WI: Italy joined world war 1

for the central powers, of course.

Would it have made any real changes to history?

Any change Italy might have made would certainly have been more as a result of their location and presence, rather than any actual action by their army.

For instance, they would take some soldiers away from the Western Front, free up some soldiers that IOTL were used by Austria to fight Italy, and make it harder for French and British ships to resupply the Balkans.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
An important factor would be the timing of the Italian entry into the war. If they declare war in August of 1914, I think the French would be overwhelmed- they barely survived IOTL and the pressures of maintaining a front along their Italian border would probably prove too much.

However, if the Italians join the Central Powers in 1915, the situation would not be as dire.
 
An important factor would be the timing of the Italian entry into the war. If they declare war in August of 1914, I think the French would be overwhelmed- they barely survived IOTL and the pressures of maintaining a front along their Italian border would probably prove too much.

However, if the Italians join the Central Powers in 1915, the situation would not be as dire.

lets assume 1914
 

Markus

Banned
for the central powers, of course.

Would it have made any real changes to history?

Certainly, plenty of German and A-H soldiers can go the the eastern and western front, while a lot of French soldiers are being tied down south of Switzerland. The French manpower situation being as bad as it was, one more front could result in a critical manpower shortage before 1917.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I concur with Anaxagoras. It really was a flip of a coin in 1914. Between then and 1916-1917 it wouldn't have mattered that much as I can easily see a succesfull invasion of Italy and it switching sides. That would still improve Austrias position though.
 
Certainly, plenty of German and A-H soldiers can go the the eastern and western front, while a lot of French soldiers are being tied down south of Switzerland. The French manpower situation being as bad as it was, one more front could result in a critical manpower shortage before 1917.

How well could the areas be defended? From the looks of things it's pretty mountainous so perhaps France could have maintained a pretty effective defense in the area to enable them to survive the 1914 scare. After that though ... a focused Italian offensive around the Grenoble - Nice area would have been difficult to contain without a lot of help from the UK.

You mention more German and A-H troops being able to be sent to the Eastern front but I would think they could be used to break the French lines here in Southern France as well. Also we are speaking of mainly the impact on France but we have to look at just what their entry does to the Mediterranean theatre as well. The naval picture changes a great deal as the British are going to have a lot more activity in the area and need much larger forces in the areas to patrol and protect interests far and wide. This would weaken the resources in the North Sea and also the Atlantic nets as well. Not sure specifically how large or effective the Austrian or Italian navies were at the time period but this would really give them a chance to be more effective imo. Which again would pull naval resources away from the other areas effecting the balance of power and possibly naval encounters such as Jutland. A more effective Central Powers navy in the Med. and Italian offensive into France would also dramatically effect and I believe eliminate most Allied ventures in the Balkans, Middle East, and operations against Turkey(Ottos).

Likewise all this could and would effect the Italian nation as the British would have ample opportunities to operate against her at will. The population wasn't too enthusiastic about joining the Allies OTL and if they actually are faced with the real repercussions of war, not sure how likely the populous is going to follow the venture either. I too can see Allied pressure eventually causing them to bolt on their allies if the goings not going good.

The crucial element is the initial survival of France in 1914. Something I feel they could do because I’m suspicious of the amount of force Italy could or would bring to bear against them in a short time anyway.
 
This frees up both the Italian and Austro-Hungarian navies to contend with the others for Mediterranean domination. How large are these forces at the time; how much of a difference will they make? A weaker Grand Fleet for the High Seas Fleet to fight?
 

General Zod

Banned
Having very recently discussed this very issue in another thread, I hope you shall forgive my lazy self a little cut and paste:

The PoD for this will be Germany successfully persuading A-H to give Italy some territorial compensations (at least Trento, Gorizia-Gradisca, and Trieste shall be necessary). OTL, these negotiations took place, but floundered (and Italy therefore went to the Entente) because A-H dragged their feet about giving up any of their ethnically-Italian territories. Italy made an auction for their help with both the CPs and the Entente, it's just that the latter made a better offer when A-H dragged their feet about giving up Trento and Trieste. If Germany can persuade A-H, Italy shall enter on the CP side no late than Spring-Summer 1915.

If at least part of their long-standing irredentist claims vs. A-H shall be satisfied, Italy loses her main motivation not to be true to her old alliance committments. They also have significant irredentist and colonial claims vs. France, which Germany and A-H will be as generous to promise satisfaction about, as the Entente was vs. A-H OTL.

Thre are two likely windows for CP Italy to enter the war, either August-September 1914 or April-May 1915. Both are possible, but the latter is more probable since it may need the realization WWI is not going to be a short war, for Germany to become sufficiently determined to get Italy in the war and overcome A-H resistance.

Anyway, differently from WWII, Italy's Army and Navy in 1914-15 were of a comparable quality to the other Great Powers and her entry changes the strategic balance in favour of the CP considerably. The bulk of the Italian Army will attack on the Alps, which were much less fortified than the Dolomites in 1914-15. This will force the Anglo-French to redeploy at least 25-30% of their manpower on the Alps.

If this happens in 1914, it has good potential to overstretch the French Army critically and cause its collapse in the Battle of the Marne. Otherwise, or if negotiations to secure Italy delay her entry till Spring 1915, the Alps front will most likely stabilize after limited Italian advances, and a long string of mountain trench warfare and inconclusive offensives will follow, much similar to OTL, only on the other side of the Alps.

However, this will drain French manpower rather faster and more severely, even with British assistance it may easily become exