Italy honors triple alliance in 1914?

[Deleted member 1487]

Okay, this is a legalistic issue, but if Germany DID NOT declare war on either Belgium or France, nor attacked them, would Italy then honor its agreement by the letter of the Triple Alliance if France declared war on Germany in 1914? It would seem to me to be so, as Germany has had war declared on it by France, activating the provisions of the treaty, but also without violating the secret Franco-Italian treaty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Alliance_%281882%29
Highlighting the important part:
Each member promised mutual support in the event of an attack by any two other great powers, or for Germany and Italy, an attack by France alone

http://books.google.com/books?id=yeq...liance&f=false
Important part of the secret Franco-Italian treaty:
"In case France [Italy] should be the object of a direct or indirect aggression on the part of one or more powers, Italy [France] will maintain a strict neutrality.
"The same shall hold good in case France [Italy], as the result of a direct provocation, should find herself compelled, in the defence of her honor or of her security, to take the initiative of a declaration of war ... I am authorized further to confirm to you that on the part of Italy [France] no protocol or military provision in the nature of an international contract which would be in disagreement with the present declarations exists or will be concluded by her."


So the questions stands: what does Italy do? She is treaty bound to declare war on France, as in this scenario I am proposing, Germany does not declare war on France, nor insults her sovereignty by demanding that France turn over its border forts.
However, can Italy still suggest that this secret treaty takes precedent over the Triple Alliance by claiming that somehow France's honor or security are threatened by Germany declaring war on Russia?

 

[lounge60]

would Italy then be forced to honor its agreement by the letter of the Triple Alliance?

Why?
The triple alliance was only a mutual defence pact in case of aggression.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Which is what I am suggesting. France declares war on Germany after Germany declares war on Russia. By the terms of the treaty, it is clear that Italy should declare war on France. However, it seems that Italy screwed herself by making assurances to France in 1902 not to declare war in special circumstances, which of course could be open to 'interpretation'.

 

[Cook]

However, it seems that Italy screwed herself by making assurances to France in 1902 not to declare war in special circumstances, which of course could be open to 'interpretation'.

I would suggest that Italy “Screwed” herself by getting involved in the madness of The Great War at all, especially nearly a year after it became clear that it would be a bloodbath of unprecedented proportions.

 

[lounge60]

I would suggest that Italy “Screwed” herself by getting involved in the madness of The Great War at all, especially nearly a year after it became clear that it would be a bloodbath of unprecedented proportions.

 

[mailinutile2]

That's a little more complex.
The treaty was a bit more then just a purely defensive one since art 4 stated that:
If the peace of any of the High Contracting Parties should chance to be threatened [...], the High Contracting Parties shall take counsel together in ample time as to the military measures to be taken with a view to eventual cooperation.
They engage henceforward, in all cases of common participation in a war, to conclude neither armistice, nor peace, nor treaty, except by common agreement among themselves.
Now Austria was certainly threatened by Russia (the '14 general mobilitation), thus the treaty would in principle force Italy to back the alliance.
On the other hand, the ultimatum to Serbia was issued without taking counsel together in ample time (at least not with italy), and that was the formal reason for not joining the war.
I know, seems a bit like cheating.
but tht's the italian way, and we're proud of it

 

[Mikestone8]

Why is everyone so mean to the Central Powers?

Didn't they have enough problems already, without being saddled with Italy as an ally?

 

[Whanztastic]

Furthermore, Russia was the one who attacked East Prussia, paying dearly for it at Tannenberg.

A second front for France would cause trouble, although I am unsure if they had any defensive measures already in place in case of war with Italy.

 

[mailinutile2]

Anyway, the idea is intriguing since italy had a few clear territorial claims on france (Savoy, Nice) and other could be easily risen (Corsica, Tunisi), thus a CP-aligned war could be plausible even from irredentistic point of view.
On the other hand, I expect the socialist party to rise hell about it.
And since the main esponent of the Revolutionary fraction of the italian socialist party at the time was named Benito Mussolini, the implications could be ... interesting
Red fascism, anyone?

 

[Cook]

Red fascism, anyone?

You mean Socialism.
Call a duck a duck mate please.

It doesn’t get too interesting.
The sad old description of the British Army as “Lions led by Donkeys” can be rightly applied to most of the Armies of The Great War and doubly so to the Italian Army when they entered the war.
Why on earth they didn’t look at the insanity of the trenches and sad Sod that for a game of Soldiers I don’t know.

 

[mailinutile2]

You mean Socialism.
Call a duck a duck mate please.

Do you think Mussolini autoritarism would not emerge, even under a red shirt?

 

[charl]

You mean Socialism.
Call a duck a duck mate please.

I think the word you are looking for is Stalinism, actually.

A red Mussolini allied with the Soviets would be very interesting. Would probably lead to more direct Italian and Soviet involvement in the Spanish civil war, maybe even a Stalinist Spanish regime. Also, without the Fascists to look to for inspiration the Nazis in Germany might be seriously hampered in their early political activities (if Weimar still emerges). I could even see a red Germany emerge in some capacity, though maybe with significant differences from the Soviets and Italy, and not allied with those two states. The alternate WW2 of such a scenario could very well turn into Communist vs Communist as different nations with different schools of Communist ideology fight it out for who is the rightful leader of the workers of the world, with Britain and the USA looking in from the sidelines.

 

[mailinutile2]

Would with a Red Italy the Bolscevik revolution happen?

