Italians can go without declaring war. Trieste is just too important.

I agree, but I think that may easily claim all the inland rest of Slovenian Littoral, north of Trieste:

SlovenianLittoralLocationMap.png


Since Gorizia, too, had significant value for Italian irredentism, besides Trento and Trieste, as did Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia, I am convinced that Trento, Gorizia-Gradisca, and a guarantee to get Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisa, Djibouti, and some other French colony would have won Italy to the CP side. After all, it is always easier to stay true to your current allies, and Italy had stayed in the Triple Alliance for a long time. They just wanted proper compensation for Austrian gains in the Balkans since the annexation of Bosnia, as they were entitled to under the terms of the treaty.
 
Last edited:


Id say the Zone A border is as far as the Italians can go without declaring war. Trieste is just too important.

I'd agree. Trieste is THE port for AH and their principle lifeline to the ocean. Fiume isn't going to cut it, hence why the best I could see is some "open city" arrangement or the (perhaps empty) promise of a post-war plebiscite.
 
I agree, but I think that may easily claim all the inland rest of Slovenian Littoral:

The problem with them taking the rest of the Slovenia Littorial is that it is almost a precedent when talking about Istria. And the Austrians giving Istria is frankly pushing it a bit.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The problem with them taking the rest of the Slovenia Littorial is that it is almost a precedent when talking about Istria. And the Austrians giving Istria is frankly pushing it a bit.

True about Istria, but Primorska is not that strong of a precedent, since Italy would still lack territorial continuity with Istria due to Austrian Trieste. And remember, to pull Italy to their side, the CPs have to concede a significant part of Italian irredentist claims on Austria, but the honey to woo Italy does not need to come entirely from that source. Italy has plenty of stuff it wants from France, too. They can make a compromise about Trento and Gorizia, then be generous with promses of French stuff. After all, the stuff that the Entente wooed Italy with IOTL was entirely promises about Austrian stuff, they gave nothing of their own. I think you exaggerate the value that Vienna would give to keeping Gorizia.
 
True about Istria, but Primorska is not that strong of a precedent, since Italy would still lack territorial continuity with Istria due to Austrian Trieste. And remember, to pull Italy to their side, the CPs have to concede a significant part of Italian irredentist claims on Austria, but the honey to woo Italy does not need to come entirely from that source. Italy has plenty of stuff it wants from France, too. They can make a compromise about Trento and Gorizia, then be generous with promses of French stuff. After all, the stuff that the Entente wooed Italy with IOTL was entirely promises about Austrian stuff, they gave nothing of their own. I think you exaggerate the value that Vienna would give to keeping Gorizia.

Granted on Gorizia. But wouldnt Trento + Gorizia-Gradisca be enough Austrian territory given? The CP-s (unlike the Entante) can promise a whole bunch of French territory, and more importantly, colonies. That with promises about some Mediterranean posessions (which the CP-s may not be fully able to provide Italy with after the war) is a lot more then the Entante has to offer.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Granted on Gorizia. But wouldnt Trento + Gorizia-Gradisca be enough Austrian territory given? The CP-s (unlike the Entante) can promise a whole bunch of French territory, and more importantly, colonies. That with promises about some Mediterranean posessions (however the CP-s may or may not be wholly able to provide Italy with after the war) is a lot more then the Entante has to offer.

I wholly think so. As it concerns colonies, I think that if the CPs win at all, they win a total victory against France and Russia. As it concerns Britain, it may surely, and most likely is going to, get a lenient peace (as the CPs would be exhausted enough with the continental victory, although less so than the OTL Entente, as to be content with offering the UK a lenient peace if they can spare the huge effort of raising the resources to blockade Britain and attack it in the colonies on top of that). However, to get peace, Britain has to acknowledge defeat, and at the very least this means to return pre-war German and Italian colonies, swear off interference in continental Europe and the Mediterranean (including giving up Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, and a couple token colonies like Somaliland, even if they would most likely keep Egypt-Sudan, and all the other stuff), and concede the victors freedom to rearrange the Russian and French colonial empires as they see fit. If London doesn't concede even this, it means is not amenable to peaceful coexistence with the new CP hegemony, then better to grit teeth and go the extra mile of defeating the British Empire, too.

Most likely, the main difference as it concerns Italian gains in the Mediterranean is that they would come out of French stuff, former British island bases, and the CPs would be wary of promising any Ottoman stuff. So eastern Algeria, Tunisia, Malta, perhaps basing rights in Crete as well. Gibraltar may be given to Italy or returned to Spain with basing rights for the CPs. Ditto for Cyprus.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
I like the way you think. Say, have you been thinking of making a TL based on our "No 2nd Balkan war" discussion? You seem to have very realistic ideas about how a CP victory world would look like.

I may do something about it in the future, but for now, keeping up with current TLs (mine and the ones I am major collaborator of) and RL committments, is enough of a chore. This is certainly one of my favorite WI (both because I stand for a CP-cum-Italy victory as a realistic ticket for a rather better 20th century Europe and Middle East, and because I rather fancy the German-Italian combo as an European hegemon, from Barbarossa to WWI).
 
