REDUX: Place In The Sun: What If Italy Joined The Central Powers?

[Belka DNW]

Hey, Brits if Italy is so bad why didn't Santa give them coal? Checkmate Angloids

New meta strat, being naughty all year to crash the coal market on Christmas.

 

[Couperin]

Chapter II​

A Cold Winter​

The loss of British coal imports created a ticking time bomb. Italy produced just over half a million tonnes of coal a year and imported twenty times as much. The Regia Marina ran on cheap British coal; factories and homes used it to keep the lights on. The advent of winter, threatening to leave millions unable to cook and heat their homes, deepened the need. Italy's future as a modern industrial state was at risk.

Reserves began running low in December 1914, with prices ticking up accordingly. The military received priority, and the handful of rich industrialists often bribed the government into securing their supply. This left little for the people, who would stand in queues for hours in the hopes of paying twice as much for half of what they'd have received a year ago. Violence over perceived iniquities was common, whether directed at price-gouging suppliers or just those who seemed better off. By January, many Italians were spending half their budgets on coal. Alternatives such as firewood could heat homes but not power machinery. Many became reliant on churches or town halls for cooking stoves and heat. As always, the divide between north and south reared its ugly head: Northerners, subject to cold Alpine winters and in need of fuel for industry, resented agricultural southerners basking in Mediterranean warmth.

Knock-on effects abounded. Factories, attempting to cut their overheads, reduced production. The costs of energy sharply reduced profit for railroads and steamships, which cut their schedules and laid off workers accordingly. Southern grain and vegetables thus took longer and cost more to reach northern consumers, raising food prices without benefitting producers. All this caused inflation, driving the economy to the precipice by March. Strict coal rationing removed an element of chaos and uncertainty but cost Salandra popularity.

Above all, people blamed the British, who in the words of one Milan editorial:

Though an Italian declaration of war was by no means certain in January 1915, popular anger against Britain was fierce. Part came from shock. Great Britain had supported Italian unification fifty years ago, backed its colonial ventures, and been a reliable energy provider. British investment was common in the country and many progressive Italians viewed Britain as a vibrant constitutional monarchy to emulate. The question of why Britain would do such a thing was painful- but the answer was agonising. Britain had sold out their ally of five decades to save money in wartime. What Lloyd George viewed as an unpleasant cost-cutting measure, the Italians saw as a deep betrayal. Many believed the British ought to be grateful to Italy- had they not defied their treaty obligations to Germany and Austria-Hungary? Did not their neutrality make the Mediterranean Sea an Entente lake? And how did Britain thank them? By abandoning their economy, leaving their cities to freeze, and production and transport to grind to a halt!

This thanks from "Perfious Albion" would be remembered.

Salandra feared for his future. Though blaming the British was popular (and entirely justified), he knew that as Prime Minister the crisis was his responsibility. If a confidence vote was held today, would he survive? What about six weeks hence? He knew that, unlike some prior panics, this crisis would not simply resolve itself. Fortunately, unlike such panics, the root cause was simple and the remedy clear: maximise imports.

Britain was no longer an option. They were willing to sell only a fraction of what they had prewar and charged obscene prices. Besides, as the ones at fault for the crisis, Italian honour forbade giving them a single lira. That left neutrals such as Sweden and the United States, but above all Italy's old Triple Alliance partners, Germany and Austria. Prewar, Germany had exported millions of tonnes of coal a year, much of which had gone to nations now in the Entente. With its wartime needs met, the High Seas Fleet largely sitting in port, and the mines of occupied Belgium at its disposal, Germany had an abundant surplus. (1) Berlin needed an export market, and deepening relations with them would make Britain regret harming Italy.

After surviving a confidence vote on Ash Wednesday by a margin of ten votes, Salandra asked for three more months to fix the crisis, at the end of which they could do what they pleased. Parliament and the people humoured him, and the next day Salandra telephoned Ambassador Hans von Flotow. He apologised for his "infidelity" to the Triple Alliance and, while he didn't promise to join the war, promised an "enhancement of relations at the expense of our mutual enemies." Subsequent meetings led to talk of Italian sanctions against Britain and France in exchange for ten million tonnes of German coal over the next twelve months, to be paid at 1913 prices. Lacking the authority to sign such an agreement, Von Flotow passed the matter to Berlin. Foreign Minister Gottlieb von Jagow supported the measure: besides preventing a nominal ally from slipping away, this enabled German propaganda to present themselves as saving the "freezing Italian people" from "British miserliness." Diplomatic pressure led to Switzerland permitting the use of its railroads for transport, though they charged a steep rate. The Ministry of Economics insisted on cutting the total to 7.5 million tonnes- there was, after all, a war on. Nonetheless, pen was put to paper on April 1, 1915: the first cartloads embanked from Munich a month later.

