Italy joins WWI early for the CP?
- Thread starter Jasen777
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
Only if the Germans had convinced the Austrians to give the Italians the Austrian territory that the Italians so wanted.
General Zod
Banned
Either that, or something happens between Italy and France that make Italy feel slighted or threatened by France between 1890s and 1910s, so that they do not give the garantee to France in 1902 of neutrality in an offensive war, or shelve it. Something equivalent to the French claim of Tunisia in 1881, which prompted Italy in the Triple Alliance. France outstepping them to claim Tripolitania would be a good example, or giving assistance to the Ottomans against the Italians. Italy needs to be reminded that A-H may be pricks since they keep irredent Italians under their boot, but France is worse since they do that and are actively threatening and/or robbing them of their rightful colonial place in the sun, too. It requires France temporarily losing sight of their strategic objective of making Germany as much isolated as possible in Europe, but it's not farfetched.
Actually, this is much more plausible than Germany immediately persuading A-H to cede Trento and Trieste to Italy in 1914, which would require a degree of coldly premeditation for WWI on the CP's part which was utterly lacking in reality and only existed in Entente propaganda.
Alternatively, you need A-H to suffer an internal collapse (failure of Ausgleich negotiations, of their periodic renewal, are an excellent way), so that the Hungary half of the Empire breaks away (and takes A-H's place in the Triple Alliance), and Germany and Italy claim their ethnic-historic territories. Once Italy has her claims from the Hapsburg booty, France reamins her only major potential enemy in Europe and holder of irredentist-colonial claims, so they do not have reason to avoid honoring their committment to Germany immediately.
Anyway, Italy's immediate entry has the potential to butterfly WWI massively, since France has to redeploy a substantial part of her Army to the Alps at the start (Italian Army in WWI was nowhere as bad in comparison to the French one as in WWII, so France will have to man the Alps adequately, or suffer a strategic breakthrough and loss of the Rhone Valley), which in most cases means they will suffer a bad strategic reserve shortage crisis, lose at the Marne and surrender in 1914.
Last edited:
Jamming the POD into July 1914 (since jiggering the Italo-Turkish War will change the First Balkan War, which will change the Second, which will butterfly the start of WWI, and now we're writing a twenty-page summary of what could happen) . . .
Germany doubles down. It promises the Italians not just Nice, Savoy, and Tunisia, but Corsica and Algeria, too, plus a secret agreement to back Italian claims against Austria-Hungary, said agreement to go into effect after a French surrender.
That last bit requires some serious realpolitik on the part of Germany which seems unlikely from the same romantic Germany that just handed Austria-Hungary a blank check in the Balkans. The real POD would be having someone in the German governmental machinery who managed to impose themselves to that degree.
(Sure, the Italians might not even believe Germany would keep its promise. However, they might calculate the promise itself, if revealed post-war by Italy, could drive a wedge between Germany and Austria-Hungary that would be enough to give Italy a chance to win Trento and Trieste for themselves.)
Germany doubles down. It promises the Italians not just Nice, Savoy, and Tunisia, but Corsica and Algeria, too, plus a secret agreement to back Italian claims against Austria-Hungary, said agreement to go into effect after a French surrender.
That last bit requires some serious realpolitik on the part of Germany which seems unlikely from the same romantic Germany that just handed Austria-Hungary a blank check in the Balkans. The real POD would be having someone in the German governmental machinery who managed to impose themselves to that degree.
(Sure, the Italians might not even believe Germany would keep its promise. However, they might calculate the promise itself, if revealed post-war by Italy, could drive a wedge between Germany and Austria-Hungary that would be enough to give Italy a chance to win Trento and Trieste for themselves.)
General Zod
Banned
OK.
This kind of deal will surely buy the Italian government whenever it is offered. The Pact of London bought them, and offered less. Germany only needs someone in their goverment smart enough to realize Italy must be bought to enter the fray. Italy actually made such claims for compensation, since technically A-H had started the war, and their alliance was defensive, as soon as the war erupted, so Germany just needs to realize that proper execution of Plan Schliffen envisaged the partecipation of Italy, and be swift to concoct and propose such a deal. Actually, Italian partecipation will greately enhance Germany's odds of winning the war whenever it happens, but the PoD requires an ealry entry, so the negotiations need to be swift.
Well, negotiations to win Italy to CP side occurred OTL, but floundered because old stubborn goat Franz Joseph could not be persuaded to part with his unwilling Italian subjects, and Germans were not wholehearted enough to strongarm him (yes, that romantic commitment to the useless Habsburg again, the downfall of mighty Germany; they should have partitioned the useless inbreds a generation or two ago). However, if someone in the German govermment is clever enough to give that kind of secret garantee, it bypasses the issue entirely. The Italians will trust the word of mighty Germany behind the back of Franz Joseph.
No need of that. They trusted the word of the Anglo-French in 1915, they would trust the word of the Germans in 1914. No good reason to trust the former more than the latter. And this committment offers them more than they were promised in 1915. The PoD is good enough.
Now the burning issue becomes, exactly when the Italians mobilize and DoW ? Until the Western Front stabilizes, the French are in a critical situation, and the closer the Italian DoW is to the German one, the worse their strategic odds become, with the British less able to rescue them.
Been talked about plenty of times in just the past few weeks. In a short summary:
Italy probably launches some ineffective offensives against a numerically inferior French force, gets repulsed, repulsed, and repulsed. As the war drags on, the Austrians are going to be much more effective without the Italian Front(Probably able to hold their own against Russia). The allied position in the Balkans will be hurt. Ultimately, Russia will collaspe a little sooner and France will be running shorter on man power during the final offensives. This means that Germany, Austria and Italy can focus the bulk of their strength(Or what's left of it) on the Western Front in 1917/18, maybe enough to win the war.
This will hurt but not cripple the French logistics.
The Italian Navy will help the CPs, but it won't be enough for them to win the Naval War.
2 other key problems this will create are Italy's industry and agriculture. Italy was a net food importer while fighting for the allies. When they are blockaded this would cause even worse starvation in the CPs then the OTL. The Italian industry was not strong enough to sustain the war effort on their own, this will mean that Germany is going to have another leach to support.
Overall, whether of not this is enough for a CPs victory has been debated quite a bit the last month or 2. There is no clear consensus on ending.
Italy probably launches some ineffective offensives against a numerically inferior French force, gets repulsed, repulsed, and repulsed. As the war drags on, the Austrians are going to be much more effective without the Italian Front(Probably able to hold their own against Russia). The allied position in the Balkans will be hurt. Ultimately, Russia will collaspe a little sooner and France will be running shorter on man power during the final offensives. This means that Germany, Austria and Italy can focus the bulk of their strength(Or what's left of it) on the Western Front in 1917/18, maybe enough to win the war.
This will hurt but not cripple the French logistics.
The Italian Navy will help the CPs, but it won't be enough for them to win the Naval War.
2 other key problems this will create are Italy's industry and agriculture. Italy was a net food importer while fighting for the allies. When they are blockaded this would cause even worse starvation in the CPs then the OTL. The Italian industry was not strong enough to sustain the war effort on their own, this will mean that Germany is going to have another leach to support.
Overall, whether of not this is enough for a CPs victory has been debated quite a bit the last month or 2. There is no clear consensus on ending.
General Zod
Banned
That was the Italy entering in 1915, when the (Northern) Western front is stabilized, and moving substantial troops on the Alps stretches the Anglo-French but does not cripple them (at least, not without years-long attrition). Italy entering before the race to the sea is over, much more before the battle of the Marna is won, is something hugely different.
The BEF is still halfway hapzard, and the French are being swamped on two fronts in a movement war. It would require exceptional luck and generalship on their part to survive this and stabilize a trench warfare from Ypres to Cannes with the only respite at the Swiss border. Not impossible, but since they survived the Marne without a major second front by a very close shave, the odds are very defintely against them ITTL. And if they lose at the Marne, or they critically underman the Alps and Italians swarm the Rhone Valley, France will surrender and the Entente will lose the war.
Besides, in your summary you forgot to mention that with an Italian entry in 1915, the Italians can still send substantial leftover forces (Alps front will be much shorter than Austrian front, so there will be several) on the Franco-German front or the Russian front (there were Triple Alliance standing technical protocoals to do so before the war), and by doing so significantly hasten Russian collapse and/or the attrition of French manpower even more so than second French front on the Alps or lack of Italian front for A-H by themselves would do.
As I've mentioned before, Italy found 400,000 men to attack with in 1915 and barely 100,000 Austrians held them off comfortably. There is no reason to imagine the same Italian strength level being more effective against the French Army than it was against the far less proficient Austria-Hungarian.
Reference to the BEF as haphazard only displays little knowledge of the actual quality of the units deployed in 1914.
As always, the massive leftover Italian forces did not exist in reality and with the inevitable collapse of the Italian economy will probably never exist at all, plus the need to defend the Italian coast from the British fleet, the Italian colonies and Sicily and Sardinia being pretty much forfeit whenever the Allies choose to take them.
I'm not even going to touch the line as to why the Italians would have more faith in British promises of the territory of British enemies than of German promises to stab one ally(AH) in the back when the fighting is done instead of another(Italy).
Reference to the BEF as haphazard only displays little knowledge of the actual quality of the units deployed in 1914.
As always, the massive leftover Italian forces did not exist in reality and with the inevitable collapse of the Italian economy will probably never exist at all, plus the need to defend the Italian coast from the British fleet, the Italian colonies and Sicily and Sardinia being pretty much forfeit whenever the Allies choose to take them.
I'm not even going to touch the line as to why the Italians would have more faith in British promises of the territory of British enemies than of German promises to stab one ally(AH) in the back when the fighting is done instead of another(Italy).
Italy, thou art wanted
If the Italians had supported the Central Powers, I can't help but see a detriment to the Entente. Not only are German forces not tied down and Austrian forces freed up, but now France has to worry about its southeastern border along with the island of Corsica. With France at its breaking point (and near mutiny of 1916 as I believe), the entrance of Italy may be enough to sway the war in their favor. Also, who is to say Germany wouldn't move through Italy to assault Marseilles and more to flank attack France? It would end the trench warfare in the north and allow for a resurgence of mobile warfare, something all powers wanted rather than the slow attritional conflict they were facing.
If the Italians had supported the Central Powers, I can't help but see a detriment to the Entente. Not only are German forces not tied down and Austrian forces freed up, but now France has to worry about its southeastern border along with the island of Corsica. With France at its breaking point (and near mutiny of 1916 as I believe), the entrance of Italy may be enough to sway the war in their favor. Also, who is to say Germany wouldn't move through Italy to assault Marseilles and more to flank attack France? It would end the trench warfare in the north and allow for a resurgence of mobile warfare, something all powers wanted rather than the slow attritional conflict they were facing.
General Zod
Banned
First, as I've mentioned before, the French fortifications in the Alps in 1914 were nowhere as good as Austrian fortifications in the Dolomites, so they would need rather more men to man them effectively.
Second, this PoD is about an Italian entry in 1914, when the Western Front was still fluid and the French position was critical. It is very, very questionable that they can spare even 100,000 (but they will need more like 200,000-300,000) if they can have any hope of surviving the Marne. Such a redeployment in May-June 1915, when the Western Front is nicely stabilized behind trenches and the British Army has fully deployed, is something else entirely.
Of course, if we talk about the 1915 entry PoD, then what matters is the total manpower amount that the French can conscript against the total amount the Italians can conscript, since it will be an attrition war.
You're right, I was referring to their incomplete deployment, not to their inherent quality. Slip of the non-native English tongue, sorry.
Check a map. The Austrian front was more than double the length the French front is going to be.
Inevitable hardship, please. German coal can substitute British coal, as I said before, and as it concerns the rest, nothing that the near-dictatorial wartime Italian government (like all WWI governments) cannot withstand.
Which has to go through the IT-AH-OE fleets combined. Not impossible for the British Navy, but no walk in the park, either.
Those mythical British landings in Sicilia and Sardinia again ? In 1915, they would require manpower that the British a) wasted in Gallipoli b) are critically needed to patch up overstretched French manpower from Ypres to Cannes anyway. In 1914, far before they can even organize something like that, overstretched French Army either is crushed at the Marne or critically undermans the Alps and loses the Rhone Valley and surrenders either way. The British will need every single man they have to shore up the Russians in an increasingly futile attempt to prevent their inevitable collapse agains the vast majority of the DE-AH-IT-OE Armies, not to mention the fact that without the French Navy, the British can say goodbye to the Mediterranean, they will have enough headaches keeping the Home Isles safe.
Besides, even admitting the Italians lose Sardinia to a British landing, it won't hamper the Italian war effort in any significant way, even less than losing Friuli and Eastern Veneto to the Austrians after Caporetto crippled them. Very limited amount of manpower and resources in Sardinia (like the French losing Corsica). Sicilia is a nut too tough to crack for the British in WWI. Ask Gallipoli.
Because German promises here are of the territory of German enemies that are more abundant than what the British promised them in 1915, with promises of backstabbing the other ally only as ice on the cake. It is a rather better deal than either neutrality or jumping to the Entente (which will only promise them Austrian territory, not French territory), plus it does not require the loss of face cost of betraying former allies, only expanding the meaning of the alliance of long ago. It's the better deal they can get, and they will take it when it's offered. They asked less for siding with the CPs OTL.
Last edited:
Anaxagoras
Banned
What strength did the Italians have in Libya in 1914? Wouldn't this open up two new fronts in North Africa, one against French North Africa and the other against Egypt?
With still another front in the Sudan. Quite likely the pro-Ottoman Iyasu would bring Abyssinia into the war on the side of the CP. You could see both an Italian and an Abyssinian thrust into the Sudan with the Sultan of Darfur getting into the act as well.
Not at all. During the GW the Italians barely controlled Tripoli and Bengazi and the interior was pretty much free game for the Lybian tribes. Lybia would fail to the Entente before Somalia and Eritrea.
That's a dream. Iyasu was hated by his subjects. His position was so weak that he couldn't even get a proper coronation and was refered with the Ethiopian equivalent of "infante" during his short reign. Not to mention that
1) Muslims and Italians are Ethiopia's traditional enemies
2) France is the only power who respects Ethiopia, and built its only railroad just some years ago
3) British relations with Ethiopia are OK
The minute Iyasu says he wants to declare this war, the minute he's imprisoned, dethroned and maybe even assassinated.
The Entente would have then a fairly easy chance to trick Ethiopia into attacking the Italians in Eritrea and winning an access to the sea.
General Zod
Banned
First: Oh, yes, the Gallipoli landing worked so quite well and the Italian Army was so worse than the Ottomans in WWI
Second: In this specific PoD, the Entente has far worse problems in that overstretched France most likely surrendered at Marne. Without the French Navy, the British Navy really does not have the dominance to land anywhere in the Mediterranean against IT-AH-OE Navies combined, and any man the British can spare are shunted to shore up overwhelmed Russians on the Eastern Front.
Third: if we use the 1915 entry, then Italy attacks France in late May or June so Gallipoli's bloody failure is already well underway.
What could be the impact of a weaker Entente? Probably the pro-german faction in Spain could make them to move against France and Britain. What about SWeden? Could they feel tempted to recover Finland? The Netherlands?
Hello together!
The German diplomats tried rather hard to get A-H to the negotiation table. At last Bethmann Hollweg get the approval of Emperor Willhelm to offer a part of Silesia to A-H as compensation for the loss of Trento and as a symbol of the German Empire that it would share the burden of territorial loss with A-H. This offer should be a last straw and actually had never to be relied on (much to the relief of the Emperor), since A-H was willing to give up Trento after they faced grave military defeats and realised the danger Italy posed to the Central Powers.
To get at least Italy's neutrality there are some points to be considered:
1. A more realistic assessment of the military power of Germany and A-H by their respective leadership before any major defeats. Therefore an earlier willingness to negotiate with Italy about at least Trento and Trieste.
2. A weaker Entente would help a great deal. My favorite would be to have Germany honour the Belgian neutrality and therefore Britain would not have entered the war. It was the English diplomats who finally got Italy into the boat. Russia was rather unwilling to let control of the Adria fall into Italian hands, especially since this would include an Italian controlled Istria which was considered as a part of the Russian sphere of influence (after an Allied victory). Without the English diplomats even in OTL an Italian neutrality was a distinct possibility. With Britain not part of the Entente and no major defeats of the Central Powers (yet) a victory of the Central Powers is conceivable further augmenting the chances of Italy staying away from the possible losing side.
3. With an earlier and more appealing offer the majority in the Italian parliament would have a greater impact on negotiations.
Under these circumstances I think a neutral Italy is possible as is a late entry into the war on the side of the exhausted but at least winning Central Powers to grab some slices of France (like Nice, Corsica and Tunisia). An earlier entry would need much more concessions by the CPs.
I am kind of working on a timeline with a PoD around 1908/09, so I looked into that stuff lately. Hopefully I get that published here sometime.
Kind regards,
G.
Actually A-H agreed to cede Trento to Italy OTL. Bethmann Hollweg pushed that forward, but the offer to Italy was too late and too less. Italy was promised more or at least more interesting gains by the Entente (especially Trieste in addition to Trento). The problem with A-H was, that any ceding of territory based on national criteria would shake the foundations of a multinational (and therefore already instable) empire and be a threat to its integrity. Since Italy held also claims on Istria, A-H saw also the threat of losing its access to the Adria (and only access to the Mediterranian and the Oceans in general). So the reluctance of A-H politicians to give territory away is basically understandable. But they could not afford to alienate Italy which they had done already in the Bosnian crisis and with the attack on Serbia. There was a clause in a treaty (the Three-Emperors-Treaty if I recall correctly) that allowed Italy compensation for any A-H gains on the Balkans which were never given. (Although it was somehow disputable if the clause could be invoked in these cases) That was the basis for Italy's demands in 1914/1915. Therefore the chances for successfull negotiations on these matters were rather low. The majority in the Italian parliament was in favor of neutrality, but had a difficult stand due to the rather late concession of A-H to give Trento back.
The German diplomats tried rather hard to get A-H to the negotiation table. At last Bethmann Hollweg get the approval of Emperor Willhelm to offer a part of Silesia to A-H as compensation for the loss of Trento and as a symbol of the German Empire that it would share the burden of territorial loss with A-H. This offer should be a last straw and actually had never to be relied on (much to the relief of the Emperor), since A-H was willing to give up Trento after they faced grave military defeats and realised the danger Italy posed to the Central Powers.
To get at least Italy's neutrality there are some points to be considered:
1. A more realistic assessment of the military power of Germany and A-H by their respective leadership before any major defeats. Therefore an earlier willingness to negotiate with Italy about at least Trento and Trieste.
2. A weaker Entente would help a great deal. My favorite would be to have Germany honour the Belgian neutrality and therefore Britain would not have entered the war. It was the English diplomats who finally got Italy into the boat. Russia was rather unwilling to let control of the Adria fall into Italian hands, especially since this would include an Italian controlled Istria which was considered as a part of the Russian sphere of influence (after an Allied victory). Without the English diplomats even in OTL an Italian neutrality was a distinct possibility. With Britain not part of the Entente and no major defeats of the Central Powers (yet) a victory of the Central Powers is conceivable further augmenting the chances of Italy staying away from the possible losing side.
3. With an earlier and more appealing offer the majority in the Italian parliament would have a greater impact on negotiations.
Under these circumstances I think a neutral Italy is possible as is a late entry into the war on the side of the exhausted but at least winning Central Powers to grab some slices of France (like Nice, Corsica and Tunisia). An earlier entry would need much more concessions by the CPs.
I am kind of working on a timeline with a PoD around 1908/09, so I looked into that stuff lately. Hopefully I get that published here sometime.
Kind regards,
G.
General Zod
Banned
This is correct. But it also correct that lack of concessions about Trento and Trieste (or their lateness) were the essential ostacle to an Italian CP entry. Head they came before, or about both, and in combination with generous CP promises about French claims, Italy would have gone the other side.
This is all correct, except the Treaty was Triple Alliance, the Three Emperors were Germany, Russia, and A-H. Italy made such claims as the price of going to the help of the CP as soon as July-August 1914. Hence, had they been satisfied (at least in promise) timely, an early entry would have occurred.
Now, it is correct that in light of the A-H resistances you quote, to have a CP Italy one must assume either a German government that has the cleverness to make promises behind A-H's back, or is more persuasive/intimidating about making A-H agree before Italy loses patience abour CP negotiations. Concerns about Istria were real, but it was not a primary Italian claim like Trento, Gorizia-Gradisca, and Trieste. None of them were a vital strategic or economic interest for A-H, they could still have a worthy port in Fiume. The concerns you quote existed OTL, but they are wholly to be overcome with a more insightful German or A-H leadership. Vanilla PoD. Italy did not want ALL her potential A-H claims, only the basic ones (T-T) plus their French ones (not problem for the CPs). At that point, the CP compensation would have been definitely more generous than the Entente one. Since Entente negotiations only really took wing since CP ones lost steam.
This was not a problem for the Entente entry, it would not have been for the CP entry. The King, not the parliament, had the power to declare war (Italy only had a semi-parliamentary constitution), and the neutralist parltriament was completely bullied into submission (and socialist street agitation wholly defeated ) by the well-organized nationalist grassroots movement, which was purely expansionist and did not really care if Italy was aggrandized to the expense of A-H or France. No problem for a CP Italy from that point.
That would be the main divergence of the TL. Not really difficult as PODs go.
Only after CP negotiations floundered because of AH bullheadedness.
And if UK was neutral, Italy will never entry for the Entente, and there is a distinct possibility there will attack France with little A-H concessions whatsoever, as they would perceive France as rather weak, and France too was ripe with stuff Italy wanted: Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunis, Dijbouti, Algeria... Anyway, in this case, Trento alone, in combination with good promises of French booty would be likely sufficient to motivate them to war. Trento plus Trieste would be necessary with Britain in the Entente.
General Zod
Banned
Good question. Let's examine the main European neutrals:
Romania: surely neutral, likely CP with a 1914 CP Italy. Still possible but unlikely (would require very good Entente diplomacy and painful Russian concessions, which however they might do, they are losing) in 1915 CP Italy. Oterhwise, likely neutral, possibly CP if the Quadruple Alliance makes decent diplomacy and makes worthwhile promises abour Russian territory(Bessarabia, Odessa). Impact of neutrality: the CP don't have to waste a season vanquishing it, so the timetable to Russian collapse gets advanced that much time. Impact of CP entry: the added Romanian manpower and continous CP front from the Baltic to the Black Sea gives the CP unrestricted access to Ukraine, which they likely gain at the same time they conquest Poland, Lithuania-Latvia, and Bielorussia. The collapse of Russia gets accelerated by six months or more.
Grecia: CP Italy spells speedy and complete destruction for Serbia and her Army, which will be backstabbed by an Italian expeditionary corps from Albania-Montenegro and denied any possible retreat. Therefore, no Entente Salonika expedition, and Greece will not divined between a pro-CP Athens government and a pro-Entente Salonika government. Being completely surrounded by CP troops, and with Entente fleets havign rather less of a free rein in the Mediterranean, either it stays a quite CP-friendly nominal neutral, or it enters for the CP. Since the impact of the Greek military will be limited (Serbia is already out or soon to be), the main effect is that the Mediterranean is even less friendly to Entente fleets, with Grrek ports for the CP Navies. Also the Ottomans have more troops to spare for the Caucasus.
Sweden: and here we have the other medium power most ready to help, and most beneficial, for the CP (even more so than Romania). It had a very pro-German King and Amry, the problem was the pacifist Socialist Diet. CP Sweden actually has two different PoDs, one early and one late, like Italy. The first one, and indepedent from Italy, is that at the onset of the war, there was this rogue Russian Commander of the Baltic Fleet that on his own initiative sailed to oust the Swedish Fleet of its base, fearing its committment to Germay. Had not him be recalled at the last minute, the resulting naval battle would have skyrocketed the Diet in war against Russia. Otherwise, with some good Entente defeats, had Germany made promises to Sweden about influence (e.g. a personal union) in Finland, and a public committment to Finnish independence, with some good political maneuvering (e.g. a pro-CP Finnish government-in-exile, which makes a public appeal to Scandinavian solidarity) Sweden could have made a late entry in the war. Impact of CP Sweden: the Russians are forced to redeploy substantial troops on the Swedish border to protect Finland and indirectly St. Petersburg. The CPs will have near-complete control of the Baltic, so combined German-Swedish landings in southwestern Finland become quite feasible, which will encircle Russian troops on the border (the railways were on the Finnish coast) and draw ever more troops to cover the dire threat to St. Petersburg. Yet another major front for the Russians. This accelerates their collapse six months to a year, more so if Romania is neutral or CP. Finnish insurrection against the Russians becomes a likely outcome to some point (probably after the landings).
Besides, and this is less likely but theoretically feasible, the German-Swedish could organize a land expedition to cut the Archangelesk railway. The logistics are very bad but theoretically feasible from the Swedish border. This would only leave the Russians the Persia route to receive Entente supplies (and troops). The Ottomans could make a renewed effort from Mesopotamia to cut this route and they might be successful (not terribly likely, more so if they get Allies help). This would only leave the terribly long Transsiberian route.
Theoretically, the British could try and counter CP Sweden by luring Norway to their side. However, it is rather questionable that Norway, despite het British sympathies, would accept to betray Scandinavian solidarity this way when they have no claim or grievance against Sweden. It is more likely (especialy with Churchill in the government) that the UK would invade Norway as they almost did in 1940, but the most likely outcome is that Norwegians would fiercely resist, like Belgians, and turn British advance into a snail pace, enough for German and Swedish troops to rush to the rescue. The front would stabilize somewhere in Norway, Danemark would jump to the CP, and the net probable result would be that part but not all of the Swedish pressure on the Russians would be relieved. It is rather more probable that any British troops used this way would have been more useful shoring up the French (if they are still fighting by this point) or the Russians.
Spain: well, they are rather unlikely to enter, even with a perceivably weak Entente, they suffered a defeat in 1898 which sapped the fighting spirits of the country for a generation. They might go if France looks really weak and the CP makes really good promises (French Morocco, French Navarre, Perpignan, Gibraltar, Portugal) but they have the problem of a British satellite Portugal on their back, so at least part of their army will have to be used to protect against a British invasion from Portugal and/or landings (IF the British have the manpower to spare, questionable ITTL), which would likely force Germans and Italians to send some troops to aid. Questionable whether the Spanish Army giving yet another front to the French is the straw that breaks the French camel's back, or an easy advance for the overstretched Anglo-French which would require quick CP relief to deny the Entente the Spanish ports. Probably, the best contribution Spain could give to the CP is quietely allowing an Italo-German mountain expeditionary corps to take Gibraltar by land and deny the Mediterranean to the Entente. This is safest to do if France has already fallen, but yields less definite benefits (without the French Navy, the British will give up the Mediterranean almost entirely).
Netherlands: well, this another neutral rather unlikely to enter. With the exception of the Germans going Russia First and France performing a reverse Schliffen (which would have however huge repercussions, since this would make Britain CP). Otherwise, they might have some CP sympathies, but German invasion of Belgium would dampen them a lot. Not estinguish them entirely (see Dtuch refusal to hand William II over), however. Possibly a CP entry if the Entente looks like clearly losing and Gemrany makes them very good promises (Belgian and French Flanders). However, the benefits for Germany of a Dutch alliance are more than neutralized by the harm of losing its neutrality: alliance means strategic depth in Belgium (only really useful during Schliffen, although, and for making Schliffen successful CP Italy will be ever much more effective than CP Netherlands might ever be) and Dutch ports (not really useful unless they break British blockade, by such a case they are already well on the way to defeat them anyway), but they lose Netherlands as a residual gateway for their commerce, and make British bolocakde even more tight.