 

[tallwingedgoat]

The most logical move for Italy is to be neutral in WWI and make mad money doing business with both sides. Wait to see how it goes, and if it becomes clear the CP is losing, then attack the Austria-Hungarians, if the Entente is losing, the go after French Tunisia.

 

[Atreus]

Would with a Red Italy the Bolscevik revolution happen?

Depends on how the butterflies impact the Great War. But if the eastern front proceeds roughly as in OTL, the Russian political establishment will not survive the war with the status quo intact. That may only result in something like the February revolution's government, but the Bolsheviks rising to power is a possibility.

But are the powers of Europe going to tolerate a Communist Italy?

 

[Eurofed]

Why is everyone so mean to the Central Powers?

Didn't they have enough problems already, without being saddled with Italy as an ally?

Cut it down with the anti-Italian racist prejudice.



With the exception of the German army, which was a cut above everyone else, all the other armies of WWI belligerant great powers were more or less at the same level, including Italy. If we had gone for the CPs in 1914-15, it is all but sure that the CPs would have crushed France and Russia in 2-3 years at the most.

Regarding the OP question, yes, if France and Russia are the ones to declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, Italy would feel much more diplomatically and politically bound to the Triple Alliance pact. A little residual wiggle room would still exist because someone else said, Austria orginally provoked the crisis by declaring war on Serbia without the consultations mandated by the pact. OTOH, Italy does have its own good reasons to declare war on France, it holds a lot of irredentistic and colonial claims that Italy covets. In the end, it boils down to whether Germany and Austria shall give us a guarantee about supporting our claims against France at the peace table. If they do, Italy shall declare war.

 

[mailinutile2]

Cut it down with the anti-Italian racist prejudice.



With the exception of the German army, which was a cut above everyone else, all the other armies of WWI belligerant great powers were more or less at the same level, including Italy. If we had gone for the CPs in 1914-15, it is all but sure that the CPs would have crushed France and Russia in 2-3 years at the most.

Regarding the OP question, yes, if France and Russia are the ones to declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, Italy would feel much more diplomatically and politically bound to the Triple Alliance pact. A little residual wiggle room would still exist because someone else said, Austria orginally provoked the crisis by declaring war on Serbia without the consultations mandated by the pact. OTOH, Italy does have its own good reasons to declare war on France, it holds a lot of irredentistic and colonial claims that Italy covets. In the end, it boils down to whether Germany and Austria shall give us a guarantee about supporting our claims against France at the peace table. If they do, Italy shall declare war.

The Triple Alliance, 20 May, 1882:
[...]

ARTICLE 2. In case Italy, without direct provocation on her part, should be attacked by France for any reason whatsoever, the two other Contracting Parties shall be bound to lend help and assistance with all their forces to the Party attacked.
This same obligation shall devolve upon Italy in case of any aggression without direct provocation by France against Germany.
[...]

Regarding contributions of Italian army to a CP offensive against army, I am much more skeptical than you: a french push inside pidemont appears to me much more probable.
On the other hand, with a french north wing weakened (to support the southern wing invading Italy), maybe the Schlieffen plan could work

 

[Eurofed]

Anyway, the idea is intriguing since italy had a few clear territorial claims on france (Savoy, Nice) and other could be easily risen (Corsica, Tunisi), thus a CP-aligned war could be plausible even from irredentistic point of view.

Yes, nationalist support for the war could very easily redirected into an anti-French direction.

On the other hand, I expect the socialist party to rise hell about it.

To the degree that it is going to happen (significant, but nothing remotely close to a serious disruption of public order, the combination of police action and better organzied nationalist street activism shall crush socialist agitation like IOTL), it shall be equivalent to what happened IOTL. The socialists were neutralists as a principle and they didn't really care if we went to war with France or Austria.

And since the main esponent of the Revolutionary fraction of the italian socialist party at the time was named Benito Mussolini, the implications could be ... interesting
Red fascism, anyone?

Very unlikely. Benito would simply reinvent himself as an anti-French irredentist and follow a political trajectory quite similar to OTL.

OTOH, when the CPs win, the war is very likely to be somewhat shorter (say a year or two less than OTL) and Italy to get more generous territorial gains at the peace table. This is quite likely to butterfly away the victory of fascism.

 

[Susano]

Cut it down with the anti-Italian racist prejudice.

Youre one to talk

Anyways, the exact legal details of the treaty are kinda unimportant. I think we can safely say Italy did break the treaty, but even if by some technicality it was not, then this doesnt matter: If we just play around with whom DoWs whom that this only means Italy will break the treaty more blatantly. So, no, thats not the solution. Maybe if Austria and Italy had come to an agreement, under German pressure, about the voluntary cession of some of the Austrian territory under Italian irredentist claims (Goricia, mostly), maybe then Italy would have joined the war on CP side to gain, on the other side, Savoy and Nice (and maybe Corsica) from France.

In any case, Italy joining the CP instead of the allies is the surest and probably also most realistic way to have the CP win, bar none. Of course the stagtnating trench warfare will still happen, and it will still be a slaughter. But imagine at the German Westfront if theres only, say, 2/3 as many French opponents because the rest has to hold the Alps! I dont think the war would even last until 1918 in that case, and might be quickly over enough to prevent American intervention, too.

 

[mailinutile2]

On the other hand, with a CP-aligned Italy:
1) maybe UK would adopt a more "naval power"-strategy
Sicily Expedition, anyone?
2) what about the ottomans?