Italy joins WWI early for the CP?

The Swedish Parliament is a Dag, not a Diet. You know, as in Reichstag. Riksdagen, in this case. I would also say that you are overestimating the Swedish Army. It was outdated, not the best trained, and not the largest for the country's size, either.
The Navy was better, though.
Norway is actually more likely to surrender- she depended on her merchant navy, and that navy depended on British goodwill.

Finally, even if Britain de jure should come to Belgium's rescue if France tries a reverse Schlieffen, it is, barring a pre-War POD making Britain more German-friendly, far more likely that it would merely solidify and more-or-less ensure British neutrality. Which is a great gain for the Alliance, that, too, of course. There's even OTL precedent: the Netherlands had a commitment that was conviniently forgotten... altough if France's reverse Schlieffen goes through Luxembourg, and Britain looks set to be neutral, then it may be remembered;).

Hehe. May I just refer to my signature for a minute:p?
 

General Zod

Banned
The Swedish Parliament is a Dag, not a Diet. You know, as in Reichstag. Riksdagen, in this case.

OK. :eek:

I would also say that you are overestimating the Swedish Army. It was outdated, not the best trained, and not the largest for the country's size, either.

if I overestimate them, they draw somewhat less Russian troops in Finland, and the accelration of the inevitable Russian collapse is somewhat lightened: 3-6 months (in addition to the much more sizable acceleration that CP Italy itself will produce, of course) instead of 6-12.

However, I respectfully ask, aren't you emphasizing a bit too much the initial problems of the Swedish Army ? WWI was the quintessential industrial attrition war, unless the country is truly poised to be smashed out of the war by a quick stroke (Romania, almost France), the total potential manpower, organization, and resource pool of the country is rather more important than the standing Army. Sweden had decent population, industry, and educated population. Armies can be conscripted many times the size of the initial mobilization pool, training can be improved (esp. with notoriously good German trainers, equipment can be improved, too. Neither Sweden is poised to crush Russia in a few months, nor Russia Sweden, the logistics are too bad for that. Swedish Army has time to expand and improve.

The Navy was better, though.

Good for the combined German-Swedish landings in southwest Finland.

Norway is actually more likely to surrender- she depended on her merchant navy, and that navy depended on British goodwill.

The way the pre-war pro-CP Belgium quietely surrendered to the Germans ? Or the way they meekily gave way to the Germans in 1940, despite the hopeless strategic situation ? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

If the Belgians fought, so the Norwegians.

Finally, even if Britain de jure should come to Belgium's rescue if France tries a reverse Schlieffen, it is, barring a pre-War POD making Britain more German-friendly, far more likely that it would merely solidify and more-or-less ensure British neutrality.

True to a degree, but never forget that up to the German invasion of Belgium, the Entente Cordiale was a somewhat shaky, innatural, and half-hearted siding for the British, and there had been serious Anglo-German feelings for an alliance as late as 1912-13 (indeed some historians seepcualte that had WWI erupted later, Britain would have switched sides, since the naval scare, the essential source of Anglo-German animosity was dwindling more and more by that time). Schliffen was what solidified that in a true stretegic alliance. One must always ward off hindsight about alliances.

Now picture, Germans never touch Belgium and go after the Russians first. HSF stays in Kiel, so the perception of the big bad German fleet quickly evaporates in the British public's mind. The war looks like an Franco-German fistfight about A-L (no British business), an Italo-French fistfight over border and colonial claims (ditto) and an Austrian-Ottoman-Russian fist fight over the Balkans (if anything, the Russians look like the worse menace to the Straits), so any perception in Britain of any allegiance to the French or any animosity to the Germans quickly evaporates.

Now, after some months, the French, after repeated costly failures of their elan offensives in A-L, a costly stalemate on the Alps, and beginning to feel the inevitable manpower gap in a two-front attrition war, conceive the reverse Schliffen to outflank the impassable German trenches.

They ask for passage, the Belgians deny them quite publicly, the French not daring to backtrack and give the advantage to the Germans, go through anyway. The Belgians cry murder to the whole world and make quite public appeals for help to London and Berlin. Netherlands throw open their borders to the Germans and send the Army southward (it looks like Napoleon again to them). Luxemburg does likewise (and starts fast-track membership in the German Empire).

In the British mind, it's the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleon all over again, seizing any flimsy pretext to conquer the Low Countries and steamrolling neutrals like a century ago. The cuntry is suddenly reminded that France is the hereditary enemy and they picked a silly animosity with old ally Prussia-Germany over a fleet that never left their ports. The Entente Cordiale is quickly shelved like a mistake as bad as Munich OTL, and clamor rises in the British Parliament to rescue the Belgians. Assuming the Irish Home Rule is not giving too much grief to UK by late 1914-early 1915 (a big IF), an ultimatum is sent tp France to withdraw from Belgium or worse. Germany pleads to leave Belgium alone if France will withdraw. With a third of her Army all over Western Belgium, France dares change her course, gambling to beat the Germans to the rush for Reinland.

