What if Austria-Hungary launched a preemptive war against Italy in 1908 or 1911?

"A traitor backstabbing an ally' - what a truly appalling notion...

NIce, but better try to be specific and better don't forget that the Austrian general attitude for the alliance with Italy (and everyone else not Germany really) was: ask everything but don't give anything (basically you will be satisfied with just the honor to be allied with Wien); this will not be like 1915 were the alliance is already dead and everybody knows it, the negotiation between Rome and Wien had gone to the trashbin and the Imperial court had done the possible to give Italy an excuse to not partecipate so to not divide the spoil. No, in 1908 basically you attack a supposed ally by no reason except Conrad hate when he had suffered one of the biggest natural disaster know to man and probably you don't even say anything to your other ally because otherwise he will point out the idiocy in that.
In addition, at least in this period the italian army had not depleted his resources in the war against the Ottoman and due to the economic situation had not have the possibility to replenish it; this was a period of expansion and (relatively) economic boom.

Your patriotism does you credit, but Italy was scarcely a modern day Sparta. The Italian military had been recently humbled by Ethiopia, the Italian military only prevailed against Ottoman garrison forces due to naval supremacy and in the first world war the Italians managed to make A-H forces look truly formidable, despite A-H having to fight on multiple fronts after having its prewar armies gutted by Russia.

Sure, but neither is A-H, a nation that had not fought a real war in the last 40 years, that for financing the armed forces had forced the various generals to go litteraly behind the goverment back and his commanded by one of the biggest military idiot of the time (that was considered much better of his competition in the K.u.K. armee). Plus is better remember that much of A-H success on the italian front was due to the terrain, one of the most favorable to the defenders in Europe, in this scenario they will be the attacker forfeiting that advantage and instead getting the burden of logistic.


The relative combat readiness of the A-H army deteriorated in the years preceding the first world war. In the early years of the 20th century the A-H military was recognized as being surprisingly competent, but due to severe budget restraints, its ongoing development was impaired. The Italian military of the period was consistently held in low regard in terms of both organization and equipment. As far as terrain, the Italians planned to withdraw immediately behind the Piave river in the case of A-H hostilities. It is well within the A-H capacities to win ugly against a heavily outnumbered opponent with inferior organization and equipment.

Yes it was considered greatly competent and the French believed in the supreme importance of Elan...and Conrad was also considered a military genius; unfortunely reality demonstrated otherwise, and the general hasburg attitude towards the italian army will probably create a sense of superiority and undestimation of the enemy that will not bode very well for the future, expecially in a period were the defenders hold almost any advantage.
Regarding Italy being heavily outnumbered and with inferior equipment; well in the first case we are not talking about a blitzkrieg, you in this period need time to mobilize and it's extremely difficult to do covertly so i doubt that Rome will be caught with her pants down...unless you go for the 'go as you are' type of war but this mean forfeit much of your advantage; plus his better to remember that due to the enourmous trust between the two allies, both side of the border were heavily fortified and in this period there was less railway and good road available for A-H command to transport troops in the zone.
Finally we are talking about two great power, so no winning quickly is out of the question due to the technological and logistical constrait of the time...and this if the war don't expand

Why would Oskar Potiorek be chosen to take on the Italians? The invasion of Serbia was not well managed, but A-H did not enjoy a significant numerical advantage over the Serbian defenders due to the redeployment of A-H troops to the Russian front.

The invasion was a utter disaster and calling now well managed is like calling Caporetto a slight strategic retreat and the entire operation show a lack of both preparation and undertanding of the enemy
 
Conrad Von Hotzendorf asked for one in 1908 and 1911 when Italy was distracted or weakened by other events. He was turned down both times.

What if Austria-Hungary went through with it on either occasion? What are the likely scenarios? Would Russia allow Austria to crush Italy?

How would a Alpine war look like in that scenario without a Vogese front line ? Would German troops inofficially aid Austrians ?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In a 1908 scenario, there is the least chance of Russian interference, which is good for Austria-Hungary.

