What if Germany attacked Italy instead of Verdun in 1916?

IOTL, Germany recommended to Austria that it stays on the defensive. Austria however moved to attack Italy with some of their best troops and got wiped out in the East due to Brusilov. Here’s a discussion on Austria’s prospects for attacks.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/strafexpedition-works-in-1916.396744/

I’m sure we all know the general story of Verdun.

IOTL, when Germany attacked Italy in 1917 Italy nearly broke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto


What if in the Winter of 1915-1916 Germany and AH got talking, and AH eventually convinced Germany that Italy is the weak link and told them they will try to attack (as they intended OTL), but with Germany convinced of Italy’s weakness Germany says that they want to be the ones to lead the attack while telling AH to defend the East with more of their best troops (as they recommended OTL). The two countries agree and Germany ultimately decides to launch an offensive at Italy instead of France in 1916, with AH in support.

Would this strategy make sense? How would this go?
 

Deleted member 1487

Then French attacks as they planned how and where they want, which is bad news for Germany. The Brusilov offensive happens as per OTL and maybe the Entente can actually force a breakthrough due to overloading CP defenses. Verdun really did break the French army in a number of ways and tied them down so that they couldn't attack as they wanted, when they did at the Somme alongside the Brits they achieved quite a bit more at lower losses...though in part that was due to the Germans thinking the French were too tied down at Verdun to attack on the Somme.

Also a problem with the POD is the head of the German army and the Austrian army utterly hated one another and refused to talk or cooperate; neither informed the other of the plans they had for offensives in 1916, so Verdun surprised the Austrians and the Italian offensive surprised the Germans. In fact in some ways it is likely that Conrad, the Austria CiC, purposely stripped out the East to spite the Germans and score a big win to assert his independence from them. Of course that didn't work out and Conrad ended up resigning.
 
Italy has somewhat better morale, somewhat less dead troops trying to break through the Isonzo, and somewhat less debts; Germany has somewhat worse stormtroopers (because they're not as well tested as they would be in late '17) and are still saddled with the same unfavorable logistical situation, but they are in a better situation food-wise (no Turnip Winter yet).

All in all, it sounds like a wash - Caporetto basically happens, the front briefly collapses, but is then reestablished on a good defensive line.
 

Deleted member 94680

I’m with @wiking on this one.

No Verdun leaves the French in a far better position and allows them to even move onto the offensive (or at worst avoid the crises of OTL) against a German line presumably understrength compared to OTL due to their focus being elsewhere.

Knocking Italy out of the War doesn’t win the War, achieving a successful Verdun might do so.
 
AIUI the British and French had to send troops from the Western Front to help the Italians in 1917.

My guess is that they will do the same in 1916 ITTL. Will that stop the Central Powers knocking Italy out of the war? AIUI it did in 1917 IOTL.

Will that mean the French still have to cancel their planned 1916 offensive and a different Battle of the Somme?

My guess is that the above would still be better for the French than 1916 IOTL. Is it better for the British (and the Commonwealth and Portuguese troops serving with them)? Is it better or worse for the Central Powers?
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
IIRC the initial Allied response to Caporetto was to send 11 French & Allied divisions, put upon arrival they were placed in a reserve position to halt a second CP breakthrough Italian positions on the Piave rather than hold the front line (certainly case for the British). Most of the troops went back in 1918. So there is no reason to believe that a slightly more healthy Italian army would perform worse. I suspect a position where Germany sends more than 11 divisions against the Allied loss of 11 would benefit the Allies on the Western Front.
 
IIRC the initial Allied response to Caporetto was to send 11 French & Allied divisions, put upon arrival they were placed in a reserve position to halt a second CP breakthrough Italian positions on the Piave rather than hold the front line (certainly case for the British). Most of the troops went back in 1918. So there is no reason to believe that a slightly more healthy Italian army would perform worse. I suspect a position where Germany sends more than 11 divisions against the Allied loss of 11 would benefit the Allies on the Western Front.
Yeah - the (still useful, let's be clear) Anglo-French aid was limited to rear-line positions, so that the Italians could stack everything they had on the frontline without worrying too much about their backs.
 
TBH even in a more successful caporetto I doubt Italy would collapse immediarely. Why should the loss of Venetia matter overly much, economically or politically? The rwgion was fairly peripheral.
In any case the Italians would hold on the piave with or without allied assistance. Breaking through that line would require a commitment more substantial than Otl which requires pulling troops from elsewhere... so as mentioned France probably does much better and for that matter Brusilov just might break Austria entirely.
 
Top