Italy joins the War September 15, 1914

[Aphrodite]

Just like it says: The Italians and the Entente reach an agreement, Russia concentrates on Austria and Italy joins the war in September of 1914 rather than waiting until the spring of 1915

Do the Ottomans and the Bulgarians join the Central Powers as in OTL or do they sit it out. And what is the effect on Romania?

How does the war go and what would a peace look like?

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

If the Ottomans do not join neither will Bulgaria. And there won't be an Ottoman participation when Italy joins.

 

[DakotaTimeTraveler]

Why does Italy join the Entente? What would they gain?

Keep in mind that Italy was originally allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary. They did not join them in the war's outbreak as they argued their alliance was for defensive purposes and this was not a defensive war in their eyes.

 

[Aphrodite]

Why does Italy join the Entente? What would they gain?

Keep in mind that Italy was originally allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary. They did not join them in the war's outbreak as they argued their alliance was for defensive purposes and this was not a defensive war in their eyes.

The actual contract can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1915)

Italy takes a wait and see attitude towards the war. Austria doesn't offer the Italians what they want and the Italians think the Russians and British will win so they join the Entente. The thread asks, what happens if the Italians make the decision in September of 1914 rather than the end of May 1915. Several PODs can get you there: more willingness on Russia's part to accept Italian demands in Albania and Dalmatia, better Franco-Russian performance in August early September 1914 or the Italians just thinking the Russians and French are doing better

I like the last as it's the simplest

 

[SwampTiger]

The force used for Gallipoli goes to Dubrovnic and/or Kotor and/or seize Dalmation islands. Serbia gets some relief. Italian Navy plus Allied pre-dreadnoughts closely blockade AH fleet. Austro-Hungarian army forced to send more troops to coast.

After the war, Italy receives more of the promised territory. Probably suffers fewer casualties overall.

 

[Vornado]

A lot of this still hinges on what happens in the West. If British decide to send parts of the BEF to Italy and does that cause enough weakness to change anything?

 

[Alanith]

Italy still manages to lose the same battle twelve times and is utterly discredited as a serious participant in the war. And gets upset over how her allies failed to reward her for fucking up so goddamn hard.

 

[MusuMankata]

Italy still manages to lose the same battle twelve times and is utterly discredited as a serious participant in the war. And gets upset over how her allies failed to reward her for fucking up so goddamn hard.

The same way Germany is discredited as serious war partecipant because they managed to get bogged down in a trench war to begin with? The same way France and Britain are discredited as serious partecipants in the war because their early commanders couldn't quite adapt to the new reality? Or are you implying that Italy's involment in OTL's WWI was on the same level as Portugal?

 

[History Learner]

Why would the Italians enter when the Germans have just now been stopped outside Paris and their own Chief of Staff is dead set against it?

 

[SwampTiger]

Based upon the OP of Italy joining, whether politically viable or not, Italy has several problems. First, the Libyan pacification is ongoing, slowly and poorly. Second, the Italian Army is small, with minimal artillery. Third, the logistical tail for the army is minimal.

Positively, the army has recent combat experience. The navy had learned several valuable lessons from the Turkish War, and is building more advanced vessels. The Army/Navy split has not developed as in WW2. The Navy had experienced the use of aircraft in combat conditions.

The Italians will spend most of 1914 building and training its Army. The Navy has some capability to start the war. The French, Montenegrin and Serbian allies would welcome any help in 1914 and 1915. Even minor assistance to the Lovcen battles. in OTL September to October 1914 artillery duels. would improve Montenegrin resolve and allow some reinforcement to Serbia. The inactivity of the Italian surface fleet, especially the battleships, exacerbated the Army/Navy rivalry post war. The deployment of the battle fleet and a division of experienced troops in September of 1914 would have gone far to force the AH forces to re-evaluate their southern front, further stretching resources. Anything keeping Serbia in the war delays Bulgarian involvement. Italian involvement may actually increase Turkish desires to join to regain the Aegean isles. I doubt Turkey would be in any shape to influence the Balkan campaigns beyond a Russian blockade, unless attacked.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Swamp Tiger makes good points, but this scenario also has POD problems.

