WI Austria had kept Trieste after WWI?

Here,Here. I agree with Grey Wolf's point. It need also to be considered that Great Britain was not exactly happy with the idea of creating a stronger Italy. The only reason that Yugoslavia didn't get the Austro-Hungarian capital ships was a pre-emptive strike by Italy. If Austria was allowed to keep them then they might have not been sunk.
 
Then nothing much would change. Italy still will gain teritory, because theremaining victorious allies still will want an as small as possible Austria. Pretty shortsighted, that, of course, but I dont think that would be changed. I mean, IOTL even total neutral states like Denmark gained land, just to punish the defeated nations. So I think Italy would, too. And an important harbour like Triest - well, the allies wouldnt let that stay in Austrian hands.

Well, if Italy is forced to sign an Armistice then isn't it in the same position as Russia ? Russia certainly didn't GAIN anything directly from the defeat of the Central Powers, and whilst one can say that was largely down to a combination of distance and Bolshevikism, it can also be looked at as having an element of it not being able to exert its influence. If Italy has dropped out of hostilities, then if it is to gain anything it basically has to take it.

Bugger, I don't know

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Susano

Banned
Well, if Italy is forced to sign an Armistice then isn't it in the same position as Russia ? Russia certainly didn't GAIN anything directly from the defeat of the Central Powers, and whilst one can say that was largely down to a combination of distance and Bolshevikism, it can also be looked at as having an element of it not being able to exert its influence. If Italy has dropped out of hostilities, then if it is to gain anything it basically has to take it.

Bugger, I don't know

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, I think it largely ws because Russia had by that time collapsed into its civil war. Russia couldnt gaun territory, because at thattime there was no real Russia to give it to (even with the Bolsheviks as dominant faction, but the allies wouldnt at that point of time not really be ready to admit that, I think). Besides, Germany did lose territory in the east, to Poland, so there was no need to have Russia involved.

Of coruse there is also hardly a need to have Italy be involved. triest could as well fall to Yugoslavia (Though South Tyrol is another issue). My point is just it surely wont stay in Austrian hands, the Allies wont permit that.
 
Yeah, but 'it can't' makes a bugger of the thread, and of many other threads so I always try to find a way when MAYBE it could

Sure, I'm probably wrong, I'm used to that in life by now

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Susano

Banned
Yeah, but 'it can't' makes a bugger of the thread, and of many other threads so I always try to find a way when MAYBE it could

Sure, I'm probably wrong, I'm used to that in life by now

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Bah, dont be so self-beating! You know full well it are just two different approaches at AH. Youre right, in a way, that saying "Its impossible" defeats the purpose of this thread, but OTOH pointing out unlikelynesses is not exactly wrong, either, IMO.

To have Triest stay Austrian, we need to prevent western allied intervention, and that is... difficult. Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think about is if everything goes to hell in the general region and the Allies dont take any ibnterst in ordering it up. I mean, there was a good deal fo chaos in the breakup of the AH empire as it was, but what I mean is enough chaos to have Triest exist de-facto independant held by an Austrian garrision, and enough chaos for that to be nothing extravagant in the region. Then again, such a chaos would probably invite even a defeated Italy to take matters in the own hand, trying (again) to conquer Triest by themselves... hm...
 
The whole point of AH is to be different, to define a potential question and then work out a way for it to have possibly come about

I was thinking about this earlier today, and wondered what would have happened if Vittorio Veneto had gone the other way ? The Habsburg armies would have remained, but the Germans had basically lost on the Western Front and were beginning to be pushed back by tactics they had little answer for, and from Palestine and Salonika thrusts were being made into the underbellies of the other Central Powers allies.

So, what if Austria-Hungary CAN knock Italy out, hold onto Trieste, but eventually collapses internally through a combination of nationalism, imminent defeat for Germany and Allied armies coming up from the South ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

It is impossible that Vittorio Veneto battle goes the other way: we are talking of October 1918, A-H is on its knees, and is wracked by centrifugal forces everywhere. It would be on a par as asking "what happens if Italy knocks out A-H in 1915, and enters Vienna in November 1915?".
 
What if the allies(Britain and France) deceided that they did not want to weaken Austria so much that theysupported Austrian keeping an outlet to the sea. The allies would have had the leverage by just removing thei force and aid from Italy. Another lever would be to tell the Italian government to stop or it would stop all coal shipments to Italy thus creating major problems for the Italian ecomy.:)
 
It is impossible that Vittorio Veneto battle goes the other way: we are talking of October 1918, A-H is on its knees, and is wracked by centrifugal forces everywhere. It would be on a par as asking "what happens if Italy knocks out A-H in 1915, and enters Vienna in November 1915?".