The Ottoman Empire had nothing resembling a dreadnaught in service with the exception of the German battlecruiser Goeben/Sultan Selim.

Note that if the British aren't as worried about the Ottomans going Allied, or if Churchill is not in charge, the Ottomans have two dreadnoughts - the Reshadiye and the Sultan Osman I - in addition to the German ships. I've looked into this, and as far as I can tell there was no communication between Germany and the Ottomans, nor the Ottomans and Britain, between the British seizure and the Souchon's decision to head for Constantinople. This would leave the Ottomans in a fairly strong position in the region, with two modern dreadnoughts and one battlecruiser. OTOH, there seem to have been substantial prewar moves on the part of the Ottomans and Germans to come together.
 
xt828, but the Ottoman's have a real and extremely recent grudge against Italy which the British can reverse and Germany can not reverse, the Dodecanese and Libya.

The instant Italy's position is clear London simply asks the Ottomans if they would like the two dreadnaughts instead of, or in addition to, one battlecruiser, plus everything Italy took in 1912.
 
xt828, but the Ottoman's have a real and extremely recent grudge against Italy which the British can reverse and Germany can not reverse, the Dodecanese and Libya.

The instant Italy's position is clear London simply asks the Ottomans if they would like the two dreadnaughts instead of, or in addition to, one battlecruiser, plus everything Italy took in 1912.

The Ottomans have recent grudges against virtually everyone they border. The fact remains that in the immediate prewar period, Berlin and Constantinople were very close. Britain can attempt to undermine this, but runs into the issue that Germany is about the only major power the Ottomans haven't had to surrender to in some fashion. Britain, on the other hand, has divested them of their control over Egypt, Cyprus and has a history of forcing the Empire into unfavourable peace.

On the dreadnoughts, if Britain seizes them as IOTL then Souchon is set to become Minister of the Navy, and will through that office force the Ottomans into war on the German side. There's a fairly narrow window of opportunity here - if the British seize the ships and faff about with offering this and that, then Goeben will be sitting in the Dardanelles and Souchon will come to an agreement with the Ottoman government. If the Reshadiye and Sultan Osman I are en route to Constantinople, Souchon's bargaining position is time-critical, and the Ottomans are more than capable of spinning out negotiations until the arrival of the dreadnoughts.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The Ottomans have recent grudges against virtually everyone they border. The fact remains that in the immediate prewar period, Berlin and Constantinople were very close. Britain can attempt to undermine this, but runs into the issue that Germany is about the only major power the Ottomans haven't had to surrender to in some fashion. Britain, on the other hand, has divested them of their control over Egypt, Cyprus and has a history of forcing the Empire into unfavourable peace.

Besides the good points that xt828 makes, the fact is that the CPs simply have better stuff to offer Turkey than the Entente: the latter can offer Libya and Dodecaneso, the CPs can see that with Egypt (rather more valuable than Libya) and Cyprus (rather more valuable than Dodecaneso), plus they can raise still with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Khuzestan, not to mention the unvaluable opportunity to deal a major crippling blow to Russia, Turkey's hereditary enemy, and all but expel them from the Black Sea. They may not able to make good on all of those promises (e.g. Egypt), but the point remains. Turkey had a recent and real grudge with Bulgaria, too, but that didn't stop them from being allies IOTL.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If Italy is in the Central Powers you don't get Ottoman intervention. The Ottomans would not fight on the same side as the Italians. And the Italians has to put up being allied with the Austrians, their other hated enemy would just be too much for them.

Actually a neutral Ottoman Empire would be good for everyone, the Turks, everyone else in their empire, the Entente (no additional fronts) and the Central Powers (no resources need to be set aside to support the Ottomans).
 

Eurofed

Banned
If Italy is in the Central Powers you don't get Ottoman intervention. The Ottomans would not fight on the same side as the Italians. And the Italians has to put up being allied with the Austrians, their other hated enemy would just be too much for them.

You hugely overestimate the amount of enimity that Ottomans and Italians would feel.

As it concerns Italy, their traditional enemies were Austria and France, the powers that held their irredentist claims and were an obstacle to Italy's rise to supremacy in the Mediterranean. As it concerns the Ottomans, yep, they have fought a war to gain Libya, and Italy would not have been averse to gain some extra Ottoman morsel in Anatolia if they got a chance, but it was impersonal, yet another possible source of colonies, no special enimity involved. Like pretty much all the other great powers, Italians thought that the Ottoman Empire was in a death spiral, and wanted to profit from its spoils. What you describe would happen if Italy were to put up being allied with Austria AND France.

As it concerns Turkey, as others said, they had fought, and lost territory to, pretty much any other power on their borders. Italy was not special in this regard and Libya-Dodecaneso were not the loss most dearly resented. Such recent wars did not stop Turkey from allying with some of its neighbors (Austria, Bulgaria), even ones it had fought very recently /(Bulgaria), since the Ottomans could not afford isolationaism. If Turkey had a traditional enemy whose alliance would be most difficult, it was Russia.

