Quickest possible Central Powers victory in WW1?

The Alps would prove impassable (as they were in WW2) and France would only need a small fraction of its forces to cover that front. But the Italians' siding with the CP would certainly make Austria-Hungary stronger against Russia and the Western Allies in the Balkans.

So Italy, probably the two parts after a couple of botched offensive will pass on the defensive (if some one can put some sense in Cadorna, but at least ITTL he has his troops already in position for offensive operation a small thing nevertheless but this is a one less problem for italian logistic, probably the bulk of the troops will be send on Albania so to be in position to eliminate the remnants of the serbian army and in Lybia to fight the offensive from France and Britain, how succesfull i don't know but it will be surely another drain to the entente manpower pool. But yes in this case AH can divert is full capacity on the Russian and Balkan front
 
Germany: Surrender everyone...like now..
France: uhm.. ok...
GB: Sure why not... just leave Belgium
Russia: NO WAY.. <revolution> uhm.. ok
Italy: hey we were on your side...

ok on a serious note.

I would say the best bet would have been better coordination between AH and Germany at the onset. Like using secret squirrel meetings and have like the high commands actully putting things together to actually say what they intended to do.. but no....

Germany needed to knock france out ASAP, and that means being able to pour everything into the Marne.. and i mean everything mustard gas and all... and head to Paris..

a token force left to defend against Russia who should be busy with a combined Turkish in the south and an Austro-Hungarian campaign in the Ukraine/Belorussian/polish frontiers and finally the Bulgarians kicking the Serbs around.

All Austria-Hungry, The ottomans, and Bulgarians need to do is hold the line and or push until France is out and the German Heer turns west. Then its game over man.. game over...

Italy is obviously a concern.. but not so much as they couldn't be partially ignored and kept in check.

France falls and Russia is brought to the table or devolves into civil war and revolution.. GB will sit it out and the war shall be over in under a year.

The real thorn in the side though is winning for either side.
 
Italian economy in short order are way overrated. In WWII it never happened. And the idea that Nice was French is simply ridiculous (ask Garibaldi, he was born there), like Corsica it was a thoroughly Italian land before the annexation by France and only got slowly Francified over time.

The idea that Scotland is an English-speaking country is simply ridiculous (ask Calgacus, he was born there), like England it was a thoroughly Celtic land before the annexation by Saxons and only got Anglified over time.

Times change, demographics change, languages change, identities change. 1902 was not 1807 and 1940 was not 1914.
 
Here Germany can convince AH to give up Trent, Venezia Giulia and maybe a co-dominium on Trieste and recognize Albania in our sphere (by the way we had already occupied).

How, exactly?

Savoy had always spoken a french dialect, but is also the ancestral home of the Savoia the regnant house of Italy

The ancestral home of the regnant house of Britain is in Germany. Hapsburg is in Switzerland.

The economic factor are important, but not overwhelming, otherwise the WWI will not happen.
What does Italy's economic self-sufficiency have to do with whether WW1 begins or not? Italy wasn't in it at the start.

for a proper meditterean campaign the British will probably take some unit from the blockade of germany alleviate the pressure on them,

What pressure? Making an exception for Jutland, the body of the German surface fleet sat in Kiel twiddling their thumbs - and Jutland happened because after two years of indecisive fighting the Germans were fed up of this policy and shook up their naval command. The German fleet was in an unfortunate position: too small to take on the Grand Fleet and achieve anything, too big to waste.

A distance blockade can be maintained by destroyers. Britain has ships to spare to assist an ally already superior to the Regia Marina. And anyway, what effect does any of this have on Italian diplomacy? You don't go to war to get a powerful enemy off somebody else's back.

don't forget the French army now with two or three front to battle will be very overstrecched

One of which is the Alps.
 
Garibaldi was born in Nice, you may want to read his opinion about cession of Nice to France.

I'd like Berwick-on-Tweed back, myself.

stole Tunisia,

I agree. Disgraceful conduct, pinching a whole country out from under the feet of its people. Banditry.

...What does it have to do with Italy?

forced Italy to cede Nice and Savoy,

Cavour: French spy?

and was downright hostile for three decades.

Crispi having had nothing to do with this.

If AH was main hereditary enemy of Italy, France was the other one.

Meaning what? Scotland's only got one "hereditary enemy" and we've been on the same side of every war since 1660.

