Italy honors triple alliance in 1914?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Cornelius, if Libya, the Dodecanese, Eritrea, Italian Somaliland and even Sicily and Sardinia are on the list of items which Italy can only regain at peace talks just how much more will Germany try get to for Italy, especially since Germany may have already had to sacrifice much Austro-Hungarian goodwill over concessions to Italy in that quarter.


Eurofed, if it had been established that the rest of the Entente or even just France has gone down in flames then you would have a point. If France has not gone down in 1914, and the Italian ability to make that happen is dubious, then Italy has colonies and islands which the Italian fleet can not protect and the British(and French) looking for easy targets.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eurofed, if it had been established that the rest of the Entente or even just France has gone down in flames then you would have a point. If France has not gone down in 1914, and the Italian ability to make that happen is dubious, then Italy has colonies and islands which the Italian fleet can not protect and the British(and French) looking for easy targets.

France may well not go down in flames in 1914, this I eagerly concede. It surely won't do if the CPs go defensive in the West, and it may not as well if Schliffen screws up out of logistical flaws, which it may happen even with CP Italy from the start drawing 1/3 of the French army on the Alps. My point is that with CP Italy, France and Russia are all but guaranteed to go down in flames within 1916-17. The PoD changes the strategic equation enough that unless CP generalship gets much worse, or Entente one much better, than OTL, the Entente is going to lose. Let Britain rob German and Italian colonies as much as it wants, even Sardinia if they care to waste the effort (sorry, Sicily isn't going to work; this ain't 1943). In the end, it won't avail the British anything good. When they see all their allies collapse, they shall have to fork every CP property back, or witness the angered CPs methodically reach for every bit of the British Empire they can attack by land (and it's a very good amount) and tear it apart.
 
A lot of posters here are going on as if Italian intervention is going to decisively pull down France in 1914. But that seems a little... presumptuous. Sure, an Italian invasion will tie up French troops, but how many? The Italian army's combat record in World war one inspires little confidence, and it doesn't take a whole lot to stop an assault through the Alps. In the meantime, is it enough to allow the germans into Paris? Hard to say, but my gut says no. France must have had troops positioned along the border anyways (Italy was, after all, a Central Power), and it probably wouldn't take too much diversion to hold that line. In the meantime, the german logistics were very strained, and are going to run out on the brink of Paris anyways.

For that matter, somebody raised the question of whether germany even heads west in this scenario or not. Its a good question that I think we really need to sort out. I suppose it depends on the timing of the Italian DOW. If it is before the Germans attack, then they strike west because, well, Italy can help in that (broad) theatre. If not, well, east may look a bit more tempting.
 
Atreus, there are other factors as well, such as these:

The divisions of troops from French North Africa would pass the entire length of the proposed front and be available for deployment.

Italy effectively sold itself to the highest bidder OTL and had several more months to marshall her forces in terms of men and equipment yet never came close to breaking Austrian lines. In this TL Italy's forces in the field will be weaker and fewer in number, several months of new weapons unavailable, the economy will be under threat to a degree never remotely approached in OTL and there has been no time to try to pick up lessons from the first months of the war.



Some here don't seem to realize that the British and French, and associates, especially the Commonwealth, came up with well over one million deployed in the Balkans and against the Ottoman Empire OTL and those forces are all apparently available for use elsewhere in this TL. Assuming the Ottomans don't join the Entente, which might prove more valuable than Italy was OTL.
 

Cook

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

No mate, I was saying that it probably would have but that it would have been called Socialism. There was nothing pretty about Socialism in the early part of the Twentieth century.

The tragedy for Italy wasn’t that she joined the Entente instead of the Central Powers, it’s that she got involved in the madness at all. Think how much better off they would have been to have stayed out and perhaps offered to be the conduit of Peace Negotiations?
 

Eurofed

Banned
A lot of posters here are going on as if Italian intervention is going to decisively pull down France in 1914. But that seems a little... presumptuous.

Sure, Schliffen had enough logistical problems that it may screw up even if 1/3 of the French Army is tied in the Alps. It also depends on how quick and well the BEF can deploy to plug the missing French forces.

Sure, an Italian invasion will tie up French troops, but how many? The Italian army's combat record in World war one inspires little confidence,

You are thinking of the wrong WW. In WWI, Italians performed no worse than all the other great powers.

and it doesn't take a whole lot to stop an assault through the Alps.

True, but it still ties up 25%-35% of French Army there. Good as a mountain defensive position was in WWI, the French can't afford to leave the Rhone Valley unprotected.