They needn't have bothered fighting it then if it was a foregone conclusion

I can't be arsed to argue anymore, but historical inevitability as an argument REALLY pisses me off

Grey Wolf
 
They needn't have bothered fighting it then if it was a foregone conclusion

I can't be arsed to argue anymore, but historical inevitability as an argument REALLY pisses me off

Grey Wolf

A lot of armies fought on (at least with some elements) even if it was a fore-ordained conclusion. Or do you believe that the Germans might have turned the tide in WW2? Hitler did :D

Re historical inevitability, it looks to me that it can be invoked only when GB is involved (there is the famous sea mammal :D:D:D),

There are things which are possible even if unlikely (like the death of the Czarine who saved Frederick's bacon), and things which are really impossible. Unless you go back a few decades, and change things.

Or there is always ASB-land
 
Another possibility would be if Italy receiverd a knockout blow in 1917 or if Austria was able to make peace with the British and French. If the Austrian Army had remained strong it might have been able to hold back the Italian Army.
 
Then, what happens? Probably, they will develope a navy. How does this change the balance of power in the Mediterrean? Would the country ally with Germany, Italy, or with none of them? Would there still be an Anchluss? A WWII? How would it develop?

There are infinite possibilites, I know. But let's explore some...
Limited navy, given Austria's economy.
But, quite possibly, there could be a large increase of seaborne trade. Which might boost Austria's economy, allowing them to build a real navy.
 
Actually The New Austrian Empire would probably still control a great part of the old Royal and Imperial Austro-Hungarian Navy. It might be that Austria might align with another power other than Germany.
Since the new Empire would probably consist of Austria, Czech provinces,assumption is that Austria exited the war early enough so as to still have these provinces, Slovenia, and the Italian provinces. This would give the empire a sea coast and allow it to conduct a trade with countries beyond central europe. A big question would be Croatia as to whether it would go with Hungary, Austria, be split or become an independent state.
Perhaps Eperor Karl migh turn Bosnia -Herogovenia over to a restored Montonegr.
 
It is unlikely that Italy could win a war against Austria. The Austrian fortifications were formible and without the support of Britain and France it is extremely doubtful that the Italian military would be able to achieve victory. With some breathing time the Austrians would be able to improve the conditions in their smaller empire and might even gain support from its former enemies France and Britain. In fact there were a lot of connections btween France and Austria which might have allowed a deal to be made.
The French really did not trust the Italians, feeling that they were after French colonial possessions. In addition Italy appear to be twarthing French plans which would creat an alliance system to protect against both a risie of a threat from Germany and the Communist threat to the east.
Given enough time the Imperial Austrian Government could have reorganized and re-equipped its military so that while smaller it would be far more mobile and capable than the Italian Army.
 
Last edited:
Let us say that Italy deceided to renew it's war with Austria in 1924. While I find that that would be highly unlikely, what would be the reason that it would fail. I would say that by 1918 the Italian economy was on the verge of breakdown. It had be under an incredible strain during the war and the loses that it suffered would perhaps have lead to far more turmoil if it had not be able to get the allied help.
Indeed with peace British, French and American units and aid would have been withdrawn from Italy. If Britain was opposed to an Italian attack on Austria all it would need to do would be to withhold Coal exports to Italy and the Italian economy would rapidly shutdown. In Addition the Austrian s would hold all of the Fortifications making any offensive very costly.
 
Austrian military might would be quite considerable during the 1920's. Without the Hungarians the Austrians would be able to reform the military and the government of the empire. Emperor Karl would make an effort to make the Czechs, Slovenians,ethentic Italians and Croatians part of the empire.
Part of the reforms would be to improve the educational status of the population and to ensure that all of the military was able to understand the same language. Medical care would also be improved.
The Old Imperial and Royal Navy would give the new empire a naval capacity but it would be some time before any new ships would be built. It is more likely that there would be some moderiztion of the capital ships.
I believe that the new Imperial army would be much more like the storm troopers of the late war. Czech armament industry would give it a much more powerful military muscle in the late 1920's and the 1930's.
 
it is my belief that if the allies had made peace with Austria and had allowed it to retain more of its territory(including the creation of a Federal Union under Emperor Karl) that there might have been greater stability in Central Europe. It is doubtful that This New Empire would have allowed the Nazi's to get a foothold in Germany and perhaps the French Goal of an alliance in that area might have been a real possibility. Thus the Military might of this alliance might have detered the Soviet Union from making a move o the west. It might have even altered the cource of the civil war or at the least aided Poland in the Soviet -Polish Conflict.
 
Top