Your seeming fiat that the Triple Alliance, a public defensive alliance that defined Italy's foreign policy and military planning in the eyes of the world for decades, was worthless for Italy, while a secret counterinsurance agreement with France was the Tables of Moses, is beyond maddening.
:eek:

Counter-intuitive, deceptive, and duplicitous things annoy you?

Why do you come within a hundred miles of 19th century diplomacy? The Italian government, which on occasion re-dated official documents, shared none of your scruples.
 
How exacly?
Maybe more political pressure, some promise of other type of compensation


The ancestral home of the regnant house of Britain is in Germany. Hapsburg is in Switzerland.

But Italy, at the time, still consider Savoy an irredent land for that motive, yes not at the same level of Trent or Triest or neither Nice but still consder her rightfully Italian, becouse was ceded only 50 years ago

[

What does Italy's economic self-sufficiency have to do with whether WW1 begins or not? Italy wasn't in it at the start.

I'm not talking about Italy, Just saying that if we only consider the economic factor or who is the great economic patner WWI will not happen


What pressure? Making an exception for Jutland, the body of the German surface fleet sat in Kiel twiddling their thumbs - and Jutland happened because after two years of indecisive fighting the Germans were fed up of this policy and shook up their naval command. The German fleet was in an unfortunate position: too small to take on the Grand Fleet and achieve anything, too big to waste.

A distance blockade can be maintained by destroyers. Britain has ships to spare to assist an ally already superior to the Regia Marina. And anyway, what effect does any of this have on Italian diplomacy? You don't go to war to get a powerful enemy off somebody else's back.

NO you go to war to achieve your aim, but doing that you still occupy resoursce that without you the entente use against the other nations of the Central Powers, and if Italy has trouble with AH it hasn't with Germany so maybe a little coordination it's possible it's called strategic thinking, allies coordination or simply...i don't have the damned resource for doing all (in this case England), and a blockade made by only destoryers is very risky...for the destroyers.


One of which is the Alps.

So what? Yes it's a very difficult terrain but still she cannot leave it undefended so she still send troops here, men and goods than in OTL as gone in other front
 
Maybe more political pressure, some promise of other type of compensation

Here we get vague. People would often rather consider the changes they like, rather than the changes that are plausible. Germany winning WW1? Quite doable (see Wiking). Italy happily joining the CP in 1914 without a much earlier PoD? Not plausible, yet we here a lot more about it from Eurofed than we do about Germany and Austria.

But Italy, at the time, still consider Savoy an irredent land for that motive, yes not at the same level of Trent or Triest or neither Nice but still consder her rightfully Italian, becouse was ceded only 50 years ago

Certainly Italian nationalists would have taken it if they could for a variety of reasons; I was merely providing some cheeky context. :p

I'm not talking about Italy, Just saying that if we only consider the economic factor or who is the great economic patner WWI will not happen

The reasons for WW1 included economic ones: the straits were an economic question, and economy and diplomacy were intertwined, especially in France. One cannot discount economic factors any more than you can discount military ones.

NO you go to war to achieve your aim, but doing that you still occupy resoursce that without you the entente use against the other nations of the Central Powers, and if Italy has trouble with AH it hasn't with Germany so maybe a little coordination it's possible it's called strategic thinking, allies coordination or simply...i don't have the damned resource for doing all (in this case England), and a blockade made by only destoryers is very risky...for the destroyers.

The blockade was done by smaller craft (cruisers and armed merchantmen on the Northern Patrol, even smaller ships on the Dover Patrol). You don't think every ship trying to reach Germany was overhauled by HMS Iron Duke, do you? The dreadnoughts were kept at Scapa the whole time. To the Med we'd be sending pre-dreadnoughts and cruisers, part of whose purpose was miscellanious tasks in secondary theatres. We sent cruisers to East Africa.

And how does one menace a blockade with a fleet-in-being? To sail out into the North Sea in order to engage a single cruiser or destroyer is absurd. Challenging the blockade meant challenging the Grand Fleet, as at Jutland. As long as there's a Grand Fleet, blockade ships need only float and scare merchantmen.

So what? Yes it's a very difficult terrain but still she cannot leave it undefended so she still send troops here, men and goods than in OTL as gone in other front

True, but one should not treat the Alps as a deadly blow. France wasn't stretched to breaking until 1916.
 
Last edited:

archaeogeek

Banned
Maybe more political pressure, some promise of other type of compensation
Italy has nothing to compensate for it. AH was not interested in African adventures. The only time it was ever suggested was as a mocking reply by a Bourbon-Parma prince.


