Italy knocked out of WWI.

Most of the CP-victory scenarios where Italy isnt placed in the CP camp have Italy falling before France and Russia.

So Im wondering what would be the consequences of Italy being knocked out of WWI, with the Central Powers still loseing the war?
 
The State of SCS probably doesnt join with the Kingdom of Serbia, and the Italians dont claim Istria and South Tyrol. They will get Trentino, and might end up Gorizia and Trieste, but no more.
 

Deleted member 1487

Most of the CP-victory scenarios where Italy isnt placed in the CP camp have Italy falling before France and Russia.

So Im wondering what would be the consequences of Italy being knocked out of WWI, with the Central Powers still loseing the war?


When, after Caporetto? It makes a HUGE difference to the way the war ends and may prevent a total implosion of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I will still break up, but they cold prevent Bulgaria from falling and act as a resource farm for the CPs. 1918 is then all about demobilizing soldiers and turning resources back to growing food and repairing infrastructure. Bulgaria could then survive, though the Ottomans are doomed. Tensions will mount until Germany surrenders and then the Empire splits in two. The allies will have a harder time supporting Serbia, which means it won't be as large and the Austrians are busy sticking it to the Czechs.

Hungary might then be much more stable without a communist revolution and be able to beat the Romanians, though once the Allies are able to move through the Bosphorus, the end game is coming. Bulgaria might be able to cut a deal, but they will lose some territory at the peace table.

Without Italy, the Austria state might the be able to get a better deal, as without a means to go after her, the Allies decide its not worth the trouble, cutting a deal to allow the new Austrian state to keep its German minorities close to its borders, i.e. the Sudenten (most of it), Pressburg, disputed areas in Carinitha, and perhaps all of Slovenia. This would leave a nation of about 10 million people with a strong industrial base and a weaker Czechoslovakia, which then might find itself as part of the little Entente if so inclined. The early end to the war for Austria-Hungary leaves Austria much more stable and less starving during 1918, having had an extra year of 'peace', meaning it is able to de-militarize the nation to a sustainable degree, though shortages and banditry from deserters will continue.

Italy will be a mess after their defeat, probably seeing a Socialist revolution and civil war. It will be a miracle to see them pick up anything in the war, but with the Empire breaking up, it is possible to see the Italian areas leaving of their own accord and the Austrians not caring enough to stop them.

As to the Western Front, it means little except for the Allies regaining the several divisions lent to Italy, heavily outweighing the loss of the single corps of Italians in France. Though I do see some divisions tied down in Italy, trying to prevent a revolution or at least fighting communists. The end for Germany stays the same, though with the fun realization that they would be the first or second CP to surrender, as Bulgaria is not likely to go first with Austrian support, nor is Austria-Hungary pushed over the edge by the Italians and are able to muddle on until the Allies decide to cut them a deal.

That brings up another interesting question: do the Allies cut Austria-Hungary a deal when there is no effective way to attack them? Without Italy, Romania is still out and not likely to rejoin in the same way as historical in 1918 against an undistracted Habsburg state. The Balkans is now a bottle neck where the Austrians can transfer their heavy artillery and aircraft to support the wavering Bulgarians, probably keeping them in the game indefinitely, thanks to the terrain and the Austro-Hungarian experience in mountain warfare. With no active fronts besides the Balkans and plundering the Ukraine, Austria-Hungary will be much more stable politically and socially than OTL 1918. The breakup is going to happen, it is just a matter of when. The nation won't dissolve into civil strife like in OTL 1918, thanks to being able to spend a year producing food and repairing the collapsed infrastructure as well as demobilizing disloyal soldiers and locking up the guns. There will still be LOTS of trouble, but it should be manageable even with the indecision of Kaiser Karl. The reduction of brigandage by increasing food supply and returning men to work instead of war will ease many tensions, but not all.

Eventually, once it is clear that the Austro-Hungarians are going to stick around until the war ends instead of collapsing the Allies might very well cut a deal to get her to drop out and switch sides, something Karl might want to do given the pressure he is under and the increasingly bad end that Germany is coming to. The Hungarians will take the opportunity to husband their power for the break up of the two nations at the end of the war, but are still likely to be more stabile than historical, as the end of combat and return of basic necessities will limit the influence of the communists there. Expect a break of Austria and Hungary with a series of revolts from ethnic minorities and outsides states trying to take advantage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe Germany+AH break completely the Venetian front and as their armies march on Milan the Italian government collapses, yet the British/French/Americans invade Rome and stablish a puppet government in order to not let them exit the war. You would end with a situation halfway between Greece in 1915 and Italy in 1943, with the country effectively divided in two states (one monarchic, one nominally republican) that are figthting pawns for each band. Eventually the CPs become overstretched enough to fall without Michael. Italy becomes then an utter mess, falls into a multisided civil war after word of the Russian Revolution arrives, and if the Entente are asses enough they ignore her at Versailles. Well, that looks very ugly for the boot shaped country. On the other hand, Yugoslavia and Albania are going to love it.
 
