What if Italy did not take part in World War One?

RNG

Banned
What if Italy did not take part in World War One?

There would be two options wouldn't there

1. Without Italy the Allies can use all their power and the war ends faster

2. Without Italy the Central Powers can focus all their powers and the war end with a Central Power victory

Which would happen, and what would the treaties look like, and what would happen post war?
 
Italy itself would be in better shape without the loss of life she suffered and from the economic advantages she would have gained by trading with both sides. At some point the Entente would more or less threaten Italy with some form of blockade, but this could be countered by offering to sell her products to the Entente, but at higher prices, much as happened with Portugal and Spain in WWII.
I don't see #1 in that way. Italian participation kept a lot of CP forces tied down, with Italy as a neutral, there are far fewer AH troops and no Germans on that front. However #2 is by no means a foregone conclusion, as most of the troops of AH will be fighting against the Russians, and AH is still saddled with Conrad von Hotzendorf, so there is every reason to believe it won't make that much difference for them. I think Neutrality for Italy would also benefit her postwar, with the Entente nations having a more balanced and charitable view of Italy. There will be no accusations of opportunism leveled, by either side. Diplomatically this is a positive. This also butterflies Mussolini away quite nicely, which is a huge advantage for Italy. By the time the next WW breaks out, Italy could well be on the Allied side from the beginning, if she hasn't squashed the Nazi movement herself by defending Austria. This all leaves the question of Yugoslavia up in the air however, and that of Albania. It's not impossible that issues over those two states would boil over into war between Italy and Yugoslavia at a later date. I'm not willing to prognosticate further though.
 
Well if they don't take part, all those troops on the Italian front can be brought against other fronts. Russians will get more pressure held against them, as well as the Serbians. The War might end a lot sooner because of a large ally not entering the war.
 
Theres a old joke from pre 1914. A French general officer tells someone "If Italy is against us we will send ten divisions, if Italy is with us we will send ten divisions, either way we send ten divisions."

I suppose in this situation The French don't have to send any divisions...
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Theres a old joke from pre 1914. A French general officer tells someone "If Italy is against us we will send ten divisions, if Italy is with us we will send ten divisions, either way we send ten divisions."

I suppose in this situation The French don't have to send any divisions...
What happened IOTL, ... until the italians finally joined.
 
From memory; the French had infantry divisions mobilized on the Italian border in August 1914. Some or all were moved north in September. There may have been more of the middle aged Territorial regiments mobilized in the south, but I don't have any reference at hand.
 
Last edited:
The only way Italian non-participation helps the Entente is by sheer accident, e.g. the CPs over-committing to a certain course of action that leads to disaster.

Italian entry was in all respects a net plus, including the ~2 million men the CPs suffered as casualties on that front (killed, wounded, captured, missing).

Serbia could fall sooner, Russia could fall sooner, the expeditionary force in Greece might get annihilated, Romania might never join, etc etc.
 
What if Italy did not take part in World War One?

There would be two options wouldn't there

1. Without Italy the Allies can use all their power and the war ends faster

2. Without Italy the Central Powers can focus all their powers and the war end with a Central Power victory

Which would happen, and what would the treaties look like, and what would happen post war?
Without Italy Russia would be facing many more divisions in 1915 and 1916, it would bow out of the war faster and avoid Brest-Litovsk and the revolution, though politically and economically it would still be a troublesome time it would re-emerge as a solid grat power by 1930 with superpower potential by 1940.

A-H can finish the Balkans fronts faster which does wonders for the empires cohesion, in turn they get to send divisions to the Western Front to support the Germans the same way the Germans sent divisions to Italy to support A-H. More of Skodas heavy artillery could do wonders against the fortifications there and with many more warm bodi- i mean fighting men constant assaults can whittle down the French morale faster than the Americans would enter the war, maybe ending it all in a negotiated peace in 1917 after a new siege of Paris becomes imminent.
 
I think it would be tough for the Entente to enforce on Italy the sort of blockade they enforced on the Dutch and Scandinavians. I imagine the US would really get upset if the British tried to throttle trade with such a big country, plus it would be physically difficult to patrol so many ports including Italian colonies and neutral powers. Italy could be Germany's windpipe for trade, and perhaps a bit of a breadbasket as well.
 
