Let's say that Italy is convinced that the chances of a Central Powers victory are better than an Entente victory, and decides to have a chance at regaining Savoy and Nice (as well as possible colonial gains) by joining World War 1 as a Central Power in early 1915 (let's say roughly when they joined OTL). What would be the effects on the war? Without an Italian front, more Austrian troops are freed up to fight the Russians, for one thing... Meanwhile, France has to get even more troops to fight in Savoy.
Italy joins Central Powers, 1915
- Thread starter Nicole
- Start date
Of course, there is the problem that Italy was making unreasonable demands from Austria just to stay neutral... what kind of POD would be needed to make them accept joining on the CP, considering that judging by their OTL attitude, Austria isn't going to give... Perhaps a promise of Albania, Malta, Tunisia, Savoy, Nice, and Corsica? That's quite alot, but I believe the secret agreements with Italy by the Allies promised them Dalmatia...
Right, I was thinking that gains in Austria could be replaced with large gains in Africa... Tunisia, perhaps British and French Somaliland, major border adjustments in favor of Libya in Egypt and Algeria...Wendell said:
Hm, Italy had tried to get a treaty port in China but had failed... what if they were promised Kwang-Chow-Wan?
Though eventually the war ends, and what will Italy do when the massive gains promised can't be gained? (Especially likely if Germany makes a secret deal for Austrian land)
Well seeing how Italy did on the Austrian front I doubt they will really break the back of France. Depending when Italy declares war (1914, 1915, 1916) it would drain the manpower pool of France faster. Meaning more Colonial troops arrive, or England puts more into the Western Front.
The Italian navy while not the biggest was sizable in its day, England, and France may be tied up there for awhile. England though may try a landing to knock out Italy, as they tried with Turkey.
The Italian navy while not the biggest was sizable in its day, England, and France may be tied up there for awhile. England though may try a landing to knock out Italy, as they tried with Turkey.
There was no way that Italy was going to get what it was promised in the Treaty of London either. Besides, Italy's main rule in the war will be to serve as a distraction.Imajin said:
Now, suppose the succession struggle goes differently in Ethiopia in addition to Italy's decision to join the war on the side of the Central Powers?
It is possible, but I'm not so sure it would go the way Britain wanted. Keep in mind that more British troops on the Western front means fewer elsewhere. Imagine if Italy's decision moves Turkey the opposite way...The role of Greece could ne quite fun. Also, would this change German policy, convincing them to actually use their navy?Fenwick said:
That's what I was thinking... Would this held Turkey's situation? I mean, with the Italian and Austro-Hungarian Navies (alright, so they aren't that much) hanging around in the Med rather than fighting in the Adriatic it becomes more dangerous to mount major operations... So Russia gets a double hit, with more troops both in the Caucasus and in Galicia.Fenwick said:
That's a point of view. From Italy's side, the problem was that A-H, contrary to the provisions of the Tripartite Alliance, always refused to accept giving any compensation for the changed situation in the Balkans. The main controversy arose after the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Later, both the Italo-Turkish war (with A-H thretening to act against any italian naval action against Albania) and the aftermath of the Balkan wars, with the joint powers intervention in Albania (where the Italian and the Austrian contingents were constantly at odds) contributed to aggravate an already tense situation. The German-Austrian-Italian discussion over naval actions in the Mediterranean in case of a global European war (assuming that the casus belli would be recognizable under the provisions of the Alliance) ended up without substantial results (1912-1913): while it was agreed in principle that the main Italo-Austrian fleets would be located in Sicily and at Civitavecchia to interdict French troop movements between the mainland and Algeria, no solution was found for the command of the task force; nor it was possible to agree on a suitable operational plan for the blockade of the Provence coast (and possibly for a landing sponsored by the Germans between Marseille and Nice). The outbreak of WW1 was completely outside of the provisions of the alliance (the ultimatum was delivered by A-H to Serbia, and the Italians were notified of it after its delivery): once again, any modification in favour of A-H of the situation in the Balkans required compensations, but the austrian diplomacy always refused to consider it. The German mediation was possibly not strong enough, and in any case it did not reach any positive conclusion.Imajin said:
I agree that an Italian intervention would have created a very difficult position for the Entente in the Mediterranean: besides the obvious difficulties of French movements between Toulon/Marseille and the African coast, the French fleet was not in position to interdict the actions of a joint Italian-Austrian task force, and the Royal Navy would have had substantial difficulties in reinforcing the Mediterranean in consideration of the need to bottle up the German High Sea Fleet in the Northern sea. Greece was still wavering between Entente and CP: the Italian intervention might strengthen enough the king to follow suit. At the end of 1915, there would be no chance for the defeated Serbian army to be rescued at Scutari. The Ottoman fleet might have been able to force the Aegean, and to join the Italian/Austrian navies.
OTL, the A-H fleet was effectively bottled up in the Adriatic, and never accepted the risk of a naval action. The same is true for the Ottoman fleet, which limited to some minor actions in the Black sea.
