WI: An Italy that can actually hold its own

How could one get an Italy that would actually be a powerful member of the Entente/Central Powers in WWI and (depending on how that goes) a powerful member of the Axis/Allies in WWII? I mean one that can actually win battles and perform well against the Austro-Hungarian, German, French, British, American and/or Ethiopian armies. And what would the effects be?
 
Too my knowledge, Italy did pretty well in the actual fighting after it joined the WWI. They just got gipped when it came to the peace table.

As for WWII...well, lets see...for one thing they one in Ethiopia...and the reasoning behind Italian defeats in Africa I believe are due to A)Incompetance and B)Inferior tech. Possibly even C)Lack of combat experience
 
Well, Italy was the least successful of the powers in WWI, during the actual fighting. They were constantly bogged down in southern Austria and didn't really see any sort of breakthrough until the very end. As for Ethiopia, it was a difficult, almost-Pyrrhic victory.
 
How could one get an Italy that would actually be a powerful member of the Entente/Central Powers in WWI and (depending on how that goes) a powerful member of the Axis/Allies in WWII? I mean one that can actually win battles and perform well against the Austro-Hungarian, German, French, British, American and/or Ethiopian armies. And what would the effects be?

For one, get a politician who can plan ahead and with a clear objective and some military knowledge.
Adua was a disaster becouse the then prime minister needed a foreign policy succes so he give order to the army to conquest something yesterday; the conquest of Lybia even if political preparation for it has been done the military side was negletted and it was a 'go and fetch for yesterday' as usual.
Cadorna, for all his falling had ajustification for not immediately pressing the A-H when they have so little men in zone; he must transport the army from the French border to the A-H border and create a plan the government give him the news of the switch of alliance very late, and it's better don't even talk about the WWII armistice.

For a better performance in WWI, well no conquest of Lybia, maybe after the initial attack UK and France decide that after all the Ottoman are a better ally and more needed for stabilizing the Balkans or counter A-H so they convince (coerce) Italy at accepting a diplomatic solution with some minor concession, this humiliation by the Entente powers and more specifically the renege of the secret treaty by the France, prompt Italy to side with the CP in WWI (the problem is the balkan war, the italian victory over the Turk prompetd other nation to attack them, here maybe the BW don't happen, is absorbed by WWI or happen along the line becouse they know that OE was saved only by France and UK), with more resource and men (here not used in Lybia for conquest and pacification) and with plan already drafted. If it's needed another push for an Italian central powers make survive Genaral Alberto Pollio, predecessor of Cadorna who greatly supported the CP alliance and by the way can probably manage the army (from a human point of view) better than Cadorna (worse is difficult)
 
Well, Italy was the least successful of the powers in WWI, during the actual fighting. They were constantly bogged down in southern Austria and didn't really see any sort of breakthrough until the very end. As for Ethiopia, it was a difficult, almost-Pyrrhic victory.

Was there any kind of breakthrough on the western front prior to the late 1918? This is WW1, and defense almost always prevails over offense.
The Italian front was not really easy to break: in Trentino most of the fighting happened on the highlands of Asiago, some 1500 mt asl; in the east the Isonzo is quite a large and swift river, and crossing it under fire is not exactly easy. Cadorna was no Caesar or Alexander for sure: he was a typical WW1 blockhead, and could not think beyond a frontal assault.

I would think that a landing near Trieste might have been a good bet, and it might have unlocked the Isonzo stalemate. However the Western Allies were not giving enough consideration to the Italian front and - as I said - Cadorna was less than brilliant and never considered an amphibious operation.

The Italo-Abyssinian was of 1935-36 was much less complicated than you seem to believe. The war was declared on 3 October 1935, and Italian troops entered Addis Ababa on the 9th of May 1936. Considering the logistics of the war, the lack of infrastructures and the (very) cautious attitude of De Bono (the first Italian commander on the Northern front) it was not too bad.
 
I will never understand why some people are so surprised that the Italian armed forces din not perform well against French, British, German, AH or American troops. Italy during WW1 and WW2 was much less industrialised than her main opponents. Only Rome and the north were trully comparable to France or Germany for example, large parts of the south were rural, poor and backwards. The Italian economy was just not strong enough to go toe to toe with other great powers.