But Italy, at the time, still consider Savoy an irredent land for that motive, yes not at the same level of Trent or Triest or neither Nice but still consder her rightfully Italian, becouse was ceded only 50 years ago
They're free to come and take it. Italy was defeated IOTL by a power that was getting crushed by Russia in Galicia. And had to be carried by France and britain after Caporetto.

NO you go to war to achieve your aim, but doing that you still occupy resoursce that without you the entente use against the other nations of the Central Powers, and if Italy has trouble with AH it hasn't with Germany so maybe a little coordination it's possible it's called strategic thinking, allies coordination or simply...i don't have the damned resource for doing all (in this case England), and a blockade made by only destoryers is very risky...for the destroyers.
Italy will be facing the dominant fleet in the Med and ended up being a liability in the Entente. It tied up men for both sides, not just for the Centrals.


So what? Yes it's a very difficult terrain but still she cannot leave it undefended so she still send troops here, men and goods than in OTL as gone in other front
Men and goods that IOTL went to propping up the front in Veneto to avoid an Italian collapse.
 
I agree. Disgraceful conduct, pinching a whole country out from under the feet of its people. Banditry.

...What does it have to do with Italy?

Oh for god...Tunisia was initially heavily economical and political penetreted by Italy, but then the French decided that they want for them and invaded, declaring null and void the italian contract and causing a lot of economic hardship and political embarassment in Italy, it's the so called 'Schiaffo di Tunisi' the Slap of Tunisi



Cavour: French spy?

During the second italian independence war in exchange for French military aid was stipulated that Nice and Savoy was to given to the French, well the military aid was...almost of the quality of the italian performance during WWII, and the land was almost keept by Piedmont.
The cession was done more for the political aide and the permission to the lesser italian nation to unite with Sardinia than for more pratical aide



Crispi having had nothing to do with this

And that's what means??:confused:.



Meaning what? Scotland's only got one "hereditary enemy" and we've been on the same side of every war since 1660.

Yes becouse Scotland was basically a conquered and absorbed nation, here we are talking of sovereign nations it's a little bit different
In the sense that we had economic, political, territorial issue with them still open.
If AH was our principal advesary, France fill cleary the second position

Counter-intuitive, deceptive, and duplicitous things annoy you?

Why do you come within a hundred miles of 19th century diplomacy? The Italian government, which on occasion re-dated official documents, shared none of your scruples.

The 1902 treaty was simple a mean to not enrage too much French and becouse not all people here were confortable in an alliance, even of convenience with AH. But is principal function was to buy time, see who are gonna to win or made the better offer...classic italian politics nothing more
 

archaeogeek

Banned
During the second italian independence war in exchange for French military aid was stipulated that Nice and Savoy was to given to the French, well the military aid was...almost of the quality of the italian performance during WWII, and the land was almost keept by Piedmont.
The cession was done more for the political aide and the permission to the lesser italian nation to unite with Sardinia than for more pratical aide
I always loved how risorgimentist historiography calls war of independence the suppression of 4 countries (well 5 but I don't particularly care about the pope) to the profit of an already independent country.

Yes becouse Scotland was basically a conquered and absorbed nation, here we are talking of sovereign nations it's a little bit different
In the sense that we had economic, political, territorial issue with them still open.
If AH was our principal advesary, France fill cleary the second position
Such a hereditary enemy that it wouldn't have been united without France.

The 1902 treaty was simple a mean to not enrage too much French and becouse not all people here were confortable in an alliance, even of convenience with AH. But is principal function was to buy time, see who are gonna to win or made the better offer...classic italian politics nothing more
There was no better offer, the Austrians would have said no, both in peace and wartime. Italy could go play tin soldiers in Africa for all they cared, their provinces were not alienable without a war.
 
Oh for god...Tunisia was initially heavily economical and political penetreted by Italy, but then the French decided that they want for them and invaded, declaring null and void the italian contract and causing a lot of economic hardship and political embarassment in Italy, it's the so called 'Schiaffo di Tunisi' the Slap of Tunisi

Please understand that I am very often facetious. Apologies, but I like poking fun.

I know all this perfectly well, and I treat it as seriously as equivalent whining about spheres of influence and special rights from the British or French yellow press and economic sectional interests, of which there was plenty. That was how things were conducted in the 19th century. Much as I find it ridiculous, though, the affront to Italy was real - as real as any number of other colonial pissing contests.

I objected in the strongest terms, however, to Eurofed's apparent belief that France pinched what was rightfully the property of Italy, however. It was rightfully the property of Tunisia. Let us all bare that in mind.

