Neutral Italy means A-H is unlikely to collapse - and a CP victory is more likely by a fair amount with an earlier Russian defeat and Austro-Hungarian troops in Northern France, not to talk about a safer Mediterranean. If it's benevolent neutrality (which I doubt, but who knows), that means a lot fewer issues with food, as well.So no WWI (or an intervention in last days to take Trento and Trieste)
I agree.Neutral Italy means A-H is unlikely to collapse - and a CP victory is more likely by a fair amount with an earlier Russian defeat and Austro-Hungarian troops in Northern France, not to talk about a safer Mediterranean. If it's benevolent neutrality (which I doubt, but who knows), that means a lot fewer issues with food, as well.
I agree.
Italian neutrality would be hugely beneficial to Italy (that is pretty clear in hindsight) at least in the short-to-mid term (long term continuation of the Liberal consensus and a more generally conservative society could prove hindrances over the decades, but that is another point).
But it would impact the wider war quite massively, improving the odds for the CP significantly (especially as Romania, for instance, would be far less likely to join with a neutral Italy, and I am under the impression tha this also applies to Greece) and changing the outcome anyway.
If the Entente still wins (which may take a bit longer, or be a less decisive affaire with a "negotiated" peace) it is unclear what happens to Austria, and in the event of an Austrian collapse ( less likely, though a postwar AH would likely be very messy) or with a punitive peace Italy may still take Trento, and possibly Trieste, in a way similar to how Denmark got Northern Schleswig at the peace table even without taking part in the war.
(Or maybe Italy decides to profit from Austrian instability to try to grab more, and find herself in a complex quagmire across the Adriatic... but I don't think it's very likely, especially with a cautious Giolitti in charge).
"No Mussolini" is a necessary condition for a Liberal Italy, but not a sufficient one.
With neutral Italy?The question then becomes, in a CP victory are the chances of a punitive treaty ceding to Italy Nice, and possibly more of the Alpes departments(s), Corsica or Malta?
Getting more of the Irredenta lands without a shot fired by the Italian side would appease the nationalists and prove to them that one of their historical enemies (France) is a butter eating weakling.
Well, the weight of Versailles is more on France's shoulders than anything else - they wanted to declaw Germany for good, and a heavy treaty was the best way short of a costly occupation they could not afford. Saint Germain/Trianon is likely to be quite different, though, which might be to Italy's benefit.The better way is having Wilson crashing to death on his way to Paris; no 14 points, no mutilated victory, a lot of land more were to employ the veterans, all in all, better publòicity for the liberals. Beside without the 14 points the self-determination principlr is not imposed and the treaties are less heavy. World War 2 may be avoided.
It's not like Italy is going to eat A-H whole anyway. The difference would be minimal on a national scale. Fiume, for sure, and Zadar/Zara, with maybe some other snippets of Dalmatia. While some might try and go for the whole thing down to Dubrovnik/Ragusa, I doubt that would end up happening.Or it might not if they have to spend huge amounts of money to control or develop their new lands.
The whole Damatian coast was Italophile and Italophone.
The coast of Dalmatia spoke Italian, the interior spoke Croate.