Neutral, and No Tyrol?

In 1914/15 Italy was sitting neutral during the Great War. Despite official membership in the Triple Alliance, irredentist claims to the Italophone Trento region and the semi-Italophone Trieste region cased them to hedge their bets and consider joining the Entente.

In the course of this, "Italy conducted intense negotiations with Austria, which was prepared to part with Trento in exchange of Italy's neutrality, but Italy wanted the old borders of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy, which ran between Salurn and the Brenner Pass, a demand which Austria refused, since it would mean giving up a territory regarded as personal fief by the Habsburg Emperors." (Wikipedia; see link)

One Linkiedinkie

Instead they joined the Entente, and the rest is OTL history.

WI cooler or more cautious heads had prevailed in Italy? Could Italy have stayed neutral? Since South Tyrol/Alto Adige was primarily Germanophone, could a "kleinirredentism" to only control Trento proper have been politically justified in Italy? Could there even have been any possibility of this when Trieste is certainly not up for discussion? What if Italy decided to just take the Trento "buyoff" (and possibly Goriza w/o Trieste City) and worry about Trieste (and Dalmatia) later?

Obvious butterflies include no AH weakening of the Galician front and possibly a better show vs. the Russians, but what else? Might Russia have fallen faster? Could CP victory be in the cards, or is this a bridge too far?
 
That means Uber Fascism, and MUCH MUCH sooner.
Basically Italy would never accept that. Ever. Those Italian areas ethically and historically belonged to them (mebbe not trieste historically, but all the land around it).

Jim
 
Italy doesn't really have much interest in neutrality in World War I; their goal was to be on the winning side in order to get their irredentist claims against France or Austria (and if they could find a way to do both then even better).
 
That means Uber Fascism, and MUCH MUCH sooner.
Basically Italy would never accept that. Ever. Those Italian areas ethically and historically belonged to them (mebbe not trieste historically, but all the land around it).

Jim

Actually it would butterfly fascism. Italy won WW1 but it was a disaster under all point of vies >1200000 deaths and huge dept. Fascism rose with the economic crisis and the relatively few concession of the peace. Without war but with Trento and even partial control of Trieste (which the Austrian Empire agreed) AND with all the money made by selling suplies to the warring nation Italy would be in great shape after the war, and seeing the death toll of other countries, Italians very happy about it.

ITL, the War was initiated by the London Pact which Savoy King signed without parliamentary approval.

However It could butterfly entente victory. Italy role in the war has always been downplayed. True until and including Caporetto it was disastrous (thanks to Cadorna and Badoglio), but the Vittorio Veneto and subsequent advance were beyond all entente expectation (Italians defended the Piave, while entetente troops thought it lost) and the subsequent obfensive hurt Austians really bad (thanks to Diaz). In the war italy took much of Austria-Hungary might (still a regardable force) by itself and after 1917 even the German troops returning from the eastern front. With them the CP could actually succeed the summer 1918 offensive.
 

Markus

Banned
Makes sense to me. First you take what the Austrians offer voluntarily and depending on how the war goes on you either stay neutral or make more demands later. The dealy deadlock on the western front from 1915 onwards could be and should be a deterrant to actually go to war.
 
Actually it would butterfly fascism. Italy won WW1 but it was a disaster under all point of vies >1200000 deaths and huge dept. Fascism rose with the economic crisis and the relatively few concession of the peace. Without war but with Trento and even partial control of Trieste (which the Austrian Empire agreed) AND with all the money made by selling suplies to the warring nation Italy would be in great shape after the war, and seeing the death toll of other countries, Italians very happy about it.

Even though all those were big factors, the biggest was the 'Mutilated Victory'. Italy had suffered so much with all those things above that when they got less than they were promised by the entente they were VERY pissed off. The 'Stab in the Back Legend' except justified, true, and much, much more bitter.

Jim
 
Makes sense to me. First you take what the Austrians offer voluntarily and depending on how the war goes on you either stay neutral or make more demands later. The dealy deadlock on the western front from 1915 onwards could be and should be a deterrant to actually go to war.
Italy would probably make the occasional demand of compensation for neutrality from either France or Austria-Hungary depending on how the war goes. However, IMO they'll almost certainly still declare war once it appears that one side or the other is on the verge of winning the war, as the Italians very much wanted to be on the winning side.
 
Italy would probably make the occasional demand of compensation for neutrality from either France or Austria-Hungary depending on how the war goes. However, IMO they'll almost certainly still declare war once it appears that one side or the other is on the verge of winning the war, as the Italians very much wanted to be on the winning side.

One of the motivating factor, especially for the Savoy house, was to win a great war as a nation and with that bolster national unity as well prestige. Albeit at a high price the first war did bolster national sentiment, a little too much actually.
 
Top