Therefore, a Quadruple Alliance with Italy and Turkey in it was perfectly feasible.

Actually a neutral Ottoman Empire would be good for everyone, the Turks, everyone else in their empire, the Entente (no additional fronts) and the Central Powers (no resources need to be set aside to support the Ottomans).

This is very questionable. The Turks stand to gain more from belligerance with the CPs (they can regain more territory from the Entente powers, and reaffirm their status as a great power against Russia and Britain), and the CPs can gainfully tie down Russian and British resources that would otherwise free to hit them in the Balkans and the Mediterranean.
 
As it concerns Italy, their traditional enemies were Austria and France, the powers that held their irredentist claims and were an obstacle to Italy's rise to supremacy in the Mediterranean.

I wouldn't put France and Austria on the same level. True, Italy had some disputes with France such as the "economic war" at the turn of the century and the colonization of Tunisia, but France wasn't a "traditional enemy" of Italy. There wouldn't even be a kingdom of Italy without the french support.
Italy never actually fought France, but during WW2, not even when Rome could not be added to the kingdom thanks to Napoleon's protection. Italy didn't even join Prussia during the 1870 war, when doing so could have delivered to the italians both Rome and Savoy (which is, by the way, a good POD to have an Italy firmly entrenched in Germany'side during WW1, in my opinion).
So I find equiparating France and Austria a bit extreme.

As for the ottomans, it's true that both sides had a lot to offer, with the central powers in slight advantage, but IIRC until the goeben arrival, the empire seemed leaning toward neutrality, rather than belligerance. Peace would benefit the entente, but especially the turks.
 
A neutral Ottoman Empire means the British and French can supply Russia with whatever Moscow needs by sea.

Also, if Italy AND Bulgaria join the CP it's awfully hard to imagine the Ottomans won't be interested in British proposals regarding the territory seized in wars of aggression from the Ottomans within the last 24 months.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I wouldn't put France and Austria on the same level. True, Italy had some disputes with France such as the "economic war" at the turn of the century and the colonization of Tunisia, but France wasn't a "traditional enemy" of Italy. There wouldn't even be a kingdom of Italy without the french support.

True, but as you point out, there had been a strong Italo-French rivalry about colonial, economic, and strategic matters during the 1880s and 1890s, including a couple war scares. And the long-standing presence of Italy in the Triple Alliance was in an anti-French sense. As for French support to Italian unification, it mostly went sour when Napoleon III started to support the Pope against the Italians: as one Italian politician commented, "Mentana killed Magenta".

Italy never actually fought France, but during WW2, not even when Rome could not be added to the kingdom thanks to Napoleon's protection.

True, but in the 1860s, Italy felt, and was, a bit too weka to fight France alone.

Italy didn't even join Prussia during the 1870 war, when doing so could have delivered to the italians both Rome and Savoy (which is, by the way, a good POD to have an Italy firmly entrenched in Germany'side during WW1, in my opinion).

Well, indeed that was a rather wrong turn of Italian foreign policy. It was probably related to the lukewarm proof that Italy made in the 1866 war, but surely a decent Italian performance in 1866 and/or partecipation in the Franco-Prussian war would have built a very strong Italo-German strategic partnership, to the huge long-term benefit of both powers. Besides other economic and strategic benefits, they would have likely avoided shackling themselves to an alliance with the Habsburg zombie, which would have likely collapsed in no long time, or gone to burden France with its defense, whereas Germany and Italy could have found a far better third partner in either Britain or Russia.

So I find equiparating France and Austria a bit extreme.

Admittably. But my whole point was that Austria and France are the powers that Italy has several reasons to treat as long-standing rivals, not Turkey (and the point is equally true as it concerns the Ottomans, whose long-standing enemy was Russia, not Italy).

Also, if Italy AND Bulgaria join the CP it's awfully hard to imagine the Ottomans won't be interested in British proposals regarding the territory seized in wars of aggression from the Ottomans within the last 24 months.

Germany can counter with proposals of returning the territory seized by Russia and Britain in the Egypt, Cyprus, Kars, Ardahan and Batum, and raise the ante with promises of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Yemen, Khuzestan. Not to mention the perspective of greately weakening the traditional Russian enemy by expelling it from the Black Sea.

Not to mention the fact that most likely a variant of OTL would play out where Turkey joins the CPs after Italy, but before Bulgaria.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
You hugely overestimate the amount of enimity that Ottomans and Italians would feel.




This is very questionable. The Turks stand to gain more from belligerance with the CPs (they can regain more territory from the Entente powers, and reaffirm their status as a great power against Russia and Britain), and the CPs can gainfully tie down Russian and British resources that would otherwise free to hit them in the Balkans and the Mediterranean.
It would be better for the Turks and everyone else in Anatolia since the starvation, massacres, and forbidden forum topics wouldn't happen.
 
Top