Neutral Italy in WW1 and Abyssinnia

Hi All,

I am interested in the boards opinion on the plausibility and possible effects of a neutral Italy in WW1. I understand that both sides were heavily lobbying Italy, but the majority of the population and even the parliament were against intervening. If we take the POD as King Emmanuel refusing to entertain any intervention on either side then I think that will be enough to prevent the Treaty of London. It was conducted in secret and I believe would not have gone ahead without the King's support. Perhaps his motive may be his refusal to compound their already dishonourable stance of not backing their alliance partners with outright betraying them. Although he could argue it was only a defensive alliance, by declaring war on his former allies he loses the moral high ground.

So if we accept the premise what happens in the greater war? Will Italy seek to avenge its defeat at Adowa and invade Abysinnia during the war? Could they win? The powers (Britain-France) capable of intervening would also be loathe to provoke a potential enemy. If they can win, how does this affect the fascist movement post war?

Kind regards
 
Italian neutrality in WW1 is not implausible by any reason. It was a deliberate decision taken by the king and part of the govern in spite of the great majority of population that favoured neutrality.
The best way to have a neutral Italy is to strenghten A-H. Abetter performance of the empire in the east could make King Emanuel to reconsider the hawks arguments and shelf the idea of a war (at least for a while).
Alternatevely, I've toyed with the idea of killing in a hunting accident Emanuele the third in early 1915. The following problems (choice of regent, disputes among court factions, etc...) would be enough to butterfly away the war.

Although he could argue it was only a defensive alliance, by declaring war on his former allies he loses the moral high ground.

He didn't need to argue that, because it was only a defensive alliance, so Italy had no obbligation of any kind toward her former allies. Truth to be told, Italy had been drifting away from the alliance since the beginning of the century. If WW1 had started a couple years later, we would have probably seen an entente Italy.

So if we accept the premise what happens in the greater war? Will Italy seek to avenge its defeat at Adowa and invade Abysinnia during the war? Could they win? The powers (Britain-France) capable of intervening would also be loathe to provoke a potential enemy. If they can win, how does this affect the fascist movement post war?

I don't think that Italy would have started any colonial adventure in those years. Lybia still needed to be "pacified" and the war made scarce many of those resources like coal and steel necessary to wage war for a long time (and a war against Abyssinia would have been long). Probably Italy would have taken the chance to improve both industry and agriculture output to supply both sides.

Could hey win against Abyssinia? Only with gases.

Right after WW1, the Italian command commisioned a study on a possible war against Abyssinia and the outcome was that to overcome the "large numerical superiority of the enemy" it was necessary a massive use of mustard gas and airplanes.

If you are interest I could dig more details.
 
So if we accept the premise what happens in the greater war? Will Italy seek to avenge its defeat at Adowa and invade Abysinnia during the war? Could they win? The powers (Britain-France) capable of intervening would also be loathe to provoke a potential enemy. If they can win, how does this affect the fascist movement post war?

The european war is totally changed, now A-H had one less front to worry about, his navy is not bottled in the adriatic and the Serbian army is doomed, but staying with the OP, i'm agreeing with a lot of Cornelious said but IRC during WWI Abyssinnia suffered of internal problems (well more than usual) so a limited adventure (not a full scale invasion) can be seen as something feasibile to distract the people at home and quiet the interventionist or maybe the limited conflict can be born by accident a border incident who escalate beyond control.
Regardeless of the situation, UK and France had other problem than Abyssinia at the moment so they probably wash their hand of the situation and probably be pleased that a wild card in the conflict who cannot be harrassed or pressed into service like Netherland or Greece had other thing to be worried.
 

Cook

Banned
A neutral Italy probably would have profited quite well from the war. Had it done so the political instability that overtook it at the end of the war probably wouldn’t have taken place.
 

Deleted member 1487

I know I'm going to sound like a Teutonophile, but the Central Powers probably win. Without Italy in the war AH is much, much better off and probably helps knock Russia out of the war before the US gets involved, which makes Germany much less willing to antagonize the US. Germany can also go on the offensive in 1917 and really mess up France.
Italy is much better off economically, politically, and probably even militarily. It will have a much better opportunity to knock out Abyssinia quicker than OTL. They will have all the benefit of learning from the war without wasting the manpower. Italy in had already conquered in Libya and learned from the experience. It could probably take on Abyssinia after tweeking their army based on WW1 experience gleaned from other countries.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I know I'm going to sound like a Teutonophile, but the Central Powers probably win. Without Italy in the war AH is much, much better off and probably helps knock Russia out of the war before the US gets involved, which makes Germany much less willing to antagonize the US. Germany can also go on the offensive in 1917 and really mess up France.
Italy is much better off economically, politically, and probably even militarily. It will have a much better opportunity to knock out Abyssinia quicker than OTL. They will have all the benefit of learning from the war without wasting the manpower. Italy in had already conquered in Libya and learned from the experience. It could probably take on Abyssinia after tweeking their army based on WW1 experience gleaned from other countries.

It sounds quite reasonable to me, especially if you are looking for less than a complete victory.

Italy will be able to sell production to both sides at large profits. To some extent, it will be able to import and then re-export to the CP with a nice markup. After all, no blockade is perfect. I can almost see goods being landed in the Atlantic ports of Spain, transported by rail to eastern Spain, to make quick dash to Sardinia. Italy will not take losses so will have a much better man power and equipment situation for its military. It will have greener troops, so this will offset to some extent.

It is hard to call if Italy moves against Abyssinia. An argument can be made WW1 is the perfect time to move. Just make sure that both sides know that if they interfere, Italy Joins the other side. An argument can also be made to wait til both sides are exhausted and partially demobilized before moving. The winner will be too exhausted to want another war.

France and the UK have the ability to intervene, but likely lack the will. They will need to pull forces from other areas to attack Italy. As a guess, France would need to move 1 or 2 armies to the Italian border and the UK would need to strip naval units from somewhere, maybe even the Grand Fleet. Maybe also an British Army to East Africa. The Entente is capable, but do they have the will. Many problems for the Entente to deal with, and for what, a small piece of Africa?

With Italy neutral, Germany is less likely to do unrestricted submarine warfare. Without USW, the USA is unlikely to enter the war. CP had 3 Armies on the Italy front. The CP will use these armies on other fronts. These fronts will perform better. My guess is that AH will use these armies to stabilize the Eastern Front in 1915. The Germans will then be able to pull troops out of the AH parts of the line launch an major offensive in the East or the West.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
One must remember Ethiopia was far from stable at this point in time. Iyasu V was not liked by the Shoan aristocracy (because he tended to favour Oromos from Wollo over them), and they played up his Muslim roots (his father Ras Mikael had converted to Christianity and was the real power behind the throne). Iyasu was also suspected to plot with the Ottoman Empire to join the Central Power (probably made up accusations to get the Europeans to accept a change of government). Iyasu was deposed in 1916 which lead to a short civil war. After the civil war the triumvirate of Empress Zauditu (daughter of Menelik II), the regent Ras Tafari (son of Menelik II's cousin Ras Makonnen) and the War Minister Fitawari Hapte Giorgis (former house slave Menelik II's household who became a skilled general and a shrewd official) rose to power.
 
Italy is much better off economically, politically, and probably even militarily. It will have a much better opportunity to knock out Abyssinia quicker than OTL. They will have all the benefit of learning from the war without wasting the manpower. Italy in had already conquered in Libya and learned from the experience. It could probably take on Abyssinia after tweeking their army based on WW1 experience gleaned from other countries.

With Cadorna at the helm? This is wishful thinking. The only thing he was good at was sending his men to slaughter. Hell, austrians should have awarded him a medal, after all he did more to defeat Italy, than the austrians themselves...

Anyway a war against Abyssinia would probably nullify many of the economical benefits of a neutral stance in WW1. OTL, the invasion of 1935 was really expensive and I don't think that one in the teens would be any cheaper.
 

Esopo

Banned
With Cadorna at the helm? This is wishful thinking. The only thing he was good at was sending his men to slaughter. Hell, austrians should have awarded him a medal, after all he did more to defeat Italy, than the austrians themselves...

Anyway a war against Abyssinia would probably nullify many of the economical benefits of a neutral stance in WW1. OTL, the invasion of 1935 was really expensive and I don't think that one in the teens would be any cheaper.

Well, the economical benefits of stayng neutral in ww1 are doubtful anyway. During ww1 italian economy grew a lot.
 
Thanks for all your replies. Very interesting. I concede that an invasion of Ethiopia will be expensive and completely unprofitable, however I do think it is a distinct possibility (colonialism in general being unprofitable). One would think it would pacify the interventionists sufficiently to prevent a direct involvement in WW1. Also the argument that doing so during a general war would be the perfect opportunity is very compelling.

Without Italian entry would the British Empire concentrate more on the Balkans or Middle Eastern theatre? I doubt it could replace Italy, but a more concentrated push in Thessaloniki or in the Middle East may distract CP enough to somewhat mitigate Italy's absence. Of course this would probably necessitate less British troops on the western front which will have its own effects.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Thanks for all your replies. Very interesting. I concede that an invasion of Ethiopia will be expensive and completely unprofitable, however I do think it is a distinct possibility (colonialism in general being unprofitable). One would think it would pacify the interventionists sufficiently to prevent a direct involvement in WW1. Also the argument that doing so during a general war would be the perfect opportunity is very compelling.

Without Italian entry would the British Empire concentrate more on the Balkans or Middle Eastern theatre? I doubt it could replace Italy, but a more concentrated push in Thessaloniki or in the Middle East may distract CP enough to somewhat mitigate Italy's absence. Of course this would probably necessitate less British troops on the western front which will have its own effects.

If you are writing a time line, remember colonies can be a loss for the home country, but hugely profitable for the ruling elite. If one ignores the military costs, the Dutch East Indies company was very profitable, they paid a 5% dividend for 200 years. Once the military expenditures are include, i have seen people argue that the Dutch East Indies both made and lost money.

I would bet Gallipoli would not be butterflied away by a lack of Italy. But after the Gallipoli disaster and the Fall of Serbia, I would guess that the British would not do any more Balkans operations. And with AH having more troops than in OTL and presumably doing better in the war, Greece coup may not occur. The British would focus on France and the Ottoman empire, IMO.
 
I'm not committing myself to a timeline, I still haven't finished my Saar Offensive TL unfortunately.

Can France and Britain hold without Italy? No doubt the CP will be more successful in the east, but will it dramatically effect the western front?

A more risky, but potentially rewarding strategy, is Britain putting more effort into defeating the Ottoman Empire and hoping to be able to supply Russia through the crimea. Of course it would leave France more exposed and that is the real trick.

I also think Germany would still adopt unrestricted submarine warfare. Particularly if the western front continues to bog down they might think it would ensure Britain starves even more ITTL.
 
Top