However, diplomatically, there is really no excuse, also, if this comes after Bosnia, Austria really is considered the rowdy of Europe. [Don't know if Conrad's proposed anti-Italian operation was before or after the Bosnian annexation. If before, it could well abort the Austrian annexation, a diplomatic positive for Austria].

In a 1911 scenario, Russia may be more recovered, which is bad for Austria-Hungary. However, Austria has more of a potential excuse if it says it is objecting to Italian aggression on the Ottomans, and the Ottomans are committed to other fronts besides the Alps.

Best course of action for Austria is probably something different from OTL, but also does not involve preemptive war against Italy in either 1908 or 1911. This would be to oppose in all discussions with European powers like Italy and Germany and Britain, an Italian War against the Ottoman Empire, with the warning it is a casus belli for Austria if the Italians *or* the Serbs attacked the Ottomans.
 

BooNZ

Banned
However, diplomatically, there is really no excuse, also, if this comes after Bosnia, Austria really is considered the rowdy of Europe. [Don't know if Conrad's proposed anti-Italian operation was before or after the Bosnian annexation. If before, it could well abort the Austrian annexation, a diplomatic positive for Austria].

Conrad initally proposed a pre-emptive war in against Italy in 1907, but stated a preference to initiate the war in 1909 after some artillery had been scheduled to be modernised. A earlier suggestion of a pre-emptive against Italy war was made in 1904 by Conrad's predecessor - Beck. There appear to be have already been suspicions Italy would not honor its Triple Alliance commitements, which since Italy signed a secret treaty with France in 1902 (same year Triple Alliance renewal) - appears accurate.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
To repeat what I said on this subject on another thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/pod-in-1908-to-avoid-mexican-revolution.407391/

Germany's government would be highly disappointed in Austria-Hungary attacking Italy, but unable/unwilling to take sides against her. The German General Staff would have to recalculate defense plans to no longer assume Italian support in the west. German public opinion would probably be more pro-Austrian, anti-Italian because Italy's double-dealing was an increasingly open secret.

Other powers- The Ottomans would be pleased obviously. The Entente powers did not have positive commitments to Italy and would be content to take out the popcorn and watch while the Triple Alliance collapses. Public opinion in the Entente countries, at least Britain and France, found the Italian aggression against the Ottomans a bit obnoxious and greedy. While not in any hurry to rescue the Italians from their fate, the French will take note of the opportunity to approach Italy and strengthen Franco-Italian ties *after* the war is over and settled.

The Serbs would have a pro-Italian attitude just based on their government's bias against *both* the Habsburgs and Ottomans.

What would Austria's goals be?

Mainly negative, to weaken and punish Italy, and to discourage Balkan state opportunism and destruction of the Ottoman Empire. As far as demands are concerned, rather than seeking cession of Italian territory, the Austro-Hungarians would be demanding an indemnity, possibly arms, naval or fortification limits, and a cessation and renunciation of Italian aggression and claims against Libya and Albania and the Dodecanese.

The positive outcomes the Austrians would be looking for would be a morale-building victory against the Italian enemy who is not popular with any of the other ethnicities of the the empire, and creation of a de facto alliance with a preserved Ottoman Empire to protect the territorial status quo in the Balkans and keep Serbia small and isolated. If Austro-Hungarian public opinion or military honor demands some kind of territorial prize, I still think Vienna would not seek metropolitan Italian territory, as the other powers would see a grab for Venetia or Lombardy as overreach, and acquisition of the territories would add to the minorities problems in the Empire. So, the only alternative annexation, possibly, would be Italian Somaliland, which gives Austria-Hungary a token African colony that looks nice on a map and registers the rise of Austria's status against Italy's decline.

Would this restrain the Balkan War?

Yes, which would be a big part of the plan, to prevent Slavic expansion against the Ottomans. The Balkan states almost certainly do not attack the Ottomans, at least in the 1912-1914 timeframe, because the Serbs and Bulgarians need to worry about facing two-front war against the Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans, and the Greeks need to worry about their navy facing opposition from the Austrian navy in addition to the Ottoman.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor

So A-H would try to attack Italy during their war against the ottomans?
How would they "justify" that? What kind of casus hello would it be?
In terms of Italian offenses against Austria-Hungary, Vienna could cite Rome's toleration of press incitement against Austria to gain irredenta, and Italy's support of ethnic Italian organizations (however insignificant in reality) in Austria that can be construed as "anti-government." The words " interfering in the peaceful internal affairs of the Empire" could be used.

