Italy joins Central Powers, 1915

[Andrei]

Naval strength of major european powers in 1914:

Britain:
24 Dreadnaughts
38 Pre-Dreadnaughts
10 Battlecruisers
47 Cruisers
61 Light Cruisers
228 Destroyers
76 Submarines

France:
14 Dreadnaughts
9 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
19 Cruisers
6 Light Cruisers
81 Destroyers
67 Submarines

Russia:
4 Dreadnaughts
7 Pre-Dreadnaughts
1 Battlecruisers
8 Cruisers
5 Light Cruisers
106 Destroyers
36 Submarines

Germany:
13 Dreadnaughts
30 Pre-Dreadnaughts
6 Battlecruisers
14 Cruisers
35 Light Cruisers
152 Destroyers
30 Submarines

Austria-Hungary:
3 Dreadnaughts
12 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
3 Cruisers
4 Light Cruisers
18 Destroyers
14 Submarines

Italy:
1 Dreadnaughts
17 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
5 Cruisers
6 Light Cruisers
33 Destroyers
20 Submarines

The Ottoman Empire:
1 Dreadnaughts
3 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
0 Cruisers
2 Light Cruisers
8 Destroyers
0 Submarines


AFAIK , France had all of her ships in the Med , and the British had a substantial fleet in the Med too , in OTL.
I think in this case it would have been more probable to see Italy cut off from Libia than France from Algeria. The Entente could use it's submarines to attack Italian shipping from bases in Malta , Corsica and Tunisia.
Also , how could the Italians reach East Africa? The Suez Canal would have been closed to them , so would Gibraltar .

The border between Italy and France seems very difficult to attack , considering what happened when the Italians did that in 1940. But 1915 is even more difficult for the attacker , because there are no tanks yet and the airforce is not the decisive weapon it will become.

It would have been more difficult for the Entente powers to win if the Italians had entered the War against them , but this wouldn't have meant a CP victory in 1916. Actually , it could have been a blessing in disguise , because the Entente would have been forced to defend ( so no Somme and Nivelle offensives , probably fewer Russian offensives , so fewer devastating German counterattacks ) and the CP would have attacked and would have lost more men than they did in OTL. Maybe the troops which in OTL were used at Gallipoli would have been used this time in Southern France , Lybia , East Africa , Sicily or Sardinia , probably more succesful this time.

The Entente has to defend in Europe , take the Italian colonies and then the Middle Eastern parts of the OE , keep Russia in the war as long as possible , and wait for the CP to exhaust themselves and starve , due to the blockade.

 

[Wozza]

This has been raised before.

It was queried whether it was realistic to have Italy and the Ottoman Empire on the same side.

More importantly Italy does not have the resources to fight in the Central Powers. Steel and iron production is completely insufficient and there is a strong financial dependence on France. Remittances from the USA, an important part of the economy, will be cut off.
Italy could in effect weaken the Central Powers.
She will also lose Libya almost instantly, her coastline is extremely vulnerable.

The only offensive she can make is in the Alps, at which we can expect slow progress.
All in all this is quite a good way to give the Central Powers even more useless mouths to feed.

 

[LordKalvan]

This has been raised before.

It was queried whether it was realistic to have Italy and the Ottoman Empire on the same side.

More importantly Italy does not have the resources to fight in the Central Powers. Steel and iron production is completely insufficient and there is a strong financial dependence on France. Remittances from the USA, an important part of the economy, will be cut off.
Italy could in effect weaken the Central Powers.
She will also lose Libya almost instantly, her coastline is extremely vulnerable.

The only offensive she can make is in the Alps, at which we can expect slow progress.
All in all this is quite a good way to give the Central Powers even more useless mouths to feed.