In the meantime, is it enough to allow the germans into Paris? Hard to say, but my gut says no. France must have had troops positioned along the border anyways (Italy was, after all, a Central Power), and it probably wouldn't take too much diversion to hold that line. In the meantime, the german logistics were very strained, and are going to run out on the brink of Paris anyways.

It could go both ways. The German logistical problems you talk about were very real, but the missing French troops deployed on the Alps could be the tipping point. Or the BEF can plug the hole. Plenty of butterflies here.

For that matter, somebody raised the question of whether germany even heads west in this scenario or not. Its a good question that I think we really need to sort out. I suppose it depends on the timing of the Italian DOW. If it is before the Germans attack, then they strike west because, well, Italy can help in that (broad) theatre. If not, well, east may look a bit more tempting.

It really depends on which PoD brings Italy in the CPs. If it is because France and Russia declare war first, and no Belgium keeps Britain (temporarily) neutral, it means Germany dropped Schliffen and went for Russia First. If it is because Germany timely pressured Austria in ceding Trento and Gorizia, then Schliffen is still on the books.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The divisions of troops from French North Africa would pass the entire length of the proposed front and be available for deployment.

Nothing different from OTL.

In this TL Italy's forces in the field will be weaker and fewer in number, several months of new weapons unavailable,

But ITTL Italy is fighting the European war that it expected to since 1882.

the economy will be under threat to a degree never remotely approached in OTL

Nothing really different from 1940-43, and the Italian economy didn't collapse then.

and there has been no time to try to pick up lessons from the first months of the war.

Heh, WWI generals from all sides were blatantly unable to learn them, even after years of fighting.

Some here don't seem to realize that the British and French, and associates, especially the Commonwealth, came up with well over one million deployed in the Balkans and against the Ottoman Empire OTL and those forces are all apparently available for use elsewhere in this TL. Assuming the Ottomans don't join the Entente, which might prove more valuable than Italy was OTL.

I find it impossible to share your overconfidence that the Ottomans are going to stay neutral or worse side with their hereditary enemy, passing off the chance to regain Egypt and the Caucasus, for the sake of low-value, far-off Libya. And a good chunk of the men the Entente spare for the Balkans shall be necessary to shore up the overextended Western Front.
 
Last edited:
Sure, Schliffen had enough logistical problems that it may screw up even if 1/3 of the French Army is tied in the Alps. It also depends on how quick and well the BEF can deploy to plug the missing French forces.

They got to Belgium fairly quickly IOTL.

You are thinking of the wrong WW. In WWI, Italians performed no worse than all the other great powers.

Lets forget about the Caporetto. Lets forget about how the Italian armed forces, even before the Caporetto, the western allies were propping up Italy. For me, the defining image of that front is the battle of the Isonzo. Or should I say battles? Eleven in all, all bloody, all for little meaningful gain. The epitome of the cruel slaughter that the war is remembered by.

True, but it still ties up 25%-35% of French Army there. Good as a mountain defensive position was in WWI, the French can't afford to leave the Rhone Valley unprotected.

One third of the french army? You do realize that first Italian advance IOTL, despite having half a year to prepare and a 2:1 advantage in numbers, failed to penetrate the Austrian defenses. With little warning or preparation, how do you think they will fare against the French under similar circumstances?

It could go both ways. The German logistical problems you talk about were very real, but the missing French troops deployed on the Alps could be the tipping point. Or the BEF can plug the hole. Plenty of butterflies here.

There probably aren't going to be enough missing French troops that the germans can really exploit it before they are halted by their logistical tether. And perhaps an Italian declaration teaches the French caution, so less losses in the battles of the frontiers. Plenty of butterflies here.
 

Cook

Banned
You do realize that first Italian advance IOTL, despite having half a year to prepare and a 2:1 advantage in numbers, failed to penetrate the Austrian defenses.

It’s important to remember that the Austrians would have been preparing their positions for the same amount of time. Give me six months and I’ll have one hell of a defence line set up, especially if I have the high ground.

Also guys, most western nations work on a doctrine that requires at least 3:1 advantage when assaulting, and that’s not against a fortified position.
 

Eurofed

Banned
They got to Belgium fairly quickly IOTL.

Indeed, and they may well save France's butt in 1914.

Lets forget about the Caporetto.

Caporetto was nothing really different from the beating that the Anglo-French got in the 1918 Spring Offensive, and the temporary disarray of the Italian army after Caporetto was nothing really different from the French 1917 mutinies.

Lets forget about how the Italian armed forces, even before the Caporetto, the western allies were propping up Italy.

It's a legend. The Anglo-French sent a token amount of forces on the Italian front, that were a symblolic show of Allied solidarity.

