Italy honors triple alliance in 1914?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
On the other hand, with a CP-aligned Italy:
1) maybe UK would adopt a more "naval power"-strategy
Sicily Expedition, anyone? :D
2) what about the ottomans?

I'm not sure about invading Sicily seeing how Britain must spend considerable resources (read: troops) to keep the French in northern France going since over a 1/3 of the French soldiers that served there IOTL will be fighting the Italians. As for the Ottomans, they're likely to either remain neutral, which means that Allied shipping through the Bosporus to Russia will continue unless the Porte wants to risk a war (therefore Russia might do slightly better than IOTL), or they will side with whichever alliance Russia is not in, in this case the Central Powers.
 
Might an Italian declaration of war against France et al be enough to bring the Ottomans into the Entente? I know that sounds counterintuitive, seeing as this strengthens the Central Powers, but at this point the Italo-Turkish war is only a few years removed. Perhaps the Ottomans back the Entente in exchange for a reversal of the treaty of Lausanne?
 
Might an Italian declaration of war against France et al be enough to bring the Ottomans into the Entente? I know that sounds counterintuitive, seeing as this strengthens the Central Powers, but at this point the Italo-Turkish war is only a few years removed. Perhaps the Ottomans back the Entente in exchange for a reversal of the treaty of Lausanne?

It could be.
On the other hand, ibya was de-facto independent from Instabul even before the '12 war with italy.
And in order to re-annex it to the Ottoman Empire, UK should have renounce to egypt (and it would neve do that)
 
It drastically improves the Central Powers' situation.

France will need to keep forces in the Alps in the range of 2-300 000 men.

The Austrians will not need to keep a front in Montenegro nor one in the Alps. This most likely butterflies the success of the Brusilov offensive, as one of the main reasons for the Austrian defeat was that Conrad had moved the best of the Austrian forces to Italy for his offensive. Galizia and Prsemysl gutted the Austrian army, but it was Brusilov that broke its back and made it a cripple that would never recover.

Also, with the Austrians in Albania and the Italians over on the other side of the Adriatic, the Bulgarians to the north and the Ottomans on the other side of the Aegean sea, I do not think the Greeks will get involved. This will keep the Bulgarians safe, especially as France will not have troops to spare for a Salonika front. The Serbs will probably be forced to surrender in Albania, which will take even more pressure off the Bulgarians. Without the Bulgarians as the first part of the Central Powers to crumble, the "domino" will not happen.

I don't think the French navy is strong enough to keep the Italians, Austrians and Ottomans at bay at the same time, which means the British will need to put more forces in the Med, which might open up for the German Hochseeflotte in the North Sea.

My thought? Settled peace in the west Autumn 1918. The Germans return all captured territory in exchange for free hands in the east. Italy gets Djibouti and Tunisia.
 

Susano

Banned
My thought? Settled peace in the west Autumn 1918. The Germans return all captured territory in exchange for free hands in the east. Italy gets Djibouti and Tunisia.
I dont think it would take so long. With thusly thinned out French lines in North France, Germany can simply uphold pressure without things turning to a Verdun-style attrition with no gains. The question then really is wether France first recognices its miserable situation and asks for terms in time, or wether the war goes on and the French lines collapse like the German lines IOTL. In the first case youre probably right about comparably mild, negotiated peace. In the latter case it will most likely be a reverse versailles.
 
Youre one to talk:rolleyes:

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.

Do you mean 'voluntary' cession, because basicly one ally (Italy) is favoured at the expense of the other (Austria-Hungary). At least a part of these regions were Habsburg territories for centuries, some of these regions were only partially 'Italian', some areas such as the northern part of South Tirol had a Austrian German majority (other irredentist claims had a south Slav majority) OTOH the southern part of South Tirol could be considered 'Italian' and not to mention the fact that cities like Trieste were of a strategic importance for Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary might be forced to give up some of the claimed regions, but they will certainly not hand over all of them and they probably will hold a grudge. The question remains if these regions are enough to satisfy Italy, Italy probably will be content for now. From a Austro-Hungarian point of view they will feel cheated by both Germany and Italy and probably wonder if Italy won't return for further demands. The Italian point of view probably is that they did not receive enough. Germany faces the risk to alienate both their allies, if they enforce such a deal.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Youre one to talk:rolleyes:

Don't have any idea what you're referring to here. :confused:

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.

Yes, but if France and Russia declare war first, breaching the Triple Alliance becomes much more blatant for Italy. Given the loss of face implied, Italy would likely join the CPs even if it only gets a guarantee about its claims on France (which at the very least shall include Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, and Djibouti). If Germany instead were to declare war first like IOTL, Italy would require at least the cession of Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca from Austria, in addition to the guarantee above, in order to fight for the CPs.