The agreement with Germany alleviated Italian pain. Energy prices dropped throughout May, and the economic setbacks of the winter played out in reverse. The logistical grid and industrial networks returned to full capacity, bringing workers back and reducing prices. Inflation abated and public confidence returned. Rations, though they remained on the books, grew throughout May and June. Salandra went before Parliament on May 17 and recieved overwhelming support. Cries of "viva Allemagna!" and "abbasso Bretagna!" filled the streets. Italian and German officials developed relationships and gained experience working with each other.

By June 1915, Italy was decidedly pro-German, yet remained neutral. Its economic recovery was parlous, and Salandra lived in fear of another supply shock- or worse, a vote of no confidence. The inevitable economic and political disruptions of war would impede recovery and might threaten his ministry. Though the average Italian now felt grateful to Germany and disliked Britain, he valued his life too much to want any part of a seemingly endless war. If the Entente won, Italy would make the best of it; if the Central Powers won- increasingly likely as the Austro-Germans evicted the Russians from Poland- it could expect thanks for what von Jagow called its "benevolent neutrality".

Things would come to a head, however, following the so-called Battle of the Skagerrak in mid-July, as another British blunder pushed Italy off the cliff.

---

1. Much credit to @NoMommsen for these statistics from this thread.
2. Don't speak Italian, so please correct me if this is wrong!

Comments?

Classic British, shooting themselves in the foot out of shortsightedness.

 

[Elenoir]

"viva Allemagna!" and "abbasso Bretagna!"

I'm pretty sure it should be "viva la Germania!" and "abasso la bretagna!" respectively.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth]

I'm pretty sure it should be "viva la Germania!" and "abasso la bretagna!" respectively.

Can well believe it; Google Translate is not my friend.

 

[Knightmare]

Can well believe it; Google Translate is not my friend.

Google Translate in video form.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Can well believe it; Google Translate is not my friend.

It should be "abbasso", not "abasso".
Also, here in Italy we rather rarely use the expression "Gran Bretagna" meaning Great Britain, or even the expression "Regno Unito" which means United Kingdom; the most widely used term in everyday language is just "Inghilterra" meaning "England" and "Inglese/i" as a demonym, meaning "English"

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

It should be "abbasso", not "abasso".
Also, here in Italy we rather rarely use the expression "Gran Bretagna" meaning Great Britain, or even the expression "Regno Unito" which means United Kingdom; the most widely used term in everyday language is just "Inghilterra" meaning "England" and "Inglese/i" as a demonym, meaning "English"

Yeah, but that doesn’t rhyme.

 

[RedLegion]

Cries of "viva la Germania!" and "abbasso la Inghilterra!"

It should be "l'Inghiterra" and honestly I preferred the older version: it sounded archaic and a little weird, but in a good way, almost poetic

 

[NoMommsen]

It should be "l'Inghiterra" and honestly I preferred the older version: it sounded archaic and a little weird, but in a good way, almost poetic

--- only linguistically wrong ...

 

[RedLegion]

--- only linguistically wrong ...

Let's call it a licenza poetica shall we? Calling Germany Allemagna instead of Germania isn't exactly wrong only incredibly archaic and sometimes Britain is called Britannia

 

[kham_coc]

--- only linguistically wrong ...

They are politicians - They obviously put in the slogany form.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth]

"Bretagna" it shall be.
Of course I had to study French didn't I?

 

[isabella]

"Bretagna" it shall be.
Of course I had to study French didn't I?