During the second italian independence war in exchange for French military aid was stipulated that Nice and Savoy was to given to the French, well the military aid was...almost of the quality of the italian performance during WWII, and the land was almost keept by Piedmont.

The land was kept. The deal was Lombardy-Venetia for Nice-Savoy. No Venetia, no deal. Napoleon III understood that and the territories were not handed over in connection with the end of the war...

The cession was done more for the political aide and the permission to the lesser italian nation to unite with Sardinia than for more pratical aide

...So, Cavour thought it was wise to hand over some small territories if that would ensure the goodwill of an important power? Sensible of him, and it was important for a country making even the most temporary alliance with peasant revolutionaries to prove its respectability, but it was he who did it and he who fought the nationalist opposition. French pressure alone could not have forced the handover (or why didn't they grab 'em at some other time?).

And that's what means??:confused:.

That if Italy and France were on bad terms in the 1880s and 90s, both governments were to blame.

Yes becouse Scotland was basically a conquered and absorbed nation,

Please don't make authoritative statements on things you don't know about: Scotland is neither conquered nor absorbed.

here we are talking of sovereign nations it's a little bit different In the sense that we had economic, political, territorial issue with them still open.
If AH was our principal advesary, France fill cleary the second position

My point was that this phrase 'hereditary enemy' has no useful diplomatic meaning.

The 1902 treaty was simple a mean to not enrage too much French and becouse not all people here were confortable in an alliance, even of convenience with AH. But is principal function was to buy time, see who are gonna to win or made the better offer...classic italian politics nothing more

Nobody's arguing that it was a binding entente (or Italy would have been in at the start). Italy mended fences and bided time to see who could make the better offer. It was France. We've come full-circle and are back at "But what can the CP offer?". As AG says, the foundation-stone of Hapsburg policy was never to give up anything without fighting.
 
I always loved how risorgimentist historiography calls war of independence the suppression of 4 countries (well 5 but I don't particularly care about the pope) to the profit of an already independent country.

Call us hyprocrite, call us cynical...but yes the overthrow of little state run by foreign prince and basically puppet of another foreign state, we call it war of independece, expecially after three or four century were everyone and i mean everyone as coming in the country for conquest...yes we are a strange bunch of people, probably too much spaghetti


Such a hereditary enemy that it wouldn't have been united without France.

Napoleon III hoped to trade place with the Austrian in control of Italy, the plan just backfired a little...this is a lot different to be friends or even neutral


There was no better offer, the Austrians would have said no, both in peace and wartime. Italy could go play tin soldiers in Africa for all they cared, their provinces were not alienable without a war.

There were indeed a war, it's was later called WWI if i'm not wrong.
 
Napoleon III hoped to trade place with the Austrian in control of Italy, the plan just backfired a little...this is a lot different to be friends or even neutral

I see no good evidence of this. Obviously the man was pulled two ways on the issue of the Pope, but he had a real interest in the cause of Italian nationalism - serving French interests, but what do you expect? He certainly didn't want to occupy large parts of the country on a permanent basis and leave the rest as mini-states beholden to him.


There were indeed a war, it's was later called WWI if i'm not wrong.

I believe her point is that if Austria would never relinquish land without war, Italy couldn't be brought into the CP, which is true.
 
Please understand that I am very often facetious. Apologies, but I like poking fun.

You know that this medium is not very good in traslate humor isn't

I know all this perfectly well, and I treat it as seriously as equivalent whining about spheres of influence and special rights from the British or French yellow press and economic sectional interests, of which there was plenty. That was how things were conducted in the 19th century. Much as I find it ridiculous, though, the affront to Italy was real - as real as any number of other colonial pissing contests.


I objected in the strongest terms, however, to Eurofed's apparent belief that France pinched what was rightfully the property of Italy, however. It was rightfully the property of Tunisia. Let us all bare that in mind.

Frankly if we want to be precise you can say it was property of the Genoese and the other italian marittime republic


The land was kept. The deal was Lombardy-Venetia for Nice-Savoy. No Venetia, no deal. Napoleon III understood that and the territories were not handed over in connection with the end of the war...

What Napoleon III understood is irrilevant, what italian people and politician alike, apart of the piedmontese nobility traditionnally very pro-french, is what really matter. And in general was seen as too much for too little


...So, Cavour thought it was wise to hand over some small territories if that would ensure the goodwill of an important power? Sensible of him, and it was important for a country making even the most temporary alliance with peasant revolutionaries to prove its respectability, but it was he who did it and he who fought the nationalist opposition. French pressure alone could not have forced the handover (or why didn't they grab 'em at some other time?).