What actually happened is that Italy started the war allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary and actually most people, including Italian military planners, were expecting Italy to join the war in favor of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Italians had in fact been playing footsie with the Russians and the French since 1903. At the start of the war, they proclaimed neutrality due to their obligations only being defensive and their not being consulted, then were bribed into joining the Entente powers the following year.

Now you can have the Italians leave the Triple Alliance officially before August 1914, but then you change the nature of the July Crisis, probably enough to change the war if it even happens. A second possibility is a worse Central Powers military performance in August 1914, but again the war changes and in that case the Entente wins quickly anyway. The third option is some sort of secret pre-war agreement among the Entente powers, at least Russia, Italy, and France, to gang up on Germany and Austria-Hungary but if that existed, the co-ordination issues with including the Italians would not be worth it. Plus they wouldn't have even had the historical fig leafs for the back stab.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

... The third option is some sort of secret pre-war agreement among the Entente powers, at least Russia, Italy, and France, to gang up on Germany and Austria-Hungary but if that existed, the co-ordination issues with including the Italians would not be worth it. Plus they wouldn't have even had the historical fig leafs for the back stab.

Theres one of those difficult to attribute quotes that has been in circulation for decades. Perhaps a century? When asked what France would do if Italy entered the war a French officer replied: 'If they are against us we will send ten divisions. If they are with us we will send ten divisions. Either way we send ten divisions.'

 

[Aphrodite]

Italy still manages to lose the same battle twelve times and is utterly discredited as a serious participant in the war. And gets upset over how her allies failed to reward her for fucking up so goddamn hard.

Why?

Why would the Italians enter when the Germans have just now been stopped outside Paris and their own Chief of Staff is dead set against it?

Because they enter the war anyway in six months. The military situation doesn't change much- in fact its worse for the Entente. The calculation can simply be that the Germans went for broke, lost and now the British with control over the seas will wear them down

Italian involvement may actually increase Turkish desires to join to regain the Aegean isles. I doubt Turkey would be in any shape to influence the Balkan campaigns beyond a Russian blockade, unless attacked.

I like you other points but question this. Turkey joins on November 1st anyway so you can only move it up a month and a half. Not likely to make much change. The Aegean Islands are small potatoes. The Ottomans already desired the return of Egypt and Cyprus from Britain which is far more juicy

Swamp Tiger makes good points, but this scenario also has POD problems.

What actually happened is that Italy started the war allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary and actually most people, including Italian military planners, were expecting Italy to join the war in favor of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Italians had in fact been playing footsie with the Russians and the French since 1903. At the start of the war, they proclaimed neutrality due to their obligations only being defensive and their not being consulted, then were bribed into joining the Entente powers the following year.

Now you can have the Italians leave the Triple Alliance officially before August 1914, but then you change the nature of the July Crisis, probably enough to change the war if it even happens. A second possibility is a worse Central Powers military performance in August 1914, but again the war changes and in that case the Entente wins quickly anyway. The third option is some sort of secret pre-war agreement among the Entente powers, at least Russia, Italy, and France, to gang up on Germany and Austria-Hungary but if that existed, the co-ordination issues with including the Italians would not be worth it. Plus they wouldn't have even had the historical fig leafs for the back stab.

Not at all. The Trimple Alliance was defensive and required that Austria consult with Italy before sending the note to Serbia in the beginning. Austria also was to move to the occupation of Balkan territory only with a prior agreement- something she did not. Austria broke the alliance, stabbed the Italians in the back and eventually paid the price

The Italians entered into negotiations with the Entente almost immediately after the war started. The talks broke down over the terms and the Russian offensive against Austria stalling. All the POD takes is for the Italians to either get the offer they took in May or to think the Entente is doing just a little bit better

The real issue would be What effect does Italian involvement have on the Ottomans, Romania and Bulgaria

 

[SwampTiger]

I agree with Aphrodite. In regard to the impact on Ottoman, Romanian and Bulgarian actions, I doubt it will impact the Ottomans at all. The early power struggle in Istanbul over entering the war was decided fairly quickly. Italy was unlikely to act directly against the Empire. The Ottomans had no viable way to impact the Italians. The Romanians were limited in their military power. Italy was unable to offer them any assistance, so had nearly no influence on their war plans.