Bretagna is not too unlikely but that would be the Italian name of Brittany, so I am unsure if that will be used against England (and yes 9 times on 10 in Italy we used Inghilterra instead of Gran Bretagna or Regno Unito)

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth]

Chapter III​

A Spark At Sea​

Despite its new links with Germany, Italy's economic situation remained precarious. As long as it remained at peace, its primary economic objective was maintaining living standards, not the production of war materiel. However, prewar it had been reliant on trade with many nations- coal imports from Britain, food exports across the Mediterranean and to America, exports to the colonies, etc. That trade web no longer existed. Merchant vessels faced strict scrutiny in belligerent territorial waters; neutrals tightened security to prevent abuse by the combatants. Many nations, as the Coal Regulation Act demonstrates, hoarded their resources lest they be needed for the war effort. Combatant populations accepted shortages- there was a war on- reducing the political threat to their elected governments. However, no man is an island, and economic disorder did not stop at national borders. Italy's economy remained sluggish entering summer 1915, but unlike von Bethmann-Hollweg, Asquith, or Viviani (1), Salandra could not tell his population they suffered for victory.

There was nothing for it, his ministers told him, other than to maximise the volume of trade and wait for peace. Salandra consoled himself with the fact that Italy was still better off than the nations at war (it was a favourite spot for refugees and dissidents), would not take a single casualty, and would enter the postwar world with a relatively undamaged economy. Government propaganda depicted a rosy-cheeked woman standing above a wasteland, Italian flag in one hand and a bushel of wheat in the other. "Italia- Pacha e Prospera!" Salandra believed Italy's neutral status made it a politically viable trade partner: the question was what could it sell and to whom?

Germany, never self-sufficient in food, was an obvious consumer. The imports which had historically sustained it were vanishing, and the demands of war exacerbated the strain. Besides, shipping foodstuffs north would reciprocate German generosity with their coal. With Austro-Hungarian and Swiss railroads available, transport would be inexpensive. They hastily drafted contracts in summer 1915, and much of the harvest travelled to Berlin, the industrial cities and mines of the Ruhr, and the men in France and Poland. Increasing exports to Austria-Hungary proved tricker. Disputed Tyrol and Trentino kept relations frosty while Austria, traditionally sourcing grain from Hungary, had little need of Italian products. Nonetheless, the use of Austrian rail lines to connect with Germany deepened relations between the two.

Increased trade with the Entente wasn't an option. Nearly losing a year's coal had soured relations with Britain: increased trade would, to quote one parliamentarian, "be like taking silver to betray, not Our Lord, but our honour." (2) While the relationship was far more vital for Italy than Britain, the country had long been the main source of olive oil and certain vegetables, as well as a limited supplier of grain and wine. Britons viewed the loss of Italian imports as a snub, with hawks claiming Italy was abusing its neutrality. This extended to the rest of the Entente: trade with Russia dropped as its weaknesses became exposed, as, to a lesser extent, did trade with France.

That left Europe's few neutrals: the Iberian states, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and the Dutch. As primarily agricultural states with even weaker economies, neither Spain nor Portugal had much to offer Italy. Switzerland had done its best to maintain prewar trade via French ports while maintaining relations with the Central Powers. As another neutral, Italy offered a politically safe conduit to the outside world, and Italian use of Swiss railways gave Zurich leverage. Yet there was nothing the Swiss needed from Italy that they couldn't get elsewhere; the same held true in reverse. While maintaining cordial relations with all, the Swiss always worked to their own advantage, never going out of their way for another nation. Norway and the Netherlands, both nearly self-sufficient in food and with good access to international markets, had no need of Italian exports.

Sweden was different. It controlled some of the world's largest iron ore deposits, essential to production. It sympathised with Germany out of a common heritage and fear of Russia, yet the need to maintain exports kept it neutral. Entente nations received Swedish iron ore via Norwegian ports; the Central Powers received it on the Baltic coast. Immense demand limited the economic damage to Sweden, yet it also kept prices high. Sweden, however, was not fully self-sufficient in food, and its imports had fallen since the war. (3) Both had commodities the other needed, German rail and ports offered an easy connection, and as both were neutral, political problems were hard to foresee. Salandra thought in terms of state-sponsored contracts, not a state-to-state agreement like he'd given Germany. A team of Italian businessmen and economists spent two weeks in Stockholm in July 1915, returning with several papers on how best to operate in the Swedish market. Italy's international food companies (4), taking the hint from Rome, began signing contracts with Sweden. This would ideally stimulate the Italian agricultural sector while providing the government with additional foreign-currency reserves (and hopefully securing their supply of iron ore). The first ten freighters of linguini, privately owned (5), sailed from Naples on 1 September.