The German diplomacy strongly believed that it was feasible to have italy and turkey on the same side; the negotiations with the CP lasted from July 1914 through all of march 1915.
I wonder which army groups the french are going to use to defend the border with Italy: OTL one of the thing that saved france was the fact that Italy went through a partial mobilization in September 1914. On the Austrian border, the french border was not mobilised.
Why should remittances from USA (or - in general - commerce with USA) be threatened? The USA are still firmly neutral in 1915.
The loss of Lybia and East Africa is irrelevant. Lybia was occupied just 4 years earlier, and is a drain at this stage, not a gain. Quite different the situation for France, with its ties with Algeria and Tunisia. If Italy sides with the CP, the colonies are written off, like the Germans did.
The important difference is that Serbia is completely defeated earlier. And no last minute rescue of the Serbian army. The other important difference is that now Russia must bear the brunt of the combined German/Austrian/Bulgarian armies (no distraction for half of the A-H army on the Italian border). Even if the Russians will keep their head down and try to be realistic, France and UK will scream for an offensive, to give some relief to the western front (the extended western front). In WW1 is more a matter of applying pressure rather than finding elegant maneuvres; and this situation can eveolve badly for the Entent both in France and Russia. The advantage in terms of manufacturing capacity and raw materials will take more time to make an effect: 1917 or 1918 - if there will be still a war then. This is not WW2, with tanks airplanes and whatsoever. This is still a war where the most sophisticated pieces of technology are big guns. And the guys with their shoulder against the wall are the Franco-British. If the Marne front goes, the game is over. No respite, no Dunkerque, no Battle of Britain. France surrenders, and UK negotiates the best possible peace.

BTW, Gallipoli is still on schedule: there is no benefit in attacking Italy (and it is a long way for WW1 armies from Sicily to Rome, even if everything goes well. IMHO, the necessity of relieving Russia, and opening a supply route is even more important in TTL than in OTL.

 

[Wozza]

The German diplomacy strongly believed that it was feasible to have italy and turkey on the same side; the negotiations with the CP lasted from July 1914 through all of march 1915.

German diplomacy caused the mess its country came to...

wonder which army groups the french are going to use to defend the border with Italy: OTL one of the thing that saved france was the fact that Italy went through a partial mobilization in September 1914. On the Austrian border, the french border was not mobilised.

Maybe the French will use 6 divisions like in WW2. One wonders what the Italians will shoot at them with.

Why should remittances from USA (or - in general - commerce with USA) be threatened? The USA are still firmly neutral in 1915.

How will they get there??????

The important difference is that Serbia is completely defeated earlier. And no last minute rescue of the Serbian army. The other important difference is that now Russia must bear the brunt of the combined German/Austrian/Bulgarian armies (no distraction for half of the A-H army on the Italian border).

I hardly think the loss of Serbia is critical. Russia will be in a bit more trouble,

Even if the Russians will keep their head down and try to be realistic, France and UK will scream for an offensive, to give some relief to the western front (the extended western front). In WW1 is more a matter of applying pressure rather than finding elegant maneuvres; and this situation can eveolve badly for the Entent both in France and Russia.

The British and French will send a handful of troops, in the long-term they have to send them to prop up the Italians anyway. Hopefully Balkan losses will discourage any Salonica disaster

The advantage in terms of manufacturing capacity and raw materials will take more time to make an effect: 1917 or 1918 - if there will be still a war then. This is not WW2, with tanks airplanes and whatsoever. This is still a war where the most sophisticated pieces of technology are big guns. And the guys with their shoulder against the wall are the Franco-British. If the Marne front goes, the game is over. No respite, no Dunkerque, no Battle of Britain. France surrenders, and UK negotiates the best possible peace..

The distraction will be tiny. The Italian army is weak and easily held at bay, as the Austrians demonstrated. Within 6 months the Italians will be wondering why they entered the war and the Germans will be wondering why they are wasting gold and steel.

BTW, Gallipoli is still on schedule: there is no benefit in attacking Italy (and it is a long way for WW1 armies from Sicily to Rome, even if everything goes well. IMHO, the necessity of relieving Russia, and opening a supply route is even more important in TTL than in OTL.