In international terms, Austria-Hungary could use more high-minded justifications-
1) Avenging unprovoked aggression against the Ottoman Empire, aggression made more egregious by Italy's changing/escalating demands despite the Ottomans attempting a peaceful solution. This is the escape clause from any earlier Austro-Hungarian undertakings recognizing an Italian "right" to Libya.
2) Protecting the territorial status quo in Europe, and preventing copycat "national irredentist" wars, especially in the Balkans and Mediterranean.
3) Italy could could be condemned as setting a bad example of not only aggression, but also racial and religious war. By stopping Italy Austria-Hungary is trying to rescue Europe and the Mediterranean from the fate of another "Thirty Years War".
 

BooNZ

Banned
Also remember that Luigi Cadorna was not yet Chief of Staff in Italy, so by default the Italian army would be in better hands than the one guy who might compete with von Hotzendorf in incompetence.

Joffre has to be the lead contender for most incompetent. In less than 3 years he managed to transform a sensible French defensive doctrine into a kamikaze like offensive doctrine and downplayed the need for French heavy artillery - that was before the first bullet was even fired. Thereafter he managed to turn what should have been a first rate army into potting mix. In comparison, Conrad's doctrine was worse than average (a very low bar at the time), but pre-war budgets meant his forces were always going to be at a disadvantage in terms of equipment and numbers, even if he was a 'self professed' military genius. I think Conrad is the lead contender for most conceited/delusional, but its an extraordinarily strong field for most incompetent.

I am not familiar with Luigi Cadorna's body of work, but I understand he was the preferred Italian choice as early as 1908. However, because his expectations of the job description were too high, his place was taken by a known Austria-phile. I suspect LC would be placed at the helm following the first sign of a strategic withdrawal, which happened to be the Italian deployment plan...
 

BooNZ

Banned
Sure, but neither is A-H, a nation that had not fought a real war in the last 40 years, that for financing the armed forces had forced the various generals to go litteraly behind the goverment back and his commanded by one of the biggest military idiot of the time (that was considered much better of his competition in the K.u.K. armee). Plus is better remember that much of A-H success on the italian front was due to the terrain, one of the most favorable to the defenders in Europe, in this scenario they will be the attacker forfeiting that advantage and instead getting the burden of logistic.

Some independent assessments of the Austria-Hungarian army on maneuvers...

Among the big continental armies, the Austro-Hungarian military continually amazed observers simply by continuing to function at all. Indeed, it appeared to perform impressively well, remaining united in its loyalty and improving its tactics gradually in spite of the obsticles that the political antagonisms of the Dual Monarchy presented... PG 97

Girodou's Italian colleague in Vienna, Captain Alessandro Sigrai Asinari di San Marzano, judged in 1908 that the army was robust for the time being, but that the ethnic problem was "fatally destined in a more or less distant future to weaken its compact limbs" ...in the very same report San Marzano summed up a common view when he wrote that the delay in issuing modern artillery equipment was the only vital problem "in all other respects, the army is organised on very solid bases. A compact officer corps, of distinguished intellect, keen, active: an army perfectly administered, well armed and solidly disciplined, which is beyond doubt a powerful instrument for war."
...
The French attache considered that the 1907 imperial maneuvers "showed once again the excellent discipline that from the top to the bottom in the Austro-Hungarian army, the good will of everyone, the endurance and spirit of the soldier, in this respect I believe that this army can bear comparison with the best."
...
Although disciplined and orderly, they displayed little evidence of having learned the lessons of dispersal from the Russo-Japanese War, adhering instead to dense formations. Starting in 1907, this began to change. In that year Conrad [AKA MILITARY GENIUS] instituted the practice of omitting daily rest periods from the action at imperial maneuvers, and Girodou drew up a favourable report on the assault tactics employed. The previous year, he noted, he had commented on "the progress accomplished by the infantry since the 1905 maneuvers from the point of view of sou-pless, adaption to terrain, and ability in seeking defilade. This year too, I found this progress more marked: no masses to be seen; skirmishes, supports, and reserves advancing in sparse lines by small groups in short rapid rushes and throwing themselves flat at once. I believe in this respect the Austro-Hungarian infantry has nothing to envy any other" PG 99

Also it should also be noted in 1908 the Italians had no fast firing artillery and only 220 British built Vickers machine guns in total, so any advantage of the defensive would not be decisive against a better armed, better organised and far more numerous foe...