Disaster was about to strike.

Great Britain had blockaded Germany upon the outbreak of hostilities. However, to have directly shut down the coastline would have required destroying the High Seas Fleet. The Admiralty had no stomach for such a gamble, instead settling on a "distant" blockade: minefields and warships closed off the English Channel and a line from Scotland to Norway. Not even foodstuffs were permitted through, and trade with neutrals was heavily scrutinised. The blockade, which lasted until the war's closing days, weakened the Central Powers yet drew much ire. Noncombatants, especially the United States maintained their right to trade with Central Europe, and pointed out that the blockade defied international law. Britain, accustomed to "ruling the waves", claimed that its wartime actions were its own choice. Italy's improvement of relations with Germany offended Britain because it weakened the blockade. Italy's new contracts in Sweden met with scepticism in Britain: if they allowed Italian goods through the blockade, ostensibly to Swedish ports, what would stop the re-export of the goods to Germany? (6)

Determined to prove their strength, Britain's naval leaders quickly agreed not to let Italian ships through the blockade.

---

The ten merchantmen approached in formation, a hundred yards between them, at a lazy ten knots. They remained, for the moment, in international waters, but the British coastline was visible on the horizon's edge. The Celtic Sea lurched gently beneath an unusually blue sky, so radio communication with the Royal Navy would be clear. Conditions were perfect, but every sailor was on edge. Half an hour passed in the sun.

"Do you think the inglesi will let us through?" A longtime Regia Marina veteran, the captain had been under fire before, yet he was still worried. Against the Turks three years ago, he had guns, armour, and all of Italy backing him up- and besides, the Ottoman Navy wasn't worth mentioning. Now, he had a thin metal hull weighed down with linguini which couldn't hope to exceed twenty knots, and what felt like every inglesi ship in the world in gun range. But that was what they paid him for.

"I think so", the XO replied. Blockade-running was a novelty to him too. "If we were travelling to Germany, it might be one thing. But we are merely one neutral going to another. Where is the harm there?" They'd had this conversation a dozen times since leaving Naples. Running it over soothed frayed nerves. "And besides, international law..."

The blaring radio cut the XO off. "Signore capitano", the PA announced, "come to the bridge quickly, per favore." Like a lot of merchantmen, they used the Navy term. The Captain waddled into the cramped control room and grabbed the radio. His English wasn't good enough for his secondary-school teacher; would it suffice for a Royal Navy officer? One way to find out, he thought, grabbing the radio.

"Signore captain speaking, of His Majesty Vittorio Emmanuelle's MV Garibaldi at, eh, come si dice, at your service." The radio cracked to life a second later.

"HMS Acorn. Please be advised that you are currently entering the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and the wartime zone of blockade. Kindly state your destination and cargo." The Captain ran through it in horrible English.

"Linguini, eh?", the Royal Navy muttered under his breath. He said something Cockney the Captain was glad not to understand. "I must regret to inform you that, under the terms of the Royal Navy blockade directives, publicised internationally upon the outbreak of hostilities, foodstuffs are considered illegal contraband of war, not to pass through." The Captain's eyebrows raised.

"Signore, perhaps you did misunderstand me." Not the first time his English had let him down. "Our destination, it is not, eh, Germania but, come si dice, Stockholm. We are neutrals trading fairly with one another. Nothing to do with Germania."

The awkward pause told the Captain something was amiss. "I am under orders, sir, not to let you through. For... political reasons, it is feared that these shipments might... end up in the wrong hands in spite of our blockade policy. Not my decision, you understand- orders from above. I'm afraid I have no choice but to convey the policy of my Government: you are to turn around and return to Naples. In the event you require refuelling, you may do so at Plymouth."

"Now you give us coal, eh, inglesi!" The Captain paused for a moment. These were British territorial waters after all; British law superseded international. If they disobeyed, the Royal Navy could blow them out of the water and charge them with intrusion. Yet... "They think they rule the damn world. Where is the justice in that, eh?"

"What would you have us do, signore?" The Captain hadn't noticed the XO at his shoulder. "They have the guns and the right of law." As if those two weren't the same. "What choice have we but to turn back?"