And as LordKalvan said, the 1935-6 Ethiopian campaign was by no means a Pyrrhic victory. Though they faced resistance, Italian troops scored a completely decisive victory.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I will never understand why some people are so surprised that the Italian armed forces din not perform well against French, British, German, AH or American troops.

Actually, during WW1, they did. The performance of the Italians against the AH is entirely comparable to the one of the Anglo-French against the Germans.
 
Actually, during WW1, they did. The performance of the Italians against the AH is entirely comparable to the one of the Anglo-French against the Germans.

"Comparable", there's a funny old word. Yes, it's comparable. I can compare the two - unfavourably.

The Italian army had no real alternative to bashing its head against a brick wall to tie up Austrian manpower, it's true - but a combination of savage discipline and complete lack of imagination made it all worse. Cadorna was a twat. I've read accounts of Austrian troops entrenched in the passes shouting to the approaching Italians "Stop! Go back!" because they didn't want to massacre helpless people unless they had to.

It was fixed after the CP breakthrough, of course, but morale had gotten very poor before that.

There's another comparison you're neglecting - the Austrians stumbled from mess to mess when fighting Russia and Serbia. You're mistaken to assume that the Germans and Austrians were "comparable" foes.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The Italian army had no real alternative to bashing its head against a brick wall to tie up Austrian manpower, it's true - but a combination of savage discipline and complete lack of imagination made it all worse. Cadorna was a twat. I've read accounts of Austrian troops entrenched in the passes shouting to the approaching Italians "Stop! Go back!" because they didn't want to massacre helpless people unless they had to.

Negligible differences with the Anglo-French offensives. Nivelle and Haigh, anyone ?

It was fixed after the CP breakthrough, of course, but morale had gotten very poor before that.

French mutinies, anyone ?
 
There's good evidence that most of the Italian people didn't want to be at war. Churchill and at least one modern WW1 historian both agree on that. Only a minority of Italians wanted to be in either war. That'll spoil any army's performance.

I haven't seen any good explanations for the Italian wish for peace. Maybe because, unlike Germany and Japan, they felt like they'd already done that and had the t-shirt?

So, for Italy to do well, I think they'd have to be invaded each time.
 
"Comparable", there's a funny old word. Yes, it's comparable. I can compare the two - unfavourably.

The Italian army had no real alternative to bashing its head against a brick wall to tie up Austrian manpower, it's true - but a combination of savage discipline and complete lack of imagination made it all worse. Cadorna was a twat. I've read accounts of Austrian troops entrenched in the passes shouting to the approaching Italians "Stop! Go back!" because they didn't want to massacre helpless people unless they had to.

It was fixed after the CP breakthrough, of course, but morale had gotten very poor before that.

There's another comparison you're neglecting - the Austrians stumbled from mess to mess when fighting Russia and Serbia. You're mistaken to assume that the Germans and Austrians were "comparable" foes.

Well the lack of immagination, the hard discipline and the stubborn offensive were not relegated to the italian side but widely spread in all the partecipant, but yes i freely admit that Cadorna was a bastard but not for the draconian discipline (more stringent than the other armies yes and a factor to take in consideration for the performance of the army) but becouse he never accepted any responsability for his failure and put all the blame on the cowardice of the soldiers and for change an impressive number of officer for perceived slant or simply for cover is ass.
And for a clear evaluation of the italian performance is better take in consideration that at the same time there were italian soldiers on the macedonian front and other occupied in colonial duty in Lybia trying to suppressing the last ottoman rebel and till Caporetto it was all alone in that only after she finally accepted some help (but this help consisted in just the 10% of the force at Vittorio Veneto and of that a part was recalled in France before the battle).
So yes, with all his industrial and logistical limitation the performance of the Italian army was conparable to the other army and after all the A-H knock out of the war Serbia and Russia (the latter nevertheless with a lot of German help but still), and after Caporetto Vienna use all his force now free from the Eastern Front to force Italy out of the war, but at the Battle of PIave the Regio Esercito beat them pratically eliminating the A-h as an offensive force and that mere months after the Caporetto debacle
 
There's good evidence that most of the Italian people didn't want to be at war. Churchill and at least one modern WW1 historian both agree on that. Only a minority of Italians wanted to be in either war. That'll spoil any army's performance.

I haven't seen any good explanations for the Italian wish for peace. Maybe because, unlike Germany and Japan, they felt like they'd already done that and had the t-shirt?

So, for Italy to do well, I think they'd have to be invaded each time.

Yes just a minority wanted to entry world war I, but a very vocal minority. Surely helped the fact that the enemy was A-H a nation we had very little love (to use an understatment) and the fact was mutual.
For WWII, it'simple that, a difference with WWI (eliminate the hated A-H), nobody except Benny understand why we fight it and why we are here.
Frankly the problem of Italy is always be resource management, we don't have much industries or resource so what we have must be used wisely, one objective at times...you go to Lybia? OK but no more war (expecially World War) till you have subdued the zone, etc. etc.
 
Negligible differences with the Anglo-French offensives. Nivelle and Haigh, anyone ?

It's easy to call a difference negligible if you don't like it. Neither army had much choice about launching bloody offensives. The Italians also had to launch them against natural defensive lines. But on the other hand, the Italians had to contend with Austrian troops and when the pre-heads-cracking Italian army went up against Germans, it folded.

French mutinies, anyone ?

Oh, come on, the difference is self-evident. The Germans attacked sections of the French lines without being aware that there was a mutiny because the troops kept their promise and fought under full discipline in the defence. The Italian army suffered bad defeats and the loss of ground, partly because of a general loss of the will to fight.

"Mutiny" is strictly an accurate term, but it's so associated in people's minds with officers strung from lampposts that I wonder if we shouldn't call what happened in France a 'soldiers' strike'. It was not, hemhem, comparable to what happened in Russia.
 
Well the lack of immagination, the hard discipline and the stubborn offensive were not relegated to the italian side but widely spread in all the partecipant, but yes i freely admit that Cadorna was a bastard but not for the draconian discipline (more stringent than the other armies yes and a factor to take in consideration for the performance of the army) but becouse he never accepted any responsability for his failure and put all the blame on the cowardice of the soldiers and for change an impressive number of officer for perceived slant or simply for cover is ass.

Quite. Every side had its stupid decisions and its fair share of dead weight (this is true of all wars, of course, but the consequences are seldom so murderous).

As you say yourself, it would be foolish to deny that the Italian army were lumbered with a rubbish commander until 1917 and that contributed to rubbish morale. The problems, as I said, were fixed. But Eurofed apparently won't so much as admit that the Italians could be a whit worse than anyone else at any time.

And for a clear evaluation of the italian performance is better take in consideration that at the same time there were italian soldiers on the macedonian front and other occupied in colonial duty in Lybia trying to suppressing the last ottoman rebel

Then again, France and Britain were in Macedonia (in comparable or in the case of France greater numbers), that Britain and France embarked on the Gallipoli debacle, and that Britain constantly had to worry about East Africa.

None of it makes a huge difference to the performance of their troops in Europe. Of course more soldiers would have helped, but their leadership would still have been Cadorna, and we're discussing quality not quantity.

And the enemy in Albania was the Austrians. If Italy didn't fight them there, they could fight them in the Alps.

and till Caporetto it was all alone in that only after she finally accepted some help (but this help consisted in just the 10% of the force at Vittorio Veneto and of that a part was recalled in France before the battle).

This started as a comparison. That Italy was like Britain and France was Eurofed's point. Whichever way you spin it, France never asked the Italians for help.

So yes, with all his industrial and logistical limitation the performance of the Italian army was conparable to the other army

This is why the word strikes me as vulnerable to misuse. What do we mean by comparable? It is obvious a) that the pre-Caporetto Italian army was not very good and that b) there were reasons for Italy's disadvantages and the reason is not hurhur-Italians-are-silly.

That every army deserves to be considered individually and its situation properly understood is something about which I would absolutely agree. But Eurofed is doing his usual thing: "Italians? Worse than French man-for-man? How very dare you!"

And he's used hurhur-Britons-are-silly to justify things often enough, and when I complain he takes umbrage at my supposed belief that the British armed and diplomatic services never do anything wrong.