Companies contained an average of only 52 men in peacetime, compared to approximately 70 in Austria-Hungary and 107 in France.
...
Despite its great dependence upon reservists to fill up the companies on mobilisation, the Italian army could only afford to call up some 50,000 of them for a refresher training in any given year, compared to 423,000 to Austria-Hungary and 590,000 in France.
PG 103

...and the general hasburg attitude towards the italian army will probably create a sense of superiority and undestimation of the enemy that will not bode very well for the future, expecially in a period were the defenders hold almost any advantage.

Some independent assessments of the Italian army on maneuvers...

The French attache, Lieutenant-Colonel Messier de St. James, reported after the 1907 maneuvers that the soldiers sometimes allowed their rifles to get so dirty that the mechanism did not work properly...

...
The Italian field artillery practically never fired from defiladed positions during manuvers
...
All observers agreed the Italian cavalry failed to provide proper combat reconnaissance and security, consistently allowing units to colide without warning and causing chaos on the manuver field.
...
The instruction throughout "seemed paralysed in the field" to Messier; "the instruction to the troops appeared to me to be the most neglected sort, and one might even doubt, when watching them maneuver, whether they had received any training whatsoever in open country." PG 101-102

The French attache reflected in 1906 "One is truly entitled to ask whether the military spirit as we know it in France is compaible with this race, leaving aside the Piedmontese whose military atavism is unquestionable. Italian officers have the character of functionaries" PG 104

On the maneuver field, Hammerstein-Equord noted, "The Italian soldier does not exactly give the impression of possessing a particular relish for his job; and discipline, by our military standards, is unquestionably inferior" PG 104

Hammerstein-Equord shared this gloomy view of the Italian army's morale, but was not so sure that developments in foreign policy would leave it time for effective reforms. In one report at the end of 1908, he warned "The Italian army today finds itself in a very precaurious situation" due to the stirring-up of antagonism with its northeastern neighbour: "were Italian policy to force the ultima ratio and were the army to have to fight the Austrians in the foreseeable future, one does not have to be a phophet to predict that..., not only due to its inadequate state of organisation but above all due to its moral decadence, it would be headed for a third Custozza." Few in Europe would have argued with him. PG 105

Regarding Italy being heavily outnumbered and with inferior equipment; well in the first case we are not talking about a blitzkrieg, you in this period need time to mobilize and it's extremely difficult to do covertly so i doubt that Rome will be caught with her pants down...unless you go for the 'go as you are' type of war but this mean forfeit much of your advantage; plus his better to remember that due to the enourmous trust between the two allies, both side of the border were heavily fortified and in this period there was less railway and good road available for A-H command to transport troops in the zone.
Finally we are talking about two great power, so no winning quickly is out of the question due to the technological and logistical constrait of the time...and this if the war don't expand

The northeastern border was virtually without modern defense works. When the General staff played out a map exercise in 1904 representing an Austro-Hungarian invasion, the Italians suffered total defeat. Their forces could not deploy in time at their main defensive position before the enemy overran it, even though it was a hundred kilometers inside Italian territory on the Piave river.
...
The military in Italy still languished in the disgrace of its appalling defeat at the battle of Adua in Ethiopiain 1896 - until that time by far the worst loss ever inflicted on a European colonial army by indigenous forces. The rout had signified not only the end of Italian colonial expansion in East Africa, but also a drastic fall in military spending, prestige and morale.