Well the handover was not very well taken, expecially Nice. As you say t



That if Italy and France were on bad terms in the 1880s and 90s, both governments were to blame.

Yes, but that's what means? I just stated that for almost 30 years there was bad blood between the governments, so the possibility of enter in a conflict against France is not really ASB


Please don't make authoritative statements on things you don't know about: Scotland is neither conquered nor absorbed.


I trust what you say

My point was that this phrase 'hereditary enemy' has no useful diplomatic meaning.

But describe our relationships with the AH and the French very well


Nobody's arguing that it was a binding entente (or Italy would have been in at the start). Italy mended fences and bided time to see who could make the better offer. It was France. We've come full-circle and are back at "But what can the CP offer?". As AG says, the foundation-stone of Hapsburg policy was never to give up anything without fighting

The POD is infact the German pound some sense in the AH leaderships and make them understand that is better lose some finger that all the body. WWI was always a very close affair, so you can say all about the prowness and greatness of the French Marine, the problem of defend italian coastline, etc. etc., the fact remain that with the Italian army at the side of the Central Power the entente is in serious trouble, expecially after the Russian go communist and leave the fight. It will be an easy ride for Italy? Sure no, will be an hell of a fight that probably cause the rise of fascism and the wreck of his economy as in OTL
 
You know that this medium is not very good in traslate humor isn't

I do, but misunderstandings will happen whether or not I make light of some of history's many absurdities, and we're sensible people who can sort them out.

Frankly if we want to be precise you can say it was property of the Genoese and the other italian marittime republic

And what had they done to deserve it?

It belonged to Tunisia - by which I mean the Tunisian people, not any Bey. My objection is to the whole idea of right-of-conquest.

What Napoleon III understood is irrilevant, what italian people and politician alike, apart of the piedmontese nobility traditionnally very pro-french, is what really matter. And in general was seen as too much for too little

The point under discussion is whether France "forced" Italy to give up those territories. Of course there was resentment against France amongst the (tiny politicised portion of the) Italian population, but such things seldom outlast a generation. I wasn't disputing the idea that Franco-Italian relations had their ups and downs, but Eurofed's record of all the wicked things France had ostensibly done.

Yes, but that's what means? I just stated that for almost 30 years there was bad blood between the governments, so the possibility of enter in a conflict against France is not really ASB

I was clarifying, because Eurofed made it sound like poor Italy was the victim of mean 'ole France. I agree that Italy and France could have ended up war in the 1890s - if there had been a *Fashoda War, for instance.

But describe our relationships with the AH and the French very well

Or our relations with England, and between those two it could be made to mean nearly anything.

The POD is infact the German pound some sense in the AH leaderships and make them understand that is better lose some finger that all the body.

This was a deeply entrenched attitude in Austria. Germany would have had to be properly bullying Vienna, and the whole essence of Wilhelm's New Course was to appease middle-class German nationalism - which of course was fiercely pro-Austrian.

WWI was always a very close affair, so you can say all about the prowness and greatness of the French Marine, the problem of defend italian coastline, etc. etc.,

Such arguments are more usually presented as reasons why Italy won't go to war to begin with.


the fact remain that with the Italian army at the side of the Central Power the entente is in serious trouble, expecially after the Russian go communist and leave the fight. It will be an easy ride for Italy? Sure no, will be an hell of a fight that probably cause the rise of fascism and the wreck of his economy as in OTL

Russia was a long way from folding in 1915; so indeed was everyone. The war was really a contest to see whose social structure was best adapted to pointless bloodshed.
 
I believe her point is that if Austria would never relinquish land without war, Italy couldn't be brought into the CP, which is true.
Have to say that I agree on Italy not being likely to join the war from the start. IMO, the best way to get Italy in the CP is to put the Central Powers in a strong enough position that the Italians doubt the Entente's capacity to deliver on any of its promises. Italy, and for that matter the other neutrals that could have gone either way like Romania, based their decision to join the Entente in no small part on which side they thought was more likely to win.

IMO, the best way to get a quick CP victory in World War I is still a successful Schlieffen Plan. Russia might well decide to cut it's losses and get the best deal it can if France gets knocked out of the war and the BEF is broken. That's not to mention that a successful Schlieffen Plan almost certainly bring the Italians and other wavering neutrals in on the CP side.
 
Top