Without Italy Russia would be facing many more divisions in 1915 and 1916, it would bow out of the war faster and avoid Brest-Litovsk and the revolution

this is where my point becomes valid - does a CP advance deep into Russia lead to the same collapse of the Russian Army as OTL ? ITTL, the pressure on them would probably be so great that they won't have the opportunity to launch things like the Kerensky Offensive, whilst having your home directly threatened by the invaders being at the gates of Petrograd and Moscow does wonders for internal cohesion.
 
this is where my point becomes valid - does a CP advance deep into Russia lead to the same collapse of the Russian Army as OTL ? ITTL, the pressure on them would probably be so great that they won't have the opportunity to launch things like the Kerensky Offensive, whilst having your home directly threatened by the invaders being at the gates of Petrograd and Moscow does wonders for internal cohesion.
Depends on how reasonable Petrograd is, IOTL they were clinging on hoping for a miracle as there kinda was a troop balance in the East, but here there would not be a balance, one side is clearly superior and advancing faster in more directions. The Germans were offering reasonable term often enough, they just have to take one of the offers.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I think it would be tough for the Entente to enforce on Italy the sort of blockade they enforced on the Dutch and Scandinavians. I imagine the US would really get upset if the British tried to throttle trade with such a big country, plus it would be physically difficult to patrol so many ports including Italian colonies and neutral powers. Italy could be Germany's windpipe for trade, and perhaps a bit of a breadbasket as well.
This is Wilson we are talking about here - he didn't peep a squeek over the blockade of Germany so he won't over a blockade of Kafflik Iytees.
 
This is Wilson we are talking about here - he didn't peep a squeek over the blockade of Germany so he won't over a blockade of Kafflik Iytees.
In that case the Italians might decide that Corsica and Tunisia are very attractive as war loot together with the A-H offer of Southern-South-Tyrol and minor lands in the Adriatic sea. That's some 300.000 soldiers the French would need to pull from somewhere else to defend the South.
 
Don't forget how this might affect the food situation in the CP. Austria-Hungary can demobilize some of its forces and let them go back to the fields and produce food. Germany needs bread more than it needs A-H divisions in the West. The Skoda guns would still go there of course.
 
One slight corrective to some of the comments here, German units were used sporadically and not in great numbers on the Italian Front. Austria-Hungary only really needed German help there in 1917. In 1917-18, the British and the French both sent substantial forces to the Italian Front, if I remember correctly they outnumbered the German reinforcements, so these roughly cancelled out.

The Italians sent forces to other fronts, but you really have to try hard to argue that they made any difference anywhere. For Austria-Hungary, Italy was the main front, but they weren't exactly effective elsewhere, and logistics, that bane of amateur military strategists, would have precluded ideas such as sending the entire Austro-Hungarian army to Ukraine or something. Actually the idea that Austria-Hungary somehow lost the war for Germany, other than starting the war in the first place, is not clear cut, they were able to handle their complicated strategic situation, they just kept needing German help, but the German forces spent could always be spared from the Eastern and Western Fronts at the time (OHL was also good at juggling). No one has been able to point to a battle where the Central Powers would have won a decisive victory if only those German units hadn't been sent to Serbia/ Romania/ Galicia/ Italy.

Where Italy's entrance to the war did make a difference was on popular support for the war in Austria-Hungary. It was the only event that made the war sort of popular. That it was the only front where Austria-Hungary fought effectively was no accident, pretty much everyone agreed on teaching the Italians a lesson. The territorial concessions that would have been needed to keep Italy neutral would have also hurt morale.
 

Deleted member 1487

What if Italy did not take part in World War One?

There would be two options wouldn't there

1. Without Italy the Allies can use all their power and the war ends faster

2. Without Italy the Central Powers can focus all their powers and the war end with a Central Power victory

Which would happen, and what would the treaties look like, and what would happen post war?
Italy sapped a huge part of A-H's strength. If anything the Austrians could have finished off Serbia sooner and not stripped out the Eastern Front, which would mean no Brusilov offensive success, which keep Romania out of the war and Ludendorff out of power. Italy staying out of the war likely means a CP victory and no US entry due to butterflies.
 
One slight corrective to some of the comments here, German units were used sporadically and not in great numbers on the Italian Front. Austria-Hungary only really needed German help there in 1917. In 1917-18, the British and the French both sent substantial forces to the Italian Front, if I remember correctly they outnumbered the German reinforcements, so these roughly cancelled out.

The British and the French sent 11 division post Caporetto to reinforce the italian line...but more for showing political support and soon (a month) they returned in France; the Entente left in Italy just 5 division (3 French and 2 British) that were used principally for reserve and saw very limited combat and that is probably even less of the men that the French Army will have kept at the italian border to block the Italians from having 'strange ideas' if they remain neutral
 
People like to joke about the Italians (and by great power standards they were something of a joke, especially in the second world war), but they still have millions of soldiers, and a massive navy. This is not something that can be ignored.

Italy staying neutral is second only to them joining from the beginning (orobably ASB given Austro-Italian rwlations) from the CP erspective. Italy joining in 1914 would IMHO have resulted in the fall of Paris and a negotiated peace shortly thereafter; Italy's neutrality means Russia probably falls sooner. Certainly the Balkans quickly become an Austrian playground.
 
Top