Italy honors triple alliance in 1914?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Eurofed

Banned
Faced with the french army

If the French are so foolish as to go on the offensive in Alsace-Lorraine AND the Alps, their problems have only begun, they are going to have very serious problems scrounging the troops to save the day at the Marne, even with British help. Moreover, given how much the defensive was favored in WWI mountain warfare, I have very serious problems sharing your confidence that the French can pull a quick strategic breakout in the Alps mountains.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
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.

The importance of Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca for the Habsburg empire is getting quite overestimated here. They were nowhere that precious, economically or politically. As for the other nationalities, unless the war is over in 1914-15, they are going to get ideas from the war's hardships anyway, with or without Italy getting its due.
 
given how much the defensive was favored in WWI warfare, I have very serious problems sharing your confidence that the French can pull a quick strategic breakout in the Alps mountains.

regarding the defensive attitude, that was not the french mentality at the beginning of the war: see plan XVII (and there are not trenches on the pidemont border)

Even ruling out a compliant Switzerland the french has at least 3 in-roads:
1) the alps: ok, it's difficoult but naopleon managed it
2) the coast road: much easier, starting from nice and going up to genova
3) landings: against the french Navy, the italian one would not have a chance, expecially since 2/3 would be in Taranto and only 1/3 (maybe 1/2) could be harboured in genova-la spezia-livorno

Also, think about historical suggestions: Napoleon won a couple of wars against Austria invading northern Italy. would not that appeal to froggies?
 
My couple of cents on the matter:

First: In the scenario proposed by Wiking, Italy is going to side with the CP. France would be the aggressor and so all the technicalities would be sadisfied. And no, Susano, treaties are always based on technicalities, not only when you find useful so. You cannot expect to enforce a defensive treaty when you are the aggressor...

Second: Who said that there is a Schiefflin plan in this timeline? The very fact that Germany didn't declare war on France could be interpreted as a decision to privilege the eastern front. Germany could resolve to an early trench warfare in Alsace to keep the french out, while pounding (or trying to) the russians. If it is so, Belgium's neutrality is respected and Great Britain lacks any casus belli to enter war. At this point someone usually chimes in that UK would have joined the war "anyway". Personlly, I doubt this, but let's say so for argument's sake. The point becomes when and how: even an year later could mean a lot for the CP...

If the wiking-timeline plays out as OTL (minus the Italian neutrality, of course), I don't see the apocalyptic conseguences for Italy that some of you seems to see.
The west alpine front is not going to collapse any sooner that the eastern one in OTL. The attack that led to Caporetto came only after the collapse of Russia allowed the CP to pour a lot of troops on the western front. But in the wiking-timeline, the entente is going to be even more starved for men than OTL.
The entente could grab Sardinia and the other italian colonies, of course. So what? It's not that they were crucial for the war effort.
Sicily could be a better target. But the conquest of the island would be a lot harder than in OTL 1943. People often forget that there wasn't a real technological gap for the entente to exploit. So no easy victory. It would be an hard and bitter campaign for both parties, while the real fight would be in North France.

As for the ottoman empire, I think that it will opt for neutrality. It never seemd to me that turks were really eager to got to war in first stance, so...
 
Sicily could be a better target. But the conquest of the island would be a lot harder than in OTL 1943. People often forget that there wasn't a real technological gap for the entente to exploit.

regarding Sicily, however, do not forget that there were a lot of grudges about annexion to Pidemont (only 50 years before).
And after-unification centralistic policy only made things worse.
Also state-church schism of 1870 (invasion of Pope state) is still fresh, and the clergy has a lot of influence in southern italy
landing French/UK could be easily greeted as "liberators"
 
regarding Sicily, however, do not forget that there were a lot of grudges about annexion to Piedmont (only 50 years before).
And after-unification centralistic policy only made things worse.
Also state-church schism of 1870 (invasion of Pope state) is still fresh, and the clergy has a lot of influence in southern italy
landing French/UK could be easily greeted as "liberators"

After 50 years? Less than you think. It would require an extraordinary propaganda effort by the Entente to land such a feat. An invasion in Sicily would be an attempt to remove Italy from the war without resorting to full invasion, I doubt that they would go so far till preparing a return of the Borbons.
 