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.

Full agreement about this. France shall be badly overextended, Austria free to throw all its weight on Russia, Serbia totally encircled and crushed, and the Balkans a CP playground, with Greece a friendly neutral. It shall be over with a CP victory by 1916 or 1917. Germany shall be confident of victory enough not to use USW, and America shall stay neutral.
 

Eurofed

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

It is rather questionable whether Britain may spare the troops for trying foolhardy landings in the Mediterranean, given how badly France shall be spread thin on the Western Front. Anyway, even if they try something against Sicily, most likely it becomes another bloody failure like Gallipoli.

The Ottomans are most likely to side with the CPs again, even with Italy in it. Italy and Turkey had a recent scuffle, but Russia is the hereditary enemy, and the CPs can promise the Ottomans to regain much more important stuff (Egypt and the southern Caucasus) than the Entente ever can.
 
On the AHF Board there was a project called Operation Heinrich in which Italy eventually joined the Central Powers. There was an interesting discussion of the COAL problem in Italy joins the CP TL's Here is a link for all those who are seriously interested in this discussion http://alternatehistoryfictory.yuku.com/sreply/110/t/Coal.html

The amount of French strength needed to hold off the Italians in the Alps should not be that much, say 3 reserve and 4 Territorial divisions plus 2 independent brigades and 12 chasseurs alpins battalions.

What gets overlooked is that the Italians would almost certainly would be used in Alsace-Lorraine freeing up German troops which would allow Seventh Army to be moved to the right of First Army which would alter the Battle of the Marne

The Italians may even have some limited offensive success in AL. Say chasing the French out of that sliver of Alsace they captured all the way back to Belfort. Maybe even taking St. Die.
 
If I were Luddendorf

I would not want Italian troops on the west front.
Italy should be encouraged to attack france south of switzerland, instead.
such an offensive would fail and the french southern wing would probably push into Pidemont.
french southern wing pushing into Pidemont = weaker french northern wing = Schliefflen plan successful.
I'm sorry, mein italien kamerade, but as your ancestor said: mors tua, vita mea
 

Eurofed

Banned
Do you mean 'voluntary' cession, because basicly one ally (Italy) is favoured at the expense of the other (Austria-Hungary).

To be honest, Italy was already entitled to get that kind of territorial compensations, according to the Triple Alliance treaty, since when Austria annexed Bosnia.

At least a part of these regions were Habsburg territories for centuries, some of these regions were only partially 'Italian', some areas such as the northern part of South Tirol had a Austrian German majority (other irredentist claims had a south Slav majority) OTOH the southern part of South Tirol could be considered 'Italian' and not to mention the fact that cities like Trieste were of a strategic importance for Austria-Hungary.

But Italy is not going to get South Tyrol (i.e. the Bolzano/Bozen area), which was indeed purely German, nor Trieste. They are going to claim Trentino, which was purely Italian, and Gorizia-Gradisca, which had a sizable Italian population, and was otherwise Slovene.

Austria-Hungary might be forced to give up some of the claimed regions, but they will certainly not hand over all of them and they probably will hold a grudge.

After this war, Austria shall have bigger problems to attend, such as managing its own unquiet nationalities and rebellious conquered Serbs, rather than holding grudges against allies. That assuming that the hardships of war aren't enough to send A-H into terminal collapse, which may well happen.

The question remains if these regions are enough to satisfy Italy, Italy probably will be content for now.

Very likely, also because Italy stands to gain a lot of French stuff, too. The more the war lasts, the more the CPs shall enforce an harsh Reverse Versailles peace on France, and Germany and Italy stand to gain from it, more territories and colonies.

After this WWI, Italy surely shall get much closer to Germany, building up economic and political links, and shall maneuver to dislodge Austria, which by then shall be badly mired in its own nationality problems, from the position of main ally of Germany in its newfound continental hegemony. It's quite a cozy position, where Italy can use economic and military links with Germany to build up its own strength and wait for Austria's own weakness to do the job for them, all the way supporting Pan-German irredentist sentiment within Germany itself.
 

Deleted member 1487

On the AHF Board there was a project called Operation Heinrich in which Italy eventually joined the Central Powers. There was an interesting discussion of the COAL problem in Italy joins the CP TL's Here is a link for all those who are seriously interested in this discussion http://alternatehistoryfictory.yuku.com/sreply/110/t/Coal.html

The amount of French strength needed to hold off the Italians in the Alps should not be that much, say 3 reserve and 4 Territorial divisions plus 2 independent brigades and 12 chasseurs alpins battalions.

