Romania and Italy join the Central Powers
- Thread starter Fenwick
- Start date
MrP
Banned
IIRC, the Romanians in '14 were still asking the Austrians where they should deploy mere days before war began. A breakdown in communications between the military and govt, no doubt!
MrP
Banned
It was a purely defensive alliance, y'see. IIRC, since Germany declared war on France first, it wasn't activated.
In '15 its tough to do for both of them; if Italy doesn't jump in '14 its going to sell its services and the entente will win that argument. Ditto for Romania; it came in largely because Bulgaria was Central.
Now, to prevent Calgacus from eating my soul for "attacking the POD":
The allies take it on the chin. Russia just can't deal with another front at this point, and (especially) neither can France. The war almost certainly won't end in '15, but the entente will lose.
Now, to prevent Calgacus from eating my soul for "attacking the POD":
The allies take it on the chin. Russia just can't deal with another front at this point, and (especially) neither can France. The war almost certainly won't end in '15, but the entente will lose.
MrP
Banned
The Russians had a covering force for Romania in '14. I'll look it up. Damn. Site's still down. I think it's 7th (Independent) Army of 4 infantry divisions.
OK, but France is still boned (even if they do have a covering army, its just dragging men out of the main event.)
More importantly, the CPs have far fewer fronts than OTL, and practically all the Balkans. Just on the long-term, they'll do much better, and the allies much worse, by the addition of two new members.
Simple. Have that little Serbian violation of Austro-Hungarian territory at Temes-Kubin be an actual attack rather then an accident, coupled by a Serbian refusal of the ultimatum and a declaration of war. Italy is forced by the alliance to enter the war. Although, given the mountainous nature of its border with France, I don't see them advancing really deeply into France. Of course, France would be forced to keep at least 400,000 men on its border to prevent an Italian offensive. This will have interesting consequences, practically when Verdun comes around.
In the Balkans, Serbia is attacked from two sides in 1914, but survives long enough for Bulgaria to deliver the knock out blow in 1915. With Russia, expect a Romanian offensive in late 1914-early 1915 against Bessarabia. If they synch this up with a Austro-German offensive, say in the Battle of Warsaw, the Central Powers may well take most of Poland in 1914. Whether this leads to an earlier collapse of Russia is anyones guess.
Oh, and without Italy on their border to worry about, Austria will have a ton more men to give to the Balkan and Eastern fronts.
In the Balkans, Serbia is attacked from two sides in 1914, but survives long enough for Bulgaria to deliver the knock out blow in 1915. With Russia, expect a Romanian offensive in late 1914-early 1915 against Bessarabia. If they synch this up with a Austro-German offensive, say in the Battle of Warsaw, the Central Powers may well take most of Poland in 1914. Whether this leads to an earlier collapse of Russia is anyones guess.
Oh, and without Italy on their border to worry about, Austria will have a ton more men to give to the Balkan and Eastern fronts.
MrP
Banned
Oh, I'm not in the debate yet, old boy. I'm just marshalling some initial numbers to bring my thoughts together. The Romanians have 9 divs of infantry and 1 of cavalry, plus another division and a half of cavalry assigned as corps troops.
EDIT: Italy has 26 divs infantry and 4 of cavalry, plus a div of Bersaglieri, two Alpine Groups and 9 sub-divisional units that (I think) formed the nucleus for divisions following a DOW.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I disagree with you. Geography is unkind to Italy when it comes to attacking France. There will just be no Salonika front - the troops used there are plenty to defend against Italy, and maybe no Gallipoli.
This will create a tough situation for the Entente navally until 1916, but this isn't going to be as big a difference as you might think.
In fact, the big winners are the Ottomans, because the Entente won't have the spare power to use against them. I suppose that if the entire Ottoman army is available against Russia that could cause problems, but the lack of rail to the east makes it hard to concentrate that much manpower.
I think people may underestimate the enormous preponderance of manpower and economic power the Entente had to bear over the CP.
Geography wasn't kind to them attacking AH either; that doesn't mean they didn't tie up AH troops.
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
You don't say, Abdul? Tell me more of these "Ottomans". That's true, but OTL 1917 the entente was doing pretty badly. Not badly enough to lose, yet, but adding some more problems can only help the CPs. I still think they lose by exhaustion in early '18.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The Ottomans suffered because the Entente had a lot of "extra" forces at their disposal. If Italy is in, I doubt anyone is going to waste the fine Anzac and other imperial troops invading strategically useless places like Palestine or Mesopotamia when they can land in Sicily instead.
Do you disagree, or are you just being obnoxious for kicks?
Do you disagree, or are you just being obnoxious for kicks?
Geography wasn't kind to them attacking AH either; that doesn't mean they didn't tie up AH troops.
That's true, but OTL 1917 the entente was doing pretty badly. Not badly enough to lose, yet, but adding some more problems can only help the CPs. I still think they lose by exhaustion in early '18.
The Ottomans suffered because the Entente had a lot of "extra" forces at their disposal. If Italy is in, I doubt anyone is going to waste the fine Anzac and other imperial troops invading strategically useless places like Palestine or Mesopotamia when they can land in Sicily instead.
Do you disagree, or are you just being obnoxious for kicks?
Sorry... I was just poking fun at how every ATL you look at turns out to be better for the Ottomans. (Well, WWI could hardly have gone worse for them, I suppose.)
No, I agree fully; the Ottomans will do much better here, although the Ottoman/AH/Bulgarian/Romanian alliance is going to have trouble holding together.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Well, it's easier for scenarios to come out better for the Ottomans because it couldn't possibly have gone worse! Have you ever seen a "WI the Hapsburgs came out of WWI worse?" scenario?
The big problem is that Bulgaria doesn't really care about anything but Macedonia, so the minute they get it they go into hibernation per OTL. Rumania would probably be useful against Russia and is a flank the Austrians don't have to worry about, but they weren't really ready for a war.
Itay was useful for tying up a number of Hapsburg troops, but on the CP side they don't serve much purpose on land, although I suppose with the Austrians they'll cause a lot of problems navally in the Med.
Thats it exactly; throwing some extra troops into the fray for the CPs (French troops forced to Italy, Italian troops to France, AH troops freed up for Russia, Bulgarian and AH troops freed up for Russia and Serbia, Romanian troops to Russia, Russian troops forced to Romania) can only help the CPs, almost regardless of how incompetent (and I'll admit the Italians and Romanians were pretty incompetent) they are.
Last edited:
Valdemar II
Banned
In another thread there was a point that Italian industri was quite useful for the Allies, here the Axis has acces to Italian industri ansd Romanian oil, while the Austrian doesn't need to keep troops by either countries borders, it could mean a faster defeat of Serbia maybe already in 1914, afterward the Austrian would be limited to one front, where one more country fight on their side, quite an improvement. Of course with Italy on Axis side it quite likely the Allies try a naval landing in south Italian. What would be a disaster for the allies, it would trap millions of Alllied troops on the poor part of Italian Peninsula, while they desperated try to march on Rome and failing that.