You are probably right.

 

[Max Sinister]

Even if the French only have to send a few divisions to the Sea Alps to stop the Italians, that's a gain for the CPs. Especially since A-H can throw all of its weight against Russia and Serbia. And with Italy on the CPs' side, Greece won't enter the war either.

 

[mitch]

By 1916 the Royal Navy had the following in the Mediterranean:
21 Pre-dreadnoughts
2 Armrd Cruisers
23 Cruisers
4 A/C Carriers
22 Monitors
29 Destroyers
19 Torpeado Boats
13 Submarines

Don't forget that Japan did deploy Destroyers later in the war into the Med they could have deployed sooner and more. With this fleet the French and Jap fleets and 7 Pre-dreadnoughts with the Grand Fleet that could be switched would they really change sides.

 

[Earling]

Italy shall probably be able to make one offensive at the French alps. It is unlikely to be paticually successful and may well turn into a complete disaster given the terrain.

After that the British and French blockade and subsequent loss of imports shall ruin their fairly minor industries and completely cripple their ability to wage war. If anything Italy shall probably cause a greater haemorrhaging of men and material for the CP's than France or Britain. Given that Germany (let alone A-H) had significantly less of these to spare than the Entente, Germany may well choose to abandon Italy to whatever her fate is.

The question is can Russia remain on the defensive against a sustained thrust by A-H? If they can hold a shortened front and bleed A-H all the while then the war may well go better for them instead of launching attacks that are often costly and then suffering from lethal counter attacks.

 

[Nicole]

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.

I must disagree- Trieste was where almost all of Austria's shipbuilding ability was. They might give up the Trentino, but the Brenner Pass (OTL border) demanded was too much for Austria.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Let's not forget Churchill's comment in 1940 when Mussolini declared war on the Allies: "It's only fair, we had to have them as allies last time."

Let us assume Italy enters in late 1914 or not at all. One major offensive into southern France and since the French did not strip that front and since the German have already abandoned hope of taking Paris instead embarking on the race for the Channel ports, I would predict marginal gains and massive Italian losses. The German line up north may be improved marginally.

Early 1915: With their colonies all threatened the Italian fleet is forced to sortie and is destroyed in a series of actions by the French Navy and British Mediteranean Fleet. All Italian colonies are mopped up by the end of 1915. Note that these include the Dodecanese Islands, coveted by Greece, and Libya, most recent loss of the Ottoman Empire. Also, Italian claims to Albania may now be set aside in Greece's favor.

Arguably Greece might enter the war sooner while the Ottomans might stay out if guaranteed their borders plus Libya being returned. If Bulgaria still joins the Central Powers, there might be an outside chance for the Ottomans to join the Allies. Even a neutral Ottoman Empire provides a supply line to Russia.

Nor should we rule out the chance of Austria-Hungary being forced to sacrifice her navy in support of Italy. Italy is a constitutional monarchy and a regime announcing economic blockade and collapse, and the loss of the fleet and the colonies and much of the army might not be long for this world.

Gallipoli does not happen, presuming the Ottoman Empire is even in the war.

Of the 500K involved, the Allies deploy 50K(actually probably less) to mop up Italy's colonies, and another 200K to Egypt and the Persian Gulf. By the end of 1915 Basra and Jerusalam are either captured or threatened.

Successful landings on Sicily and Sardinia bring Italy to the brink of collapse. And the Allies still have 250K not deployed to Gallipoli for a hammer blow...

 

[Anaxagoras]

IIRC, the Germans were negotiating with the Italians as late as early 1914 to dispatch Italian troops to the Rhine region in the event of a war with France. Discussion thus far has centered on Italian-French fighting in the Alps region, but what aboutt he possibility of a sizeable Italian force fighting on the Western Front?

 

[Wendell]

Even if the French only have to send a few divisions to the Sea Alps to stop the Italians, that's a gain for the CPs. Especially since A-H can throw all of its weight against Russia and Serbia. And with Italy on the CPs' side, Greece won't enter the war either.

And now to kill the Corporal on the Western Front...

 

[Wendell]

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.

I was anticipating Ethiopian involvement in East Africa, maybe meeting up with Vorbeck's Askaris in Witu?

 

[LordKalvan]

Naval strength of major european powers in 1914:


France:
14 Dreadnaughts
9 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
19 Cruisers
6 Light Cruisers
81 Destroyers
67 Submarines



Austria-Hungary:
3 Dreadnaughts
12 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
3 Cruisers
4 Light Cruisers
18 Destroyers
14 Submarines

Italy:
1 Dreadnaughts
17 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
5 Cruisers
6 Light Cruisers
33 Destroyers
20 Submarines

The Ottoman Empire:
1 Dreadnaughts
3 Pre-Dreadnaughts
0 Battlecruisers
0 Cruisers
2 Light Cruisers
8 Destroyers
0 Submarines


AFAIK , France had all of her ships in the Med , and the British had a substantial fleet in the Med too , in OTL.
I think in this case it would have been more probable to see Italy cut off from Libia than France from Algeria. The Entente could use it's submarines to attack Italian shipping from bases in Malta , Corsica and Tunisia.
Also , how could the Italians reach East Africa? The Suez Canal would have been closed to them , so would Gibraltar .

The border between Italy and France seems very difficult to attack , considering what happened when the Italians did that in 1940. But 1915 is even more difficult for the attacker , because there are no tanks yet and the airforce is not the decisive weapon it will become.

It would have been more difficult for the Entente powers to win if the Italians had entered the War against them , but this wouldn't have meant a CP victory in 1916. Actually , it could have been a blessing in disguise , because the Entente would have been forced to defend ( so no Somme and Nivelle offensives , probably fewer Russian offensives , so fewer devastating German counterattacks ) and the CP would have attacked and would have lost more men than they did in OTL. Maybe the troops which in OTL were used at Gallipoli would have been used this time in Southern France , Lybia , East Africa , Sicily or Sardinia , probably more succesful this time.

The Entente has to defend in Europe , take the Italian colonies and then the Middle Eastern parts of the OE , keep Russia in the war as long as possible , and wait for the CP to exhaust themselves and starve , due to the blockade.

Where did you find the data for 14 French dreadnoughts in 1914?
To my knowledge, the French had 6 Danton class (not comparable with true dreadnoughts: just 4/12" guns) commissione by 1911, and the 4 Courbet class dreadnoughts 12/12" commissioned in 1913 and 1914.

A-H had the first 3 Tegetthoff class 12/12", completed respectively in 1912, 1913 and 1914. The 4th one was completed in 1915.

Italy had the Dante Alighieri 12/12" completed in 1913, and 2 Cavour class 12/12" completed in 1914. The 4th Cavour class was completed in 1915.

Assuming an entry in the war in May 1915, Italy and A-H can field 6 modern dreadnoughts, against the 4 French ones (and 2 more to come within the year).
I do believe that the interdiction of the traffics between algeria and france should be withing the scope of this fleet (unless a significant portion of the home fleet is diverted to the Mediterranean theatre).

Btw, the Ottomans should not have any dreadnought by 1914. And the russian dreadnoughts (4) are in the Baltic.

 

[LordKalvan]

Let's not forget Churchill's comment in 1940 when Mussolini declared war on the Allies: "It's only fair, we had to have them as allies last time."

Let us assume Italy enters in late 1914 or not at all. One major offensive into southern France and since the French did not strip that front and since the German have already abandoned hope of taking Paris instead embarking on the race for the Channel ports, I would predict marginal gains and massive Italian losses. The German line up north may be improved marginally.