Me? An apologist of the British ruling classes? Phtooie. :p

and after all the A-H knock out of the war Serbia

Bah. How many times have I said this?

Nobody knocked Serbia out. Serbian troops entered Belgrade in 1918, guns blazing. The Serbian army vacated Serbia - having foiled every Austria invasion up to that point despite shortages of nearly everything - after the practically unopposed advance of the Bulgarians put them in an untenable position, but they withdrew in good order, were transferred to Macedonia, recaptured officially Serbian land in Macedonia, and carried on.

and Russia (the latter nevertheless with a lot of German help but still),

That's one way to say that Germany bailed Austria out of it...

The Austrians suffered from poor leadership and patchy morale. By the end - when a large portion of the army was NCOed by Germans - they were rife with pro-Bolshevik sentiment. If you look at the course of the fighting on the eastern front, it's quite clear who is the dreadnought and who the jolly-boat. Russian troops were still in Austria when the February Revolution happened - which in fact raises questions about whether Austria beat Russia at all.

and after Caporetto Vienna use all his force now free from the Eastern Front to force Italy out of the war, but at the Battle of PIave the Regio Esercito beat them pratically eliminating the A-h as an offensive force and that mere months after the Caporetto debacle

Now this I don't deny. One would almost think military circumstances are complicated!
 
How could one get an Italy that would actually be a powerful member of the Entente/Central Powers in WWI and (depending on how that goes) a powerful member of the Axis/Allies in WWII? I mean one that can actually win battles and perform well against the Austro-Hungarian, German, French, British, American and/or Ethiopian armies. And what would the effects be?
I think you need a POD back in the Congress of Vienna. Some Butterfly allows the Kingdom if Italy to survive.
In the 1840's It starts absorbing the rest of Italy, By 1870's It takes Tunisia. Then spends the next 40 years Developing/Industrializing.
 
About "industrialising": a determined and ruthless government can push industrialisation (though the attitudes of Victorian Europe don't make it easier: Meiji Japan was only partly bound by these and Stalin not at all), but the push-button-industrialise!-profit model ignores the difficulties.

Industrialisation requires things to be successful (a market, for one thing, that can justify producing lots of relatively cheap, simple goods): after all, it wasn't like somebody in Britain one day woke up and announced "How about it, then, lads, shall we be the first industrial country in the world?".

And of course the British example presented to the rulers of Europe the problem of how to achieve British levels of development without, you know, all the horrible soul-destroying things that happened to the mass of people in Britain in the early 19th century - a people who underwent that were likely to become revolutionary. From such fears all the talk about "We cannot have a Russian Manchester" and suchlike.
 
How could one get an Italy that would actually be a powerful member of the Entente/Central Powers in WWI and (depending on how that goes) a powerful member of the Axis/Allies in WWII? I mean one that can actually win battles and perform well against the Austro-Hungarian, German, French, British, American and/or Ethiopian armies. And what would the effects be?

Simple: have Italy unify some three centuries before, and chasing out the Papacy outright. A unified, protestant country from the Alps to Sicily. Then we have some hope. For the lack of natural resources, however, nothing can be done apart from building a colonial empire and a strong navy.
 
Simple: have Italy unify some three centuries before, and chasing out the Papacy outright. A unified, protestant country from the Alps to Sicily. Then we have some hope. For the lack of natural resources, however, nothing can be done apart from building a colonial empire and a strong navy.
I think your a bit too dismissive of Italys chances. With a POD from the 19th century, its never going to become as powerful as Britain, but it can certianly be a greater power. Prehaps if Cavour had had his way and the unification of Italy was more gradual (OTL, it was almost forced upon him by Garibaldi's expedition in the south). This could have led to a stronger Italian state, and in paticular, a southern Italy with a better image amongst other Italians which could add a bit more national cohesion. All of this would help Italy futher on in the 19th century.
 
In 1939 the Italian Army relished a lot of trained soldiers to go home to bring in crops and when the War started the Italians then filled there divs with Green Recruits .
They would of been better off if they did not discharge the trained soldiers in 1939 . Also the Spanish Civil war cost Italy a lot of money because they deployed over two divisions to fight in Spain .
 
Top