What gets overlooked is that the Italians would almost certainly would be used in Alsace-Lorraine freeing up German troops which would allow Seventh Army to be moved to the right of First Army which would alter the Battle of the Marne

The Italians may even have some limited offensive success in AL. Say chasing the French out of that sliver of Alsace they captured all the way back to Belfort. Maybe even taking St. Die.

Though there were musing to that effect, my understand was that there were no actual plan developed to have the Italians move to Alsace. There were no time tables or rail plans. Where would the trains to shift them come from and are the rail lines from Italy through Austria to Germany developed enough to put an Italian army in Alsace as well as keeping them supplied?
Also, what makes you think they would be able to hold the French let alone push them back? Moltke and Schlieffen expected the Italians to crack and fall back, which would be according to plan. Also, the deployment of the Chasseur against Italy would mean they are not around for use in the Vosges, but beyond that, assuming Germany still goes on the offensive in the West, the French 9th army would be missing a significant portion of its strength, meaning that the 6th army is weaker, or that the 9th army gets tossed around.
 
Would with a Red Italy the Bolscevik revolution happen?
No,i don't think.
Also without the fascism, at the end there would a reaction from Carabinieri or Army .
And remember that large part of country (the south) was very conservative.
Fascism was one of the answers (and the most wrong) at the "red scare" of 1919-22,but not the one possible.
The most logical move for Italy is to be neutral in WWI and make mad money doing business with both sides.
Yes that would been the better and most logical move for Italy and Italian peoples.
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.
When Italy declared war the king and some politicians thought that the time had arrived..
But the better way of fight an war is stay neutral.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that if the Entente stays on the defensive in the West and goes for the weaker spots of the CP then the CP can still lose. The likelihood of this changing but the French and British not responding accordingly is nil. If the French cancel their ill-advised offensive in August 1914 how many troops does that free up for use?

I'll ignore other potentials, like the Ottoman Empire joining the Entente, and the return of the territories lost so recently to Italy plus security from the Russians would be a very good deal from their perspective, and the likely decision of Bulgaria to stay neutral if the OE is with the Entente.


The Italian navy, even ignoring very real questions of competence*, has no hope against even a portion of the RN with the French fleet in support. Just consider what the British sent against the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and how the Italians would do against that force without coastal forts, mine fields, etc. in support.

*This WAS the fleet which became known for low standards of training and readiness, offering in their defense the argument that the Austrians were supposedly no better.

Whether the the Italian fleet stays in port or sorties to a most likely defeat then the colonies are lost, Sicily and Sardinia at the gravest risk and the entire Italian economy south of Rome is going to come apart at the seems as the Italian economy is almost totally dependent on coastal shipping below Rome and partially dependent above Rome. Then comes the question of how many Italian troops must be diverted to Sicily and Sardinia and even the southern third of the mainland. I suspect this will severely cripple Italy as a player on the land for the war.

Given these developments, should the Italian fleet sail out but be defeated one should not rule out the real possibility of the Italian government falling and the new government suing for peace.

Nor should it be ignored that this leaves Italy a severe burden on Germany. OTL Italy required massive aid from the British and French, even before the near collapse later in the war. Germany, with much less to spare, was understandably worse at delivering aid to allies, and now Italy's needs are far greater than OTL.


Then comes the issue of an outraged Austria-Hungary which is doing better than OTL, if only due to not having to divert forces against Italy, being ordered to surrender territory to an ally which is seen as far less useful than Germany had thought.



von Adler, if the OE joins the Entente or just appears willing to hear offers then in all likelihood Bulgaria will remain neutral. That means a larger Serbian force may escape to Greece without Bulgaria to invade Macedonia. This also dramatically improves the Russian supply situation with the Straits still open.

The Entente managed to find very substantial forces for Gallipoli, then for Salinika, despite all the manpower needs on the Western Front so one suspects that @one million Entente soldiers will find some other things to do. Not to mention the RN force level in the Gallipoli campaign, which utterly failed to give the High Seas Fleet any opportunities OTL, and which is likely substantially more than is needed to break the Italian fleet.



Tom_B, if Germany delays the offensive until substantial Italian forces can arrive in the Rhineland then they might as well abandon the whole campaign plan. Considering that every day gives the French more time to prepare and bring in colonial troops and send arms to the Belgians and...even with full Germany cooperation I can't imagine the delay being less than a week or two.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Yes that would been the better and most logical move for Italy and Italian peoples.

Italian elites were eager to seize the opportunity of WWI to affirm Italy's status as a great power and knock out one or another of our traditional rivals for regional hegemony in the Mediterranean or the Balkans, satisfying our long-standing irredentist/colonial claims. Be it France or Austria, it was ultimately left to an opportunistic evaluation and diplomatic butterflies, but we would have almost surely taken a side.
 