Early 1915: With their colonies all threatened the Italian fleet is forced to sortie and is destroyed in a series of actions by the French Navy and British Mediteranean Fleet. All Italian colonies are mopped up by the end of 1915. Note that these include the Dodecanese Islands, coveted by Greece, and Libya, most recent loss of the Ottoman Empire. Also, Italian claims to Albania may now be set aside in Greece's favor.

Arguably Greece might enter the war sooner while the Ottomans might stay out if guaranteed their borders plus Libya being returned. If Bulgaria still joins the Central Powers, there might be an outside chance for the Ottomans to join the Allies. Even a neutral Ottoman Empire provides a supply line to Russia.

Nor should we rule out the chance of Austria-Hungary being forced to sacrifice her navy in support of Italy. Italy is a constitutional monarchy and a regime announcing economic blockade and collapse, and the loss of the fleet and the colonies and much of the army might not be long for this world.

Gallipoli does not happen, presuming the Ottoman Empire is even in the war.

Of the 500K involved, the Allies deploy 50K(actually probably less) to mop up Italy's colonies, and another 200K to Egypt and the Persian Gulf. By the end of 1915 Basra and Jerusalam are either captured or threatened.

Successful landings on Sicily and Sardinia bring Italy to the brink of collapse. And the Allies still have 250K not deployed to Gallipoli for a hammer blow...

Churchill said that in 1940. I would have said the same, in his shoes.

Why should Italy enter the war in 1914? There was no pre-agreement with the CP, and the ultimatum to serbia was unilaterally delivered by A-H.
If there is an entry in the war, Italy will wait until the spring 1915 (which makes sense: how likely is an offensive in the Alps during winter?).
The Ottomans entered the war in November 1914. So either they stay out (which is a completely different POD, and unrelated to Italian belligerancy) or they enter the war on schedule.

Gallipoli landings started in late April 1915 (i.e., prior to the entry in the war of Italy in OTL): if the Ottomans enter the war on the side of the CPs, Churchill (who was not the brightest bulb as First Lord) will go on as per schedule. To his (partial) justification, the strategic importance of opening up the straits was there. To his condemnation, it was just like betting a substantial amount of money on a roulette number: the chances of a success were very limited (and mostly relied on an Ottoman collapse).

No chance the Italians are going to commit the fleet to protect the colonies.
They are written of, and in any case the British would not benefit greatly from seizing them.

In 1915, most of the offensives were on the eastern front, and I might envisage the Austrian offensive in Galicia being better handled, if there is no need to keep significant forces at the Italian border.

The only significant offensive on the western front was the battle of Champagne, launched in September. Even with the threat of an Italian offensive at the Alpine border, the entente cannot just waive off an attack to try and relieve the pressure on the Russians. So the offensive will go on as per schedule, but this time there will be also fighting at the border between Provence and Italy. No substantial result, but a lot of men in the grinder.

At the end of 1915 the situation for the Entente is quite bleak: Russia is tottering, Serbia is gone for good, the Dardanelli landing has been a spectacular failure, Italy has entered the war on the CP side, extending the front in France, Bulgaria has entered the war on the CP side, contributing to the serbian collapse.
Net gains: British troops from egypt and french troops from tunisia have occupied Lybia; Churchill is no more first lord.

My congratulations for a work well done. I look forward with interest to the battle of Verdun.

 

[Tom_B]

I was anticipating Ethiopian involvement in East Africa, maybe meeting up with Vorbeck's Askaris in Witu?

Iyasu definitely had proOttoman inclinations which is why the Entente strongly supported his ouster. You would probably see a 3 pronged East African campaign:

1] One prong would come south out of Abyssina and maybe Italian Somaliland as well to link up with Lettow-Vorbeck.

2] Another would go east into French and British Sonaliland to link with the Mad Mullah and Italian forcdes out of Eritrea.

3] Th most important would head north through Metamba into the Sudan. They would probably bring the Sultan of Darfur in early. This one is the most serious threat because as it advances up the Nile it could cause Egypt to revolt against the British. Long term this poses a very real risk to Suez.

