WI Germany focuses on Italy after beating Russia in WWI?

The Austrians had 60 divisions in the theater as of Vittorio Veneto - I don't think adding additional men would have been too productive anyways. Honestly, I get the sense that they and the Bulgarians should have been able to hold out longer than they did - the numbers were there, but after the failure of the Spring Offensive, morale simply wasn't.
Morale and more importantly supply, numbers can be deceiving

In theory the strength of the opposed armies was more or less the same (60 divisions on each side) and both had felt the impact of malaria and Spanish flu when the offensive of Vittorio Veneto started on 23 October 1918. In practice the Entente had a clear superiority in artillery and supplies, and - most importantly - morale: the Italian troops had been retrained and reorganized over the winter, they had full confidence in the new CiC (Armando Diaz had refused to immediately counter-attack after repulsing the last A-H assault at the end of June and spent the next three months preparing in detail the decisive offensive) and they knew this would be the last effort.
On the other side, morale was low and the KuK army was not in a good state: when Boroevic, the last Austrian CiC, ordered a counter-attack against the two Italian bridgeheads on the eastern bank of the Piave the troops refused to obey. Even more tellingly, the front of Monte Grappa (which had not moved much during the entire war) was broken by 30 October.
Ludendorff wrote that In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself, dragging Germany in its fall. Without the destructive battle of Vittorio Veneto, we would have been able, in a military union with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, to continue the desperate resistance through the whole winter, in order to obtain a less harsh peace, because the Allies were very fatigued.
 
In theory the strength of the opposed armies was more or less the same (60 divisions on each side) and both had felt the impact of malaria and Spanish flu when the offensive of Vittorio Veneto started on 23 October 1918. In practice the Entente had a clear superiority in artillery and supplies, and - most importantly - morale: the Italian troops had been retrained and reorganized over the winter, they had full confidence in the new CiC (Armando Diaz had refused to immediately counter-attack after repulsing the last A-H assault at the end of June and spent the next three months preparing in detail the decisive offensive) and they knew this would be the last effort.
On the other side, morale was low and the KuK army was not in a good state: when Boroevic, the last Austrian CiC, ordered a counter-attack against the two Italian bridgeheads on the eastern bank of the Piave the troops refused to obey. Even more tellingly, the front of Monte Grappa (which had not moved much during the entire war) was broken by 30 October.
Ludendorff wrote that In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself, dragging Germany in its fall. Without the destructive battle of Vittorio Veneto, we would have been able, in a military union with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, to continue the desperate resistance through the whole winter, in order to obtain a less harsh peace, because the Allies were very fatigued.
That's just Ludendorff trying to blame anyone but himself for Germany's surrender in WWI. That being said, the collapse of the Italian and Macedonian fronts was a major factor in Germany's decision to surrender, but the main factor was still the Hundred Days Offensive taking place after Germany had been exhausted by the Spring offensive. They may have been able to hold the Western Front much longer than they did OTL if they focused on defending their positions rather than achieving a breakthrough (which in fact made the Hundred Days' Offensive exponentially easier by exhausting the army, scattering it, and pushing the front line away from the well-entrenched Hindenburg Line), but there wouldn't be much of a point to that if they were about to starve anyway.
 
That's just Ludendorff trying to blame anyone but himself for Germany's surrender in WWI. That being said, the collapse of the Italian and Macedonian fronts was a major factor in Germany's decision to surrender, but the main factor was still the Hundred Days Offensive taking place after Germany had been exhausted by the Spring offensive. They may have been able to hold the Western Front much longer than they did OTL if they focused on defending their positions rather than achieving a breakthrough (which in fact made the Hundred Days' Offensive exponentially easier by exhausting the army, scattering it, and pushing the front line away from the well-entrenched Hindenburg Line), but there wouldn't be much of a point to that if they were about to starve anyway.

But there's no denying that having a million men on your southern border and no reserves makes matters much worse. In my opinion, Italy won the war quicker by defeating Austria. If Italy can be kept at bay, the Central Powers have much more breathing room and can afford to try and drag the war out. They won't win, but if they play their cards right and manage to get Wilson on their side in peace talks, Germany can survive while Austria is peacefully dismantled rather than cut up and dropped at random.
 
Top