Another Gallipoli

The Italian navy, even ignoring very real questions of competence*, has no hope against even a portion of the RN with the French fleet in support. Just consider what the British sent against the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and how the Italians would do against that force without coastal forts, mine fields, etc. in support.
Whether the the Italian fleet stays in port or sorties to a most likely defeat then the colonies are lost, Sicily and Sardinia at the gravest risk and the entire Italian economy south of Rome is going to come apart at the seems as the Italian economy is almost totally dependent on coastal shipping below Rome and partially dependent above Rome. Then comes the question of how many Italian troops must be diverted to Sicily and Sardinia and even the southern third of the mainland. I suspect this will severely cripple Italy as a player on the land for the war.

Interestingly, also in Italy there is a place named Gallipoli where Commonwealth troops could try a surprise landing
 

Eurofed

Banned
If the French cancel their ill-advised offensive in August 1914 how many troops does that free up for use?

Given France's obsession about recovering A-L, and their overhwlming trust into their "elan" offensive, such a cancellation is quite unlikely. They probably expect they can sweep the Rhineland in a quick offensive and thus cripple Germany, than turn and deal with Italy.

I'll ignore other potentials, like the Ottoman Empire joining the Entente, and the return of the territories lost so recently to Italy plus security from the Russians would be a very good deal from their perspective, and the likely decision of Bulgaria to stay neutral if the OE is with the Entente.

Quite unlikely. Russia was seen as a far worse hereditary enemy than the recent scuffle with Italy about Libya. And the CPs have much better stuff to offer (recovery of Egypt and Southern Caucasus) than far-off Libya that was already semi-independent before 1911. As for security from Russia, dealing it a crippling blow in combination with a very powerful alliance is the best security guarantee.

Whether the the Italian fleet stays in port or sorties to a most likely defeat then the colonies are lost, Sicily and Sardinia at the gravest risk and the entire Italian economy south of Rome is going to come apart at the seems as the Italian economy is almost totally dependent on coastal shipping below Rome and partially dependent above Rome.

Sardinia is lost if the Entente attacks it, but its loss is not going to maim Italy in any substantial way. It is exceedingly unlikely that an Entente attampt on Sicily would end up in anything different than Gallipoli mk.II, even assuming that the British can spare sufficient manpower from it, given the necessity to shore up the overlong Western Front.

Italy south of Rome was quite backward and its logistic needs were hence reduced, there would be some hardship, but nothing that the semi-dictatorial Italian WWI war government cannot hold in check. The railway network was well developed north of Rome, where all the Italian economy that really mattered was concentrated. Moreover, it is rather questionable that the Entente navies would be able to really interdict coastal navigation in the Adriatic.

The Italian economic situation in this kind of war would not be radically different between 1940 and 1914, and in WWII Italian economy withstood the trial for three years, and it took invasion to knock it out.

OTL Italy required massive aid from the British and French, even before the near collapse later in the war.

Which "massive aid" ? Which "near collapse" ? Italy dealt with its own war effort almost entirely with its own forces, the token handful of Anglo-French troops on the Italian front were essentially symbolic. And Caporetto was not really worse from what the French suffered on their own front in 1917-18.

to an ally which is seen as far less useful than Germany had thought.

In your Ententewank dreams, maybe.
 
In your Ententewank dreams, maybe.

Well if you read the whole sentence:

Then comes the issue of an outraged Austria-Hungary which is doing better than OTL, if only due to not having to divert forces against Italy, being ordered to surrender territory to an ally which is seen as far less useful than Germany had thought.
this refers to to Austro-Hungarian point of view. Although Austria-Hungary probably will face some problems, however not as much as in OTL. This does not change the fact that Vienna probably will feel mistreated by their allies, but on the other hand circumstances might force Austria-Hungary to accept it in spite of the fact that they are not happy about it. Concluding Austria-Hungary might set these grudges aside, they probably will have to, but diplomatically their relations with Italy will certainly cool down even further.
However ceding territories in the first place could also increase the problems of Austria-Hungary, because this might give ideas to other nationalities within the empire.
 
Last edited:
mailinutile2, hopefully without the British commander inviting the troops to go for a swim instead of seizing the high ground?;)
 
Which "near collapse" ?

Faced with the french army and the French navy (and also some of the UK med fleet), Italy WOULD BE near collapse.
Anyway, this would not be necessarily a problem from the CP point of view: a partial retreat in the southern front was foreseen in the original plan in order to make the northern blow more decisive.
And once Paris has fallen, an eventual french army in the Padan vally is inconsequential

"Assure that the right wing be strong" were supposed to be S last words
 
Top