TOm

 

[Andrei]

Where did you find the data for 14 French dreadnoughts in 1914?
To my knowledge, the French had 6 Danton class (not comparable with true dreadnoughts: just 4/12" guns) commissione by 1911, and the 4 Courbet class dreadnoughts 12/12" commissioned in 1913 and 1914.

A-H had the first 3 Tegetthoff class 12/12", completed respectively in 1912, 1913 and 1914. The 4th one was completed in 1915.

Italy had the Dante Alighieri 12/12" completed in 1913, and 2 Cavour class 12/12" completed in 1914. The 4th Cavour class was completed in 1915.

Assuming an entry in the war in May 1915, Italy and A-H can field 6 modern dreadnoughts, against the 4 French ones (and 2 more to come within the year).
I do believe that the interdiction of the traffics between algeria and france should be withing the scope of this fleet (unless a significant portion of the home fleet is diverted to the Mediterranean theatre).

Btw, the Ottomans should not have any dreadnought by 1914. And the russian dreadnoughts (4) are in the Baltic.

I took the data from the " Chronicle of the 20th century " , the British edition.

 

[LordKalvan]

I took the data from the " Chronicle of the 20th century " , the British edition.

I can understand the Italian discrepancy (if your source makes reference to early 1914), but the french strength is a bit too hard to believe. It would also negate the traditional British doctrine: France and Germany would have 27 dreadnought against the 24 British ones (and 39 pre-dreadnoughts against 38)

 

[Wendell]

Iyasu definitely had proOttoman inclinations which is why the Entente strongly supported his ouster. You would probably see a 3 pronged East African campaign:

1] One prong would come south out of Abyssina and maybe Italian Somaliland as well to link up with Lettow-Vorbeck.

2] Another would go east into French and British Sonaliland to link with the Mad Mullah and Italian forcdes out of Eritrea.

3] Th most important would head north through Metamba into the Sudan. They would probably bring the Sultan of Darfur in early. This one is the most serious threat because as it advances up the Nile it could cause Egypt to revolt against the British. Long term this poses a very real risk to Suez.

TOm

As well as a rather interesting scenario that blows apart the entire war Now, how does it end?

 

[Fenwick]

I can understand the Italian discrepancy (if your source makes reference to early 1914), but the french strength is a bit too hard to believe. It would also negate the traditional British doctrine: France and Germany would have 27 dreadnought against the 24 British ones (and 39 pre-dreadnoughts against 38)

I'm curious if this would not fall into the evenly matched misconception of the war. For a very long time during and after the war many believed the nations where so evenly matched that a few divisions could tip the balance. This is why the Allies pushed Romania, and Italy to join the war.

France may lose some trenches but once the army shifts itself to the Italian front colonial forces could man them and hold of Italian advances. It should be easy moving them about by going the Atlantic route.

 

[LordKalvan]

I'm curious if this would not fall into the evenly matched misconception of the war. For a very long time during and after the war many believed the nations where so evenly matched that a few divisions could tip the balance. This is why the Allies pushed Romania, and Italy to join the war.

France may lose some trenches but once the army shifts itself to the Italian front colonial forces could man them and hold of Italian advances. It should be easy moving them about by going the Atlantic route.

A few divisions? at the top of mobilization, Italy fielded in excess of 5 million men (a number which matches the dead in action: 600,000, or more than 10% of the troops. A proportion which is matched also on the western front).
Just the 12 battles of Isonzo resulted in 300,000 dead on the Italian side; and in excess of 200,000 on the A-H side (which was mainly on the defensive). If you think that france can afford another half a million dead...

The Atlantic route is certainly available. Pity it is much longer than Orano-Marseille. The danger of submersible attack is also much higher. During WW1 the Mediterranean was pretty an Entente lake, and also german submersibles had not an easy life in entering though Gibraltar.