The Allies would basically try to do what they did in OTL regarding Caporetto, send huge forces from France and try to shore it up. IMHO any TL in which Italy falls will have it as a given that THIS force has also been defeated, or at best brushed aside.

I can't really see Britain and France trying to create a puppet government to restart the war, they're already screwing around with Greece in this way, and they don't have much in terms of long-term spare forces. The Italians will still defend themselves, its not at all analogous to 1943 where you had the Germans already across Italian territory.

There may be some occupation of territory in the NW if Allied forces are already moving to try to stop the collapse - there would probably be some sort of agreement to withdraw only when Central Powers forces evacuate all of what they have occupied. Depending on how things go, this may or may not for a long period!

The blow to morale will be huge, but with the USA coming in more and more this would be offset. What would not be offset would be the freeing of large numbers of Austrian, and elite German, forces. It would also appear to add to the momentum of eventual victory for the Central Powers since the only place now where they are in retreat is in the Middle East, and not desperately yet there. Salonika and the Western Front are stable and don't look like breaking any time yet

What could be the crux is whether extra forces, or more of better quality forces, might allow the German Spring/Summer offensives of 1918 to break throuugh

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Could northern Italy be a second corridor for german armies toward france?
a trench-less one, too

I would think that that would look llike a worse option for the Germans than having Italy neutral and evacuated. Once at the Western border, they would be a) tying down troops keeping the peace in occupied Italy and b) facing strong French defences where the Allies have the advantage.

IMHO better to be reasonably nice to Italy and use the armies in the West

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
But could they gamble on it remaining neutral and evacuated?
After all, it could be a corridor toward lyonne, but it could also be a corridor toward Vienna.

And, from the other POV, could the french gamble on it remaining neutral and evacuated?

Each party is compelled to send troops there, just to prevent the other getting the upper hand, if not for more offensive reasons.

After all napoleonic wars were fought both in northern italy and on the rhine.
Also consider that the french did not have anything comparable to Verdun fortifications here: what strong French defences are you referring to?
 
Its a strong defensive POSITION on the border, easier to sit and hold in terms of manpower than to attack.

And previous conflicts did not see a united Italy, where holding to an agreement is going to be much more easily directed than in the past.

I don't of course KNOW whether anything I say would be so, its just some ideas and pointers is all

Best Regards
Grey Wolf


On Twitter : http://www.twitter.com/ahf_fiction
 

Deleted member 1487

But could they gamble on it remaining neutral and evacuated?
After all, it could be a corridor toward lyonne, but it could also be a corridor toward Vienna.

And, from the other POV, could the french gamble on it remaining neutral and evacuated?

Each party is compelled to send troops there, just to prevent the other getting the upper hand, if not for more offensive reasons.

After all napoleonic wars were fought both in northern italy and on the rhine.
Also consider that the french did not have anything comparable to Verdun fortifications here: what strong French defences are you referring to?

The French had fortresses on their border with Italy, true, nothing like Verdun, but they need not be, because the terrain was so rough. Small fortresses are magnified in their usefulness in the Alps. Basically it would not make sense to send CP troops through Italy, least of which was the logistics were not there to sustain them. If Italy is knocked out, there would be Allied troops their to try to keep the nation together, because the Socialist are going to rising in revolt. They were none to happy about the war at this point and disorder was starting. It would be worse in the south because most of the sacrificed foot soldiers came from there and saw they had gained nothing for the loss of their sons. Its is just better for the Austrians to pull back to their territory and not have to deal with the logistic problems which destroyed them in the end once they were on the Piave. The Alpine rail lines were not large enough to sustain an army of occupation, feed the population, not to mention launch an offensive!
 
The French had fortresses on their border with Italy, true, nothing like Verdun, but they need not be, because the terrain was so rough. Small fortresses are magnified in their usefulness in the Alps. Basically it would not make sense to send CP troops through Italy, least of which was the logistics were not there to sustain them. If Italy is knocked out, there would be Allied troops their to try to keep the nation together, because the Socialist are going to rising in revolt. They were none to happy about the war at this point and disorder was starting. It would be worse in the south because most of the sacrificed foot soldiers came from there and saw they had gained nothing for the loss of their sons. Its is just better for the Austrians to pull back to their territory and not have to deal with the logistic problems which destroyed them in the end once they were on the Piave. The Alpine rail lines were not large enough to sustain an army of occupation, feed the population, not to mention launch an offensive!

Central Powers Headquarter: A british landing in chaos Venice would threaten both Trieste and Vienna! We must act, Mein Kaiser!

French Headquarter: Remember Napoleon crossing Alps? Remember Morot entering italy along the coast road? what does make you think that those roads could not be walked in the other direction? We must act, Mon Presidant!

average Italian soldier (in his mind): I am going back home to Catania
 

Deleted member 1487

Central Powers Headquarter: A british landing in chaos Venice would threaten both Trieste and Vienna! We must act, Mein Kaiser!
How? The Allies had Venice most of the war and never really threatened Trieste or Vienna.

French Headquarter: Remember Napoleon crossing Alps? Remember Morot entering italy along the coast road? what does make you think that those roads could not be walked in the other direction? We must act, Mon Presidant!
Yeah, just look at how well the Italians did with 1 million men attacking Austrian forts in the Alps. Hey, besides France has several hundred thousand men in reserve just waiting to attack Austria, forget those Germans attacking us or the silly mutiny of our forces. Did I mention there is there is a socialist revolt going on? Situation perfect attaque! :rolleyes:

average Italian soldier (in his mind): I am going back home to Catania
That's about right, you forgot the part where he wants to shoot him a politician or general.
 
You must not to be in the right frame of mind to be involved in a Great War, anyway: remember plan XVII
And I subscribe the wish to shoot a politician first
 
One also wonders what terms Germany could offer which would convince Italy not to hold out awaiting the Allied victory almost inevitable now that the US had entered the war.

Otherwise Germany is going to require either a massive occupation force for all of Italy or leave the large majority of Italy unoccupied and just waiting for shipments to rebuild the army.
 

Deleted member 1487

You must not to be in the right frame of mind to be involved in a Great War, anyway: remember plan XVII
And I subscribe the wish to shoot a politician first

1914 and 1917 were vastly different in terms of thought. The AHs realize they don't have the power to continue the struggle any further, remember the Sixtus affair? Kaiser Karl promised Alsace-Lorraine for peace! Also the French were not stupid and didn't have the men to go after Austria when Germany was the main enemy.
 
One also wonders what terms Germany could offer which would convince Italy not to hold out awaiting the Allied victory almost inevitable now that the US had entered the war.

Less favourable terms than you can think of.
Most of the population was against the war, and also the main political characters (Giolitti). Nitti was very unpopular and in case of a government change Giolitti would be a must

After Caporetto a status quo ante bellum would have been gladly accepted by the government, and even something worse of that had reasonable chance of being accepted.

If the socialists are causing civil unrest (Russia-like), an armistice is even more probable.

And if italy is plunged in civil war, CP do not even have to come to an agreement: nothern italy is there to be taken.

I agree that CP wuold be overstretched to occupy all italy, but the fact is that they would not have to do it. Northern bank of the Po would be more than enough. Also it would be
1) the largest booty (richest region)
2) the region there AH had a claim on, having ruled it since 1700 up to 1859-1866
3) Defensible (both the river and the so called Quadrilatero Brescia Peschiera Legnago Padova: the Austrian held the region for a long time pivoting on these fortifications)
4) Having a secure flank: Switzerland
5) Fertile: an army would not starve there
6) near to austria, both from Vienna-Tirol and from Trieste-Istria: an army could be supplied there
 
Last edited:
One also wonders what terms Germany could offer which would convince Italy not to hold out awaiting the Allied victory almost inevitable now that the US had entered the war.

Otherwise Germany is going to require either a massive occupation force for all of Italy or leave the large majority of Italy unoccupied and just waiting for shipments to rebuild the army.

IMHO Italy won't be able to hold out if the Central Powers have broken through the defence line, and the Allies can't get their forces there in time. With the front broken, social unrest, desertion and revolution are all going to be in the air, and what small part of Italy that still wants to continue the war is not going to be in a good position to do it.

Its almost inevitable, again IMHO, that the government in Rome will fall if there is a Central Powers breakthrough, and thus almost inevitable that Giolitti returns to power. The king is going to want swift action to prevent the spread of revolt, and an armistice with Germany BEFORE Venice or Milan, or the Quadrilateral, are menaced is going to be vital - otherwise they cede their entire bargaining capacity.

I reckon they could get a peace on the basis of :-

1. immediate cessation of Italian hostilities
2. Central Powers continue to occupy X whilst Allies continue to occupy Y
3. Italy guarantees the Adriatic, including the dismantling of the Otranto Barrage but also defence of its own territorial waters against Allied ships

Anything else could be kicked to eventual Dutch or Swedish mediation

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, if during Caporetto the Austrians and Germans were more coordinated, organized, and well provisioned (there was serious inter-army miscommunication and disrespect for each other) and the Italians were a little more inept, then it is conceivable that two armies could have been crushed during the battle. In that case, it is much more conceivable that the Italians would have asked for an end to the battle and the line on the Piave would have been much more difficult to hold. By the time the Germans and Austrians were able to attack again in December, the line could fold for morale reasons and the Italians could be knocked out of the war.
 
Top