The importance of Trento and Gorizia-Gradisca for the Habsburg empire is getting quite overestimated here. They were nowhere that precious, economically or politically. As for the other nationalities, unless the war is over in 1914-15, they are going to get ideas from the war's hardships anyway, with or without Italy getting its due.

Your probably right, economically and politically, but perhaps not symbolically and is it is likely that at least some (parties) in Austria-Hungary will not be happy with this arrangement. Perhaps you will see certain radical movements in a surviving Austria-Hungary, that will demand the restoration of these and other territories to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. How popular such movements could get, obviously depends on the how the internal situation of Austria-Hungary will develop.
 
After 50 years? Less than you think. It would require an extraordinary propaganda effort by the Entente to land such a feat. An invasion in Sicily would be an attempt to remove Italy from the war without resorting to full invasion, I doubt that they would go so far till preparing a return of the Borbons.

not quite. Even this far after unification, the south remained significantly behind the north in economic matters (and, to a certain extent, still is today), and when combined with not insignificant cultural differences it becomes clear that Italy is not nearly as well integrated as it could be. There are a lot of impoverished, disenchanted people in the south, and they may not be terribly displeased to see the Entente arriving there. I'm not sure why you brought up the Bourbons, but they certainly aren't in the picture; nobody in the Entente, least of all the French, is terribly interested in helping them, and the Two Sicilies were rather happy to see them go the first time.
 
If Italy loses all her colonies, her navy, her merchant marine, and even the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, all of which are extemely likely to happen, it becomes practically impossible for Italy to make any gains out of the war.

At any hypothetical peace talks Germany will have to make substantial concessions just to regain the territory Italy has lost, let alone any gains from the war. If the war ends by mutual consent in the west then the only gains Italy might hope for is at Austria-Hungary's expense and even that could be problematical.
 

Eurofed

Banned
regarding the defensive attitude, that was not the french mentality at the beginning of the war: see plan XVII (and there are not trenches on the pidemont border).

There were a lot of mountains, even better. I'm not saying that the overconfident French would not do try an offensive on the Alps. I'm just saying that a) they would still try to do a double offensive, in Alsace-Lorraine and on the Alps anyway, manpower problems be damned. They were THAT obsessed about recovering bloody A-L b) this wasn't Napoleon's time remotely anymore, military technology was radically different. Modern artillery and machine-guns made the defensive in strong positions much, much more effective. The French would get a double bloody nose in A-L and the Alps (if you doubt it, Alsace and the Rhineland were a place where the French armies broke through without excessive effort, not just the Alps, in Napoleon's time, and got a bloodbath in 1870 and 1914; the stategic picture was made radically different by the Industrial Revolution).

Even ruling out a compliant Switzerland

Even admitting that an ASB butterfly would remove the proud attachment of the Swiss to their neutrality, Switzerland would have CP powers on three sides. In the very plausible case that the Entente loses the war, for Switzerland giving free passage to the French army would be like sending a "Partition me" letter to CPs. Of course, it is quite possible for France to invade unwilling Switzerland. It would be basically OTL Belgium in reverse. The outraged Swiss would fight the invaders tooth and nail in a terrain quite favorable to defense, giving the CPs ample time to send their troops to shore up the Swiss defense. In the end, it would result into France grabbing a useless slice of western Switzerland, seriously tainting the Entente's cause in the face of other neutrals, and making its manpower problems even worse with a front running from the Channel to the Mediterranean without a break, while the CPs welcome an enthusiastic new ally.

I won't deny that in a CP Italy scenario, esp. if the CPs take a defensive stance in the West, France is going to be sorely tempted to violate the neutrality of Belgium, Switzerland, or both. However, this is most likely going to fail, and make the Entente problems only worse in the long term.

the french has at least 3 in-roads:
1) the alps: ok, it's difficoult but naopleon managed it

He also managed to romp through Germany with little difficulty. Noticed France in 1870 and 1914 getting any luck about it ?

2) the coast road: much easier, starting from nice and going up to genova

Italian artillery can play the turkey shoot with advancing French infantry.