UK (after getting quick German garantees about the independence of Belgium) declares war on France, and rushes to send the BEF in Holland. It is a very close shave, but gallant Belgian-Dutch resistance, and the advance of the BEF (which the French hadn't calculated) delays the French enough that German unites rushed from A-L and Russia, and Italian ones rushed from the Alps, manage to plug the hole near the French border (in years yet to come, soldiers of five nations fighting together in Aachen to defend the cradle of the Carolingian Empire against the treacherous French shall become a powerful symbol of European unity). France holds pretty much all Belgium, but it is trapped in a nasty strategic vise between three Great Powers, as bad as late Napoleon, and the only issue is whether the Allies shall deem more profitable to steamroll the Russians or bleed the French white first.

Which is a great gain for the Alliance, that, too, of course.

Oh sure. British and USA neutrality and Italian CP belligerance (the former makes the latter all but sure) spell the inevitable doom of the Franco-Russian Entente anyway, not to mention the cascade effect of CP Sweden and/or Romania which this lineup makes exceedingly likely. CP Britain would only accelerate the process even more.

There's even OTL precedent: the Netherlands had a commitment that was conviniently forgotten... altough if France's reverse Schlieffen goes through Luxembourg, and Britain looks set to be neutral, then it may be remembered;).

Not even violation of Luxemburg neutrality (which will throw open the doors to the Germans and suddenly remind to be an old HRE possession ;)) will be necessary. With the French fighting in Bruxelles it's Napoleon I and Louis XIV for the Dutch and British all over again. That would be the radical divergence of Russia First and Reverse Schliffen: Ugly German never truly cristallizes in the collective mind of Western Europe and Greedy French is all the rage again like last three centuries. ;)

Hehe. May I just refer to my signature for a minute:p?

Need to check it more accurately, of course. Hope your "Russia First" TL includes a proper CP Italy and neutral Britain, of course, none of those "The British always DoW the Germans anyway because they hate them" and "whatever the odds, the Italians will always want Trieste, never Nice" Ententewank silliness. :p
 
Need to check it more accurately, of course. Hope your "Russia First" TL includes a proper CP Italy and neutral Britain, of course, none of those "The British always DoW the Germans anyway because they hate them" and "whatever the odds, the Italians will always want Trieste, never Nice" Ententewank silliness. :p
Technically, it's not a proper CP Italy, as in A Central East, it is the extended members of the Alliance that becomes known as the Allies, but that and Russia First was the basic concept behind it in the first place:D.
As for neutral Britain... the latest update consists of a school boy's essay of why Britain didn't enter the war;).
 
The moral of Gallipoli is that when you have to choose between seizing the commanding heights over the landing beaches and allowing the men to go swimming, the swimming might best be put off just a teensy bit longer.:D



OK, General Zod, that's it! You're finished on this board! You didn't know the correct name for Sweden's Dag! Pack up and clear out now!

;)
 

General Zod

Banned
Actually, there are people on this forum who'd probably agree with that.

Oh, yes the Ottomans were so successful in defeating the Italians in 1911-12. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So ? There are people in this forum who think the Soviets would have won WWII singlehandedly and conquered Europe even if the Wehrmacht, the Japanese, and twelve legions of angels had teamed against them alone. :eek::eek::eek:
 
Oh, yes the Ottomans were so successful in defeating the Italians in 1911-12. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
While fighting a war against all the Balkan powers, and doing so in the middle of a major re-organisation of their military.
Oh, and the Ottoman's didn't have a good way of reinforcing Libya, either.
And it still wasn't a cake-walk for the Italians.
 

General Zod

Banned
Technically, it's not a proper CP Italy, as in A Central East, it is the extended members of the Alliance that becomes known as the Allies, but that and Russia First was the basic concept behind it in the first place:D.
As for neutral Britain... the latest update consists of a school boy's essay of why Britain didn't enter the war;).

Well, had Italy stayed where it belonged ;) they would have still been the Central Powers anyway, they cut the continent in nice halves (another reason I'm so fond of the DE-AH/HU-IT-SWE lineup, it completes the cut and makes the ultimate continental-wide Jominian position), and it would still have been the old Triple Alliance (the original ones to deserve the Alliance name, the others were the Entente). Of course, with the Ottomans it would have been the Quadruple Alliance, with Sweden (or Britain) the Quintuple Alliance. Although it is more likely that with an increasing number of first-tier (IT OE UK) and maybe middle (SWE) members, the name would have been shortened to simply (Great) Alliance, and victory would have crystallized the name.
 
Well, had Italy stayed where it belonged ;) they would have still been the Central Powers anyway, they cut the continent in nice halves (another reason I'm so fond of the DE-AH/HU-IT-SWE lineup, it completes the cut and makes the ultimate continental-wide Jominian position), and it would still have been the old Triple Alliance (the original ones to deserve the Alliance name, the others were the Entente). Of course, with the Ottomans it would have been the Quadruple Alliance, with Sweden (or Britain) the Quintuple Alliance. Although it is more likely that with an increasing number of first-tier (IT OE UK) and maybe middle (SWE) members, the name would have been shortened to simply (Great) Alliance, and victory would have crystallized the name.
Japan's relatively early entry on the Allied side cuts short any idea of calling them Central Powers:D.
Of course, the Allied Powers is a name that crops up every now and then...
 

General Zod

Banned
Japan's relatively early entry on the Allied side cuts short any idea of calling them Central Powers:D.

Hadn't thought of that. Of course, with the Brits neutral, for the Japs another slice of good Bear flesh would look so tasty...

What about Sweden, Ottomans, and Romania ? Do they join the Ivan gangban... err banquet ? ;)
 
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.

Iyasu's father was very well respected. When the Entente did make their move against Iyasu AFTER Italy came into the war his father was able to summon nearly 80,000 men (mostly Oromo) to fight for him. Yes he was ultimately defeated nevertheless Iyasu was able to evade capture for a long while in the eastern portion of his lands that remained deeply sympathetic to him. Zauditu was deeply ambivalent about her participation in the overthrow of Iyasu and Tafari (the future Heile Selassie) is a supreme opportunist, is connected to Iyasu through his wife and has his HQ at the 4th most important Islamic city (Hadar).
 
Hadn't thought of that. Of course, with the Brits neutral, for the Japs another slice of good Bear flesh would look so tasty...

What about Sweden, Ottomans, and Romania ? Do they join the Ivan gangban... err banquet ? ;)
Why, yes!
Hm... may I suggest you read the TL;)?
These short summaries lack the faulty details and silly faux-quotes, after all.
 
While fighting a war against all the Balkan powers, and doing so in the middle of a major re-organisation of their military.
Oh, and the Ottoman's didn't have a good way of reinforcing Libya, either.
And it still wasn't a cake-walk for the Italians.

Don't you understand? These are the heroes of Adowa, and the victors of Caporetto!

I grant you they haven't reached the peaks of glory they'd reach in the Second World War, when they subdued the empire of Albania and conducted a heroic fighting retreat through Libya. But still, the men who could make Libyan tribes shake in their boots are easily superior to the Ottomans.
 

General Zod

Banned
While fighting a war against all the Balkan powers, and doing so in the middle of a major re-organisation of their military.
Oh, and the Ottoman's didn't have a good way of reinforcing Libya, either.
And it still wasn't a cake-walk for the Italians.

All the Balkan minors combined only had a decent advantage because the Ottomans (GP) had been busy fighting the Italians (GP), not the reverse. The First Balkan War erupted when the Italo-Turkish War was almost finished and the Italians had occupied the Dodecanese islands, too.

Italians had problems because they had limited experience with subduing colonial populations, so they were unfamiliar with asymmetrical warfare.

Nobody says the Ottomans weren't good. Italians just were somewhat better, not radically so.
 

MrP

Banned
Nobody says the Ottomans weren't good. Italians just were somewhat better, not radically so.

I suppose the closest we got to checking this IOTL is the Italians in the Salonika force in WWI, since Libya is more of a guerrilla campaign than a stand-up fight. It'd be interesting to see a match-up IATL. I think I'd give the Turks the advantage of greater flexibility in smaller battles, since they've only got 9 battalions in a division against the Italians' 18, yet have comparable artillery support (c.24-36 assorted field/mountain guns to 24-36 75mm guns).* Of course, this means the Italians have greater manpower reserves, giving them greater potential to assault or defend.

* Pp.235-9, The WWI Databook. I'm a bit uncertain of these figures, since they suggest 1,043 offs and men in 1915 for each battalion. There are 3 battalions to each regiment, 3 regiments to each brigade, and 2 brigades to each division, so 18,774 before one even starts thinking about support personnel. Yet the sidebar says, "Total strength in 1915 included: 14,200 offs and men". However, the 1918 battalion strength of 780 offs and men gives 14,040 men. So I think there's been a mix-up. If anyone's got any more concrete info on Italian TOEs, I'd love to see it!
 
Top