The Italian requests might be considered too high, but I do believe that the southern portion of the South-Tyrol, Trieste and Istria might have been acceptable and (putting aside the pride) would not have been a price too high to pay. The other Italian claims would have been against defeated enemies (mostly against France).
IMHO, an entry in the war on the CP side might have created a difficult internal situation for the Italian government, considering that the nationalists were agitating for a new war against A-H, to complete the reclaiming of the Italian lands, and the socialists were in favor of neutrality.
British diplomacy was much more effective in the months between September 1914 and March 1915, and possibly there you can find the reason for Italy joining the Entente (but Austrian obduracy played an important role).
Dalmatia was included among the benefits that should accrue to Italy after the conclusion of the war: then France opposition changed the rules. IMHO, the Italians should have taken better advantage of the A-H collapse in early November 1918: Trento, Trieste and Istria were effectively occupied before the end of the hostilities. A further effort to occupy all of Dalmatia and possibly Lubjiana (rather than waste forces in advancing toward Salzburg and Vienna) might have been much more profitable.
Fenwick said:
I believe that France will be very hard pressed if they have to extend the front all along the western alps and in Provence. And colonial troops might be difficult to ship from North Africa if the Italo-Austrian navies are located in the western Mediterranean. The Italian front in WW1 was quite difficult, since the northern front on the Dolomites was heavily fortified, and the fighting was mostly at 1500 mt or above. The Isonzo front was also quite hard (I suppose you have never seen the Isonzo, which is a quite wide and fast river) and made even more difficult since the years of WW1 were very rainy, and the river was often in flood. I'm quite sure that no italian front would have resulted in an earlier collapse of Serbia, and in a much more difficult situation in Russia (which might have capitulated in early 1916). Which would have left france in a horrible mess.
So if Turkey does not need to defend its western half as greatly as it did OTL (this is from my assumption that Italy, a direct threat instead of Turkey a colonial one, would be given more attention to any ground offensives) then Russia has three nations armies pushing in. In 1915 this may be enough to stretch the Russians thin enough not to form any major offensives.
So maybe Lenin gets to start his revolution off in 1916 instead of 1917?
Now assuming Russia throws the towel in as it did OTL, that would mean how many troops would be able to mve to the Western front? half a million? A million maybe more?
Would this be enough to wear down the Allies? For some reason I see some Germany general sending an army into Italy for a surprise offensive where the French would least expect it.
So maybe Lenin gets to start his revolution off in 1916 instead of 1917?
Now assuming Russia throws the towel in as it did OTL, that would mean how many troops would be able to mve to the Western front? half a million? A million maybe more?
Would this be enough to wear down the Allies? For some reason I see some Germany general sending an army into Italy for a surprise offensive where the French would least expect it.
As I see it, Austria-Hungary is the ones attacking in WWI...they're the ones that will have to convince the Italians. A-H going only for gains that wouldn't harm Italian intrests would probably be for the best thing for the Italians...but I'm not sure if its enough...France was pretty strong in the Southern Mediterrian.
Some points:
1] The earliest I could see Italy coming in is late July. Before the Gorlice Tarnow offensive things did not look all that good for the CP with the Russians threatening to burst into the Carpathians
2] Unlike most Italian politicians Giolitti actually like AustriaHungary so part of the POD would be having Giolitti instead of Salandra as PM. In that case the concessions demanded from the Habsburgs would be moderate.
3] The diversion of French troops to the new Front would allow Falkenhayn to carry out a Western Front offensive of some size as well as the Polish one. It may be an early Verdun but I am thinking he would look to capture Amiens instead.
4] Bulgaria will enter the war within 30 to 40 days after Italy. The AntiSerbia campaign will include at least 2 Italian divisions out of southern Albania.
5] Horn of Africa could become very interesting with Italian forces threatening Khartoum out of Eritrea, assisting the Mad Mullah in Somaliland. There is a real possibility that Lij Iyasu will being Abyssinia into the war as still another CP ally. A combined Italian Abyssinia force could be a grave threat to first the Sudan and then Egypt.
1] The earliest I could see Italy coming in is late July. Before the Gorlice Tarnow offensive things did not look all that good for the CP with the Russians threatening to burst into the Carpathians
2] Unlike most Italian politicians Giolitti actually like AustriaHungary so part of the POD would be having Giolitti instead of Salandra as PM. In that case the concessions demanded from the Habsburgs would be moderate.
3] The diversion of French troops to the new Front would allow Falkenhayn to carry out a Western Front offensive of some size as well as the Polish one. It may be an early Verdun but I am thinking he would look to capture Amiens instead.
4] Bulgaria will enter the war within 30 to 40 days after Italy. The AntiSerbia campaign will include at least 2 Italian divisions out of southern Albania.
5] Horn of Africa could become very interesting with Italian forces threatening Khartoum out of Eritrea, assisting the Mad Mullah in Somaliland. There is a real possibility that Lij Iyasu will being Abyssinia into the war as still another CP ally. A combined Italian Abyssinia force could be a grave threat to first the Sudan and then Egypt.