"If we do that", the Captain snarled, "the trade deal is off, the bosses lose the money, and we go on the damn street. You want that?" The shamefaced XO hung his head. "And besides", he continued in a gentler tone, "what sort of world is it where Italia may not sail as she pleases? If we go back, are we not admitting that il buon Dio has given them an unlimited right to say who may do what?" He stuck his chin out. "If Garibaldi could go ahead against the damned austriachi, we can go ahead here." Had he really just said that? Pride was a crazy thing. But all of Italy would see them in the right if Britain shot, and if worst came to worst, he was in the state of grace. "Steady hand on the controls. Reduce speed to five knots. Signal to those behind us." Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum...

"I repeat, turn back immediately!" The Royal Navy destroyer was barely a hundred yards distant. Anger filled the British voice- who were these foreigners to defy the greatest power the world had ever known? He is about to find out, the Captain thought, one way or another. "Repeated failure to comply will lead to the proportionate use of force. If you think we are bluffing or act without the confidence of our Government, sir, I invite you to try us." The guns on the Royal Navy destroyer suddenly seemed very large.

"Turn back now, signore!" The XO was white as a sheet. "You want to be a hero, fine. But I want to live!" Had he a pistol, would he have plugged the Captain? This was what drove men to madness, the Captain thought, knowing your fate was about to be decided and you could do nothing about it. Seconds stretched into hours. Every beat might be his last before the inglesi opened fire. When would British honour override reason? And if men aboard the ship died because he didn't turn back, would that be on his soul? Benedicta tu in muilieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus....

"This constitutes your final warning." The Briton seemed quiveringly eager to attack, an executioner waiting to get the job done. Why me? What was he doing out here, sacrificing himself for what? For honour? For Italy? For the company? Tacitus had said it was sweet and honourable to die for one's country but, damnit, he wanted to live. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus...

"You leave me with no choice." The Captain watched in horror as HMS Acorn's guns tilted towards him. It was too much. His heart exploded in pain and his vision blurred. The Captain fell to the floor, gasping for breath, as the XO frantically tried to maneouvre the ship. Nunc et in hora mortis nostrae... The last thing he heard was an earsplitting roar followed a second later by an explosion.

...Amen

The Captain never heard the XO's curses.

---

1. We have a Russian general with a German name (Rennenkampf), a British commander named French, a German general named François, and a French PM with an Italian surname. What a world.
2. Which would be a lesser evil if you stop and think about it.
3. According to my limited research- corrections welcome.
4. As I understand it, agriculture in Italy in this time period remained, as it always had, pretty local and decentralised-- what was produced in one area was typically consumed there, and American-style food corporations were rarer. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
5. Trying to figure out a company to fill the role was too much work, so they're "privately owned"
6. This was part of why Germany spared the Netherlands in OTL: they made a great trade conduit. British trade policy towards the Netherlands was, consequently, less than friendly.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth]

Welcome back! Eagerly awaiting more content, and as before my door is open if you need a sanity check on naval matters.

Thanks, it's great to be back.
I will most definitely take you up on that offer as I need to, especially regarding the postwar British and German navies and the balance of power thereof.

The Japanese invasion of Indochina was neat but did Japan actually have the logistic capacity to actually do it?

What @Jaenera Targaryen said.

No, but also yes.

No, because in 1917 Japan neither had the logistics or military ability to go GREATER EAST ASIA! like they could in 1942. At least, not in the face of a united front of Europe and the USA.

Yes, because by 1917 in the original version of this TL, WWI had left France a broken reed. The USA, while opposed to Japan, had no interest in either armed intervention or economic sanctions just to preserve France's colonial empire, and had its own problems with both a recession and war against Mexico. Germany and the rest of the CPs had decided to back Japan just to further weaken France, while Britain, not wanting to potentially see Japan slide into the German camp, decided to back Japan as well. Russia supported France, but like France the war had left them a broken reed (besides, they've fought Japan once before, it didn't end well, and they've no desire to repeat the experience).

Japan also made things easier on themselves by having Siam as an actual partner, and also had the support of anti-French rebels and local leaders. Siam annexed Cambodia, yes, but this being Taisho Japan, they didn't annex Vietnam or Laos, or even turn them into puppets ala OTL WWII, but actually gave them somewhat meaningful independence. They're just Japanese satellites bound by military and economic treaties, but from what I can see, the locals see it as a vast improvement compared to being under France's thumb.

I can reveal that something broadly similar will still happen in this Reduxed version. Most of the factors leading Japan to war against France will still exist (in fact, if France gets as roughly handled as current plans dictate, the invasion will be even more reasonable.) The Indochinese states will be akin to Germany's Polish and Baltic puppets- sovereign nations, not under military occupation, but beholden to one power via economic treaties and the threat of force.

I’m all for a Taisho Democracy, or Showa Democracy…heh, Japan vs. a monstrous USA.

Also be interesting to see how Austria-Hungary develops in the Redux, maybe Karl doesn’t get killed this time by Hungarians?

I doubt we'll get a "monstrous USA" ITTL but a Pacific War remains a real possibility.
I have a very different path planned for Austria-Hungary in Redux, and Karl will be living considerably longer than 1917 (or for that matter 1922).

It's more that the us are killing rebels which while terrible isn't exactly evil, more just trying to keep the Philippines under their control.

Also with the warlord era Canton separatists forming an actual nation and changing their script into bopomofo (phonetic spelling to prevent citizens from being able to read the logographic script) would be dope.

US killings of Filipino rebels, while amoral, were "lowest-common-denominator" behaviour amongst the imperial powers; hardly something Japan could criticise the US for without America saying "what about Korea? what about Formosa?"

I can't say if it'll happen ITTL but an independent Canton using phonetic script would be awesome!

A Japanese Commonwealth would be great and a less Japan centric pan asianism would be great.

It would certainly be interesting and we'll have to see what happens.

I can't wait to see the British shoot themselves in the foot again. :rubs hands together:

Excellent installment.

I don't think I commented on the first version but I was definitely enjoying it and am glad to see this return.

I too am somewhat excited to see how the British screw themselves over this time.

Classic British, shooting themselves in the foot out of shortsightedness.

Thank you for the kind words.
Stay tuned for more diplomatic failures from the UK.

I think this is a very plausible chain of events, and it makes sense that Italy would still be a neutral even as a pro-CP one

Glad you liked it, and yes, protracted Italian neutrality was a real possibility. Only when joining the CPs outright becomes more profitable than neutrality will they do so.

Hey, Brits if Italy is so bad why didn't Santa give them coal? Checkmate Angloids

New meta strat, being naughty all year to crash the coal market on Christmas.

Dun-dun CLAP!

Google Translate in video form.

That sketch is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Thank you for posting it.

Bretagna is not too unlikely but that would be the Italian name of Brittany, so I am unsure if that will be used against England (and yes 9 times on 10 in Italy we used Inghilterra instead of Gran Bretagna or Regno Unito)

There's clearly some divergence amongst members here. Thank you all for your input on this matter; it's teaching me something!

 

[username5243]

And Perfidious Albion strikes again. You have no one to blame but yourselves for that one.

We have a Russian general with a German name (Rennenkampf), a British commander named French, a German general named François, and a French PM with an Italian surname. What a world.

If this wasn't all OTL, that would be getting ridiculed on another AH.com, surely.

 

[AntoniousTheBro]

As I understand it, agriculture in Italy in this time period remained, as it always had, pretty local and decentralised-- what was produced in one area was typically consumed there, and American-style food corporations were rarer. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Yes and no. Though the research I completely forgot to send you talks about this (so sorry about that). while you correct there where very few American style food corps, the question of centralisation depended heavily on region in the southern agricultural economy this is a quite true statement however in regions such as central italy where the share cropping system called the Mezzadria played a big role in the food supply of central Italy and help maintain lower costs and greater access. which some argue is why central italy saw such firmly lower emigration rates in comparison to the rest of Italy.

 

[Kylia]

The worst part is, even if the CP win pretty handily, Britain won't ever get proper punishment for their blockade violating so much international law, since the CP won't ever be able to invade them or successfully starve them out (without also attacking neutral shipping)

 

[jonathan hanson]

well the british just gave the italians a real reason to honor thier central powers treaty obligations

 

[Belka DNW]

The franco-iatalian border isn't the best place for offensive operations, Italy would gain more by holding against the french in Europe and rushing for the Suez via Egypt, but this is ww1 we're talking about so "like that's ever gonna happen".