Extracts from: The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War - DG Herrmann
 
Last edited:

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Assuming Germany does not intervene diplomatically to obtain a swift armistice, and either stands aside or - even worse - shows partiality to A-H, then you guarantee Italy will become a full active member of the Entente as soon as peace is obtained. A-H will have to maintain a large garrison tied down in northern Italian cities - having lost these in 1859 & 1866 Conrad & the Habsburgs will seek to retain what they can take - or, at the very least, manning whatever frontier is drawn. Less troops for Conrad in Galicia or Serbia when the big smash comes. Italy may even talk to the French about establishing a friendly expeditionary force in Norethern Italy, or offer an alternative base for the BEF or MEF. Italian involvement from the start in August 1914 (or whenever the Great War breaks out) can only be to the detriment of CP forces.

Alternatively, German declines to offer Vienna a blank cheque when Conrad wants to move against Serbia, having been "betrayed" by their ally shafting another. "You want to drag us into another war?" Might be time to look for an ally elsewhere. How about Bjorko and a Willy-Nicky alliance - we could do so such in the Middle East, instead of being shackled to a corpse? Or think about turning those dreadnoughts into ploughshares and coming to an arrangement with Uncle Bertie? Far more reliable than those Habsburgs & Magyars.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Joffre has to be the lead contender for most incompetent. In less than 3 years he managed to transform a sensible French defensive doctrine into a kamikaze like offensive doctrine and downplayed the need for French heavy artillery - that was before the first bullet was even fired. Thereafter he managed to turn what should have been a first rate army into potting mix. In comparison, Conrad's doctrine was worse than average (a very low bar at the time), but pre-war budgets meant his forces were always going to be at a disadvantage in terms of equipment and numbers, even if he was a 'self professed' military genius. I think Conrad is the lead contender for most conceited/delusional, but its an extraordinarily strong field for most incompetent.

I am not familiar with Luigi Cadorna's body of work, but I understand he was the preferred Italian choice as early as 1908. However, because his expectations of the job description were too high, his place was taken by a known Austria-phile. I suspect LC would be placed at the helm following the first sign of a strategic withdrawal, which happened to be the Italian deployment plan...
Never ending battles of Isonzo! If you fail once, or twice or even thrice don't let it discourage you. Eventually it must be succesful. It's just men that aren't brave or disciplined enough. (Cadorna in a nutshell).

Or: The Austrians are obvioulsy preparing for an offensive. So obviously that the Italian and French press finds out and write about it.
Cadorna: Nah, it's nothing.
 
The French had a treaty with Italy that they would defend her if Austria attacked.

If Austria declares an unprovoked war (which is exactly what this is) then France, Britain and Russia WILL intervene to save her whole Germany will sit it out due to the heinousness of the act, moreover Italy herself is still a Great Power, the least if the great powers but still, not a pushover.

There is a strong advantage to fighting on the defensive at this period, not least due to technology and nationalism. "The Perfidious Austrians are invading us again" is a damned good rallying cry.

Moreover this assumes Italy is the greatest threat to Austria. She is not; Russia is. Russia started WWI in large part to dismantle Austria, seize the straits and secure control over the Balkans "Hinterland" to Constantinople. If anyone needs a preemptive war against them it's Czarist Russia.

The most likely result of this is a Russo-German-(Italian) alliance dismantling Austria Hungary in revenge/reaction. Clearly the Habsburgs have gone mad, time to wipe the slate clean and take control ourselves.
 
Some independent assessments of the Austria-Hungarian army on maneuvers...

And this assestment lasted like a snowflake in hell in the harsh realm of reality; the military decadence, lack of discipline and low morale of the italian army sure caused a third custoza (Caporetto)... after almost three years of grueling and demanding war in some of the harshest terrain to fight an offensive war, subjected to a discipline that had make the Germans cry mommy and led by an enourmous egocentric idiot and with lack of material and the A-H army that the attache praise so much, resisted that much only thanks to continuous German help and being the weakest link in the eastern and Balkan front.
So, yes the italian army will surely be beaten by an enemy with superior equipment, organizationt, etc. etc...unfortunely we are talking about the A-H army under Conrad; sure i expect in the end an austrian victory but quick? overwhelming? Allowing the Hapsburg and Germans to learn all their problems so when they fight the Entente they will have a great advantage? Very difficult to believe expecially due to the technological constrait of the time.