3) landings: against the french Navy, the italian one would not have a chance, expecially since 2/3 would be in Taranto and only 1/3 (maybe 1/2) could be harboured in genova-la spezia-livorno.

It takes more to pull a successful landing than naval superiority. In WWII Allied landings in Italy almost failed, in WWI the Entente would have no technological or force superiority against the defenders, and no help from the air.

Also, think about historical suggestions: Napoleon won a couple of wars against Austria invading northern Italy. would not that appeal to froggies?

Oh, sure, just like they expected they could break through Alsace-Lorraine and Rhineland if they tried with enough enthusiasm, because it had been done by Nappy.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Second: Who said that there is a Schiefflin plan in this timeline? The very fact that Germany didn't declare war on France could be interpreted as a decision to privilege the eastern front. Germany could resolve to an early trench warfare in Alsace to keep the french out, while pounding (or trying to) the russians. If it is so, Belgium's neutrality is respected and Great Britain lacks any casus belli to enter war. At this point someone usually chimes in that UK would have joined the war "anyway". Personlly, I doubt this, but let's say so for argument's sake. The point becomes when and how: even an year later could mean a lot for the CP...

This is a quite valid point. And if Britain does not join the war at once, it is practically guaranteed that Italy would swiftly join the CPs, regardless of who declares war first and and what Austria promises or not. The Entente would look like the weakest party, and Italy would want to grab its share of French booty.

The west alpine front is not going to collapse any sooner that the eastern one in OTL. The attack that led to Caporetto came only after the collapse of Russia allowed the CP to pour a lot of troops on the western front. But in the wiking-timeline, the entente is going to be even more starved for men than OTL.

All very true.

The entente could grab Sardinia and the other italian colonies, of course. So what? It's not that they were crucial for the war effort.

Just like losing its colonies didn't really harm Germany.

Sicily could be a better target. But the conquest of the island would be a lot harder than in OTL 1943. People often forget that there wasn't a real technological gap for the entente to exploit. So no easy victory. It would be an hard and bitter campaign for both parties, while the real fight would be in North France.

Very true. People often forget that WWII Allied landings in Italy went rather close to failure, in much more favorable conditions than WWI Entente would get.
 
If Italy loses all her colonies, her navy, her merchant marine, and even the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, all of which are extemely likely to happen, it becomes practically impossible for Italy to make any gains out of the war.

At any hypothetical peace talks Germany will have to make substantial concessions just to regain the territory Italy has lost, let alone any gains from the war. If the war ends by mutual consent in the west then the only gains Italy might hope for is at Austria-Hungary's expense and even that could be problematical.

Pardon me, but you've lost me here. What do you mean?

If the CP wins every territory occupied by the entente will be returned to the previous owner and this would happen even in case of a white peace (unlikely it may be). It could happen that Italy could get far less than promised during peace talks, but nothing? It doesn't make any sense.
 

Eurofed

Banned
regarding Sicily, however, do not forget that there were a lot of grudges about annexion to Pidemont (only 50 years before). And after-unification centralistic policy only made things worse.
Also state-church schism of 1870 (invasion of Pope state) is still fresh, and the clergy has a lot of influence in southern italy
landing French/UK could be easily greeted as "liberators"

not quite. Even this far after unification, the south remained significantly behind the north in economic matters (and, to a certain extent, still is today), and when combined with not insignificant cultural differences it becomes clear that Italy is not nearly as well integrated as it could be. There are a lot of impoverished, disenchanted people in the south, and they may not be terribly displeased to see the Entente arriving there.

Italy has been unified for two generations, and this is the age of rampant nationalism. The troubles of the unification were settled in 1914. The Catholic Church was cautious not to take a side in WWI, and why it should take the side of anticlerical France and Protestant Britain ? If the Entente try to go in southern Italy with guns blazing and posing as "liberators", they are going to be welcomed as enthusiastically as the CPs tried to do the same trick in Scotland. :eek:
 

Eurofed

Banned
If Italy loses all her colonies, her navy, her merchant marine, and even the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, all of which are extemely likely to happen, it becomes practically impossible for Italy to make any gains out of the war.