Bulgaria, however, was counting noses to determine if they had a real chance to avenge themselves upon the Serbs. Italian involvement in the Balkans as an Entente ally would be disturbing. An effective Italian campaign against the Austro-Hungarians would relieve the Serbian Army of pressure. It could provide a path for Greek entry as an Entente ally. It allowed more supplies to enter Serbia through Montenegro. The Bulgarians waited until a combined campaign with A-H was guaranteed to succeed. Italy would delay such a campaign by spreading the Austro-Hungarian forces too thinly. Should the Italians fail miserably, by charging into the Isonzo morass, or some similar mess as in OTL, the Bulgarians would seize their opportunity and invade.

Italy's major impact was intended to entangle a great portion of the Austro-Hungarian Army and capture coveted territory. Its failure to manage this task resulted in a longer, bloodier war in the Balkans. The real question, for me, is whether the Italians could have done better. I think they could have. I don't think the politicians would have taken the necessary steps needed to improve military effectiveness. I doubt the military leaders at the OTL start of war would do better. In an earlier POD, with a commander besides Cardona, a better strategy may have been devised.

 

[trajen777]

I don't see much difference, if the ah can move the offensive forces attacking the the Serbs to defending against the itialians. The defensive line is excellent for ah vs italy. So assuming this transfer not much changes.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Why does Italy join the Entente? What would they gain?

Keep in mind that Italy was originally allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary. They did not join them in the war's outbreak as they argued their alliance was for defensive purposes and this was not a defensive war in their eyes.

Their claims on Austrian lands, which was the main reason they never actually joined the war on the Central Powers side, they wanted Austria cede some of those claims, when Austria didn't Italy gravitated towards the Entente. I guess the PoD has to be before the war starts and Italy leaving the Central Powers earlier.

 

[SwampTiger]

I don't see much difference, if the ah can move the offensive forces attacking the the Serbs to defending against the itialians. The defensive line is excellent for ah vs italy. So assuming this transfer not much changes.

The spreading of Austro-Hungarian forces is the point. IOTL the Austrians were hard pressed to deal with two fronts. The Serbians survived until Bulgaria and Germany reinforced the Austrians. An earlier start by Italy would allow earlier rearmament of their army. The Bulgarians noted the failures of the Isonzo offensive by Italy. The failure of the British and French relief due to the morass of Gallipoli only improved the Bulgarian resolve.

 

[trajen777]

The spreading of Austro-Hungarian forces is the point. IOTL the Austrians were hard pressed to deal with two fronts. The Serbians survived until Bulgaria and Germany reinforced the Austrians. An earlier start by Italy would allow earlier rearmament of their army. The Bulgarians noted the failures of the Isonzo offensive by Italy. The failure of the British and French relief due to the morass of Gallipoli only improved the Bulgarian resolve.

Ah mistake was invade ine Serbia and not focusing on Russia. Serbia had good defensive forces but did not have sufficient resources For an offensive vs ah. Italy did not have forces in place in sept for a massive offensive into ah. So ah would just shift sufficient forces from Serbia to italy. No wasted offensive into Serbia but sufficient forces for a strong defensive on all fronts. The still get a beat down vs Russia, lose less vs Serbia, italy loses more earlier. So nothing changes

 

[SwampTiger]

I am confused by the Italian failure to land on Dalmatian islands and raid the mainland in the early war. It had an advantage in naval power in 1914 and 1915. It had the Marine National to assist in operations. Italy had recent experience in amphibious, sort of, operations. Such landings would force the Austro-Hungarian navy to intercede, an Italian aim in the early war. The Austrians would be required to send more of their troops to defend the islands and coast. Italian, French and Commonwealth troops landed in Montenegro would threaten the Kotor anchorage, which if captured is a great base for operations. Access to Serbia is tough, but do-able. A railroad to Serbia is possible. Saving Serbia was the reason for the war.