Cadorna possibility to achieve command between 1908 and 1911 are more or less the same to Kaiser Willy to become the British PM; not only the italian PM during this period is Giolitti and both men hate each other with the passion of a thousands suns but his abrasive and uncompromising personality had caused him to offend the king himselfs, OTL he get the job because being put on a desk job basically protected him to any of the problems of the war in Libya and when the General Pollio (the previous chief of Staff) died he was the only squickly clean high officer remained...so he got the job
 
On the topic of maneuvers...the Austro-Hungarian army didn't have anything resembling proper maneuvers. It had pretty but worthless choreographed plays, designed chiefly as a spectacle for the amusement of Franz Joseph and nearby members of the Imperial family.

Maneuvers which were too boring for the senile Emperor's limited attention span were cut short or simply eliminated. Flag exercises, which had been dropped by every other European army as obsolete, still thrived in the Habsburg domain because they looked pretty. On at least one occassion, Franz Ferdinand himself made the maneuver grind to a halt because he didn't want to watch his favorite commander lose the exercise.

(To his credit, Conrad the Military Genius tried to resign when he found out what sorry farce of "maneuvers" the Emperor and FF expected him to oversee. But Franz Ferdinand convinced him to stay by pointing out that "the Jewish-Masonic press" - one of the Archduke's several bogeymen - will make a terrible scandal of Conrad's resignation.)

The idea that this army is going to not only defeat, but "crush" Italy, sounds like a baseless power fantasy.


In addition to the Austrian army's crippling incompetence, and the improved Italian leadership, there are many other factors. For one, there's the question of morale. In this scenario there is no even halfway workable excuse (let alone reason) the Habsburgs can offer to inspire their soldiers. As far as the Austro-Hungarian troops are concerned they will be fighting and dying for absolutely nothing from day 1 of the war. Meanwhile, the Italians will know exactly what they are fighting for, to an even greater extent than in OTL.
The Austrian military leadership will no doubt try to compensate...by forcing bayonet charge after bayonet charge, until its officer corps comes to resemble Swiss cheese - more holes than cheese...(to say nothing of other casualties). Then with the massacres and mass deportations beloved by both the Conrad school of warfare and the Beck-Potiorek school; but this can only be expected to further strengthen Italian resistance.
 
The French had a treaty with Italy that they would defend her if Austria attacked.

If Austria declares an unprovoked war (which is exactly what this is) then France, Britain and Russia WILL intervene to save her whole Germany will sit it out due to the heinousness of the act, moreover Italy herself is still a Great Power, the least if the great powers but still, not a pushover.

There is a strong advantage to fighting on the defensive at this period, not least due to technology and nationalism. "The Perfidious Austrians are invading us again" is a damned good rallying cry.

Moreover this assumes Italy is the greatest threat to Austria. She is not; Russia is. Russia started WWI in large part to dismantle Austria, seize the straits and secure control over the Balkans "Hinterland" to Constantinople. If anyone needs a preemptive war against them it's Czarist Russia.

The most likely result of this is a Russo-German-(Italian) alliance dismantling Austria Hungary in revenge/reaction. Clearly the Habsburgs have gone mad, time to wipe the slate clean and take control ourselves.
I'm not so certain that Britain would intervene. She has no commitments to Italy, her commitment to France was weak enough that the war was justified by the defence of Belgium, and London to my knowledge still had a definite interest in the survival of the Ottoman Empire. Unless Germany invaded Belgium British intervention is unlikely.


I'm not sure how quick Russia would intervene, so shortly after the loss to Japan and prior to the humiliation in Bosnia I don't think the Czar would intervene to save Italy.