At any hypothetical peace talks Germany will have to make substantial concessions just to regain the territory Italy has lost, let alone any gains from the war. If the war ends by mutual consent in the west then the only gains Italy might hope for is at Austria-Hungary's expense and even that could be problematical.

First, Italy losing Sicily, her navy and merchant marine is only likely in your flawed expectations. However, let's assume that Italy indeed get its colonies occupied, like German ones, and perhaps Sardinia. In the meanwhile, with Italian help tilting the strategic equation, the CPs crush France and Russia. France is occupied, Russia signs a Brest-Litovsk peace and bows out, quite likely in revolution and civil war all the way again. Britain is utterly alone (Germany never feels necessary to use the U-boats, so America remains an heppy neutral).

This boils down to the more general WWI AH scenario of "how to get Britain to recognize reality and sign a sensible peace, after France and Russia are defeated". This has been debated many times, but the most reasonable assessment is that the CPs are only going to sign a peace that recognizes their victory. Britain is indeed going to get a white peace or something equivalent, but it shall have to hand back the occupied CP colonies and territories, recognize CP supremacy on the continent and freedom to rearrange the colonial empires of other Entente members as they see fit. Britain is most likely going to accept reality, alone it has no chance of winning the war, the blockade has lost its teeth and neutral America is going to get more and more hostile if Britain tries to keep it up. Moreover, the CPs have ways of hitting the British Empire where it hurts if London gets stubborn: e.g. a CP combined effort to invade Egypt and Persia.
 
Even this far after unification, the south remained significantly behind the north in economic matters (and, to a certain extent, still is today), and when combined with not insignificant cultural differences it becomes clear that Italy is not nearly as well integrated as it could be. There are a lot of impoverished, disenchanted people in the south, and they may not be terribly displeased to see the Entente arriving there. I'm not sure why you brought up the Bourbons, but they certainly aren't in the picture; nobody in the Entente, least of all the French, is terribly interested in helping them, and the Two Sicilies were rather happy to see them go the first time.

It's true that South and North Italy weren't really integrated, but suggesting that the Entente had just to land few troops to cause an insurection... well, it's quite far fetched.
There were lot of differences in economical matter between North and South, but not in the political one. The southern upper classes were completely integral to the political system. Hence why I brought up the Bourbons as possible political alternative to the Savoia.
 

Eurofed

Banned
If the CP wins every territory occupied by the entente will be returned to the previous owner and this would happen even in case of a white peace (unlikely it may be). It could happen that Italy could get far less than promised during peace talks, but nothing? It doesn't make any sense.

Apparently GR seem to share the Britwankish belief that once it has seen all its continental allies go down in flames, Britain can somehow bully the victorious CPs to sign a beggar's peace.

:rolleyes::eek:
 
Apparently GR seem to share the Britwankish belief that once it has seen all its continental allies go down in flames, Britain can somehow bully the victorious CPs to sign a beggar's peace.

:rolleyes::eek:

Now, chill down. There's no need to be nasty. Too many discussions get bogged down in silly arguments. Probably it was all a misunderstanding.
 
Surely having to divert forces to protect the South would make a big difference in the Summer Fall of 1914

I think that Paris falls. I think that some kind of Peace will follow.

I do not see Britain carrying on after a French defeat. I also think that Russia will be knocked about a bit and then make a Peace.

Italy gets Nice, Savoy and maybe some bits of French North Africa.
 
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.

"If tomorrow Italy will help other nations to see big, little import to we the ranks of "great power" seconds old concepts dripping of blood.
We will be a "great people".
This will count much more".

Count Carlo Sforza
(Italian minister of foreign affairs 1947-1951)
 
regarding Sicily, however, do not forget that there were a lot of grudges about annexion to Pidemont (only 50 years before).
And after-unification centralistic policy only made things worse.
Also state-church schism of 1870 (invasion of Pope state) is still fresh, and the clergy has a lot of influence in southern italy
landing French/UK could be easily greeted as "liberators"
No,this is not true.
In 1914 Sicily was strongly unionist and loyalist to Savoia.
 
Top