For me, the defining image of that front is the battle of the Isonzo. Or should I say battles? Eleven in all, all bloody, all for little meaningful gain. The epitome of the cruel slaughter that the war is remembered by.

Trench warfare was indeed one of the worst humanitarian tragedies of the past century. But the Battles of the Isonzo have nothing to envy, as senseless bloodshed goes, from what the French got with the Nivelle offensives, the British got at the Somme, or the Germans at Verdun.

One third of the french army? You do realize that first Italian advance IOTL, despite having half a year to prepare and a 2:1 advantage in numbers, failed to penetrate the Austrian defenses. With little warning or preparation, how do you think they will fare against the French under similar circumstances?

Not any better, of course. WWI warfare greately advantages the defender. But it doesn't matter. The bulk of the Italian army shall get deployed there, and that shall force the French to deploy a substantial amount of their own forces on the Alps, which shall give them an increasing manpower shortage headache, and tie down more and more British forces to plug the holes, as the war goes on. I do not necessarily expect Italy to give the victory to the CPs in 1914. I fully expect it to happen in 1916-17, when either Russia suffers an accelerated collapse, or France a terminal manpower crisis or mutiny, whatever occurs first according to various butterflies, and the combined power of the CPs is then applied to knock the other Entente player.

There probably aren't going to be enough missing French troops that the germans can really exploit it before they are halted by their logistical tether. And perhaps an Italian declaration teaches the French caution, so less losses in the battles of the frontiers. Plenty of butterflies here.

Yup, but see my point above.
 

Cook

Banned
Everyone seems to be thinking that an Italy as part of the Central Powers would be able to concentrate its forces in the north against France.

All I see is an enormously long coastline entirely undefended and inviting to British and French landings.
 

Eurofed

Banned
All I see is an enormously long coastline entirely undefended and inviting to British and French landings.

Italy mobilized one million soldiers. You can fit only that many divisions in the Alps front. true, some forces get sent in Alsace-Lorraine and/or the Balkans, but plenty shall be left to defend the coastline. Not that the Anglo-French shall have that many spare soldiers to waste in doomed landing attempts, with that monster Western Front. But hey, Churchill needs his opportunity to screw up ITTL too, doesn't he ?
 

Cook

Banned
Italy mobilized one million soldiers. You can fit only that many divisions in the Alps front. true, some forces get sent in Alsace-Lorraine and/or the Balkans, but plenty shall be left to defend the coastline. Not that the Anglo-French shall have that many spare soldiers to waste in doomed landing attempts, with that monster Western Front. But hey, Churchill needs his opportunity to screw up ITTL too, doesn't he ?

The Turks used a quarter of a million just defending the confined area of the Gallipoli Peninsular.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The Turks used a quarter of a million just defending the confined area of the Gallipoli Peninsular.

And Italy may use that much defending say Sicily. Again, it's not like the Entente can afford to launch three different landings at once, and Italy has not many other places to use its manpower.
 

Cook

Banned
And Italy may use that much defending say Sicily. Again, it's not like the Entente can afford to launch three different landings at once, and Italy has not many other places to use its manpower.

I dunno.

They’d have so many places to defend that they’d be spread out all over the shop. There’s not only Sicily which can’t be ignored but Naples or Taranto or somewhere along the Adriatic Coast…

The list is almost endless and public pressure would necessitate making some effort to defend it all.
 

Eurofed

Banned
They’d have so many places to defend that they’d be spread out all over the shop. There’s not only Sicily which can’t be ignored but Naples or Taranto or somewhere along the Adriatic Coast…

The list is almost endless and public pressure would necessitate making some effort to defend it all.

The list is much shorter than you think. The places in Italian coastline that are really good for a landing and have any real strategic value (e.g. you can land in Calabria, but the logistics are so poor that the Entente forces wouldn't be going anywhere) aren't that many. Moreover, on second thoughts, my previous statements of one-million mobilization may have been a huge underestimation, given that Italy suffered almost 700,000 dead and one million wounded (I was probably mixing up the sizes of mobilization and casualties). Wiki, for what it may be worth as a source, tells that the Italian Army in WWI was about 5,000,000, which is likely much closer to the truth. So the soldiers to defend the coastline won't be lacking.
 

Cook

Banned
Well with them working on using a division to cover a 15 mile front I’ll stick with my earlier comment, they’d have a lot of coast to cover.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well with them working on using a division to cover a 15 mile front I’ll stick with my earlier comment, they’d have a lot of coast to cover.

And I stick with my comment that the places where a landing attempt has any sense are not that many. And military technology was far less friendly to amphibious operations in 1914 than in 1943.
 
Top