If Russia and France intervened against Austria Germany would have to join the war, she cannot allow her enemies to destroy Austria.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Assuming Germany does not intervene diplomatically to obtain a swift armistice, and either stands aside or - even worse - shows partiality to A-H, then you guarantee Italy will become a full active member of the Entente as soon as peace is obtained. A-H will have to maintain a large garrison tied down in northern Italian cities - having lost these in 1859 & 1866 Conrad & the Habsburgs will seek to retain what they can take - or, at the very least, manning whatever frontier is drawn. Less troops for Conrad in Galicia or Serbia when the big smash comes. Italy may even talk to the French about establishing a friendly expeditionary force in Norethern Italy, or offer an alternative base for the BEF or MEF. Italian involvement from the start in August 1914 (or whenever the Great War breaks out) can only be to the detriment of CP forces.

While Italy coveted much A-H territory, A-H certainly did not want any additional minorities. In my opinion, it is doubtful the A-H would seek much additional Italian terrain unless it was to make the border even more defensible. If Italy is obviously aligned with the Entente, it likely results in less German dreadnaughts and more spending on larger, better equipped German and AH armies - maybe even improved co-operation between Germany and A-H. The OTL late entry of Italy to the war was attributable to the state of their military, which is likely to be far worse following a beating from A-H. I'm sure the British would be thrilled to also prop up the Italians from the start of the first world war...

Alternatively, German declines to offer Vienna a blank cheque when Conrad wants to move against Serbia, having been "betrayed" by their ally shafting another. "You want to drag us into another war?"

It is difficult to see how Germany gets dragged into a war in this scenario - the comment from Hammerstein-Equord (refer above) and various comments from Wilhelm, suggest existing issues between both the CP powers and their recently 'Liberal' Italy ally.

Might be time to look for an ally elsewhere. How about Bjorko and a Willy-Nicky alliance - we could do so such in the Middle East, instead of being shackled to a corpse? Or think about turning those dreadnoughts into ploughshares and coming to an arrangement with Uncle Bertie? Far more reliable than those Habsburgs & Magyars.

With a focus on mainland balance of power, fewer German dreadnaughts can't help but improve Anglo-German relations.
 

BooNZ

Banned
The French had a treaty with Italy that they would defend her if Austria attacked.

If Austria declares an unprovoked war (which is exactly what this is) then France, Britain and Russia WILL intervene to save her whole Germany will sit it out due to the heinousness of the act, moreover Italy herself is still a Great Power, the least if the great powers but still, not a pushover.

Probably not. The 1902 treaty between France and Italy settled colonial matters and each party agreed to remain neutral in the event the other was attacked. The Russians declined to support their Serbian allies, who mobilized in response to a certain A-H annexation in 1908. As partially outlined above in post 28, international military analysts consistently assessed the Italian forces as being poorly trained, lacking discipline and having dangerously low levels of morale. Italian mobilization planning in 1904 suggested the Italians would struggle to deploy to their first line of defense effectively, despite that line being 100km within their own territory.

There is a strong advantage to fighting on the defensive at this period, not least due to technology and nationalism. "The Perfidious Austrians are invading us again" is a damned good rallying cry.

As outlined above in post 28, the Italians only had 220 machine guns and no fast firing artillery. The rallying cry might keep down the desertion rate initially, but again, Italy is not Sparta. Italy has its own quite different martial reputation...
 

NoMommsen

Donor
While Italy coveted much A-H territory, A-H certainly did not want any additional minorities. In my opinion, it is doubtful the A-H would seek much additional Italian terrain unless it was to make the border even more defensible.
I remember having read (though don't know out of my head where), that Conrad favored a shortening of the border ...
by regaining most of Venetia (regardless how many italians that might bring into the monarchy).
 
I remember having read (though don't know out of my head where), that Conrad favored a shortening of the border ...
by regaining most of Venetia (regardless how many italians that might bring into the monarchy).

I think I've read that there were some mountain passes that the Austrians could have annexed that would also have improved security. If so, then that's the logical choice.
 
I wonder if it is possible for the Austro-Hungarians to form a secret defensive pact with the Ottomans?

In a situation where Italy is launching an aggressive war of expansion (and upsetting the European balance and AH is intervening to defend their (heretofor secret) ally and swearing off major territorial gain, I can see France and Russia staying out.

AH would get alot more value from an cash indemnity from Italy than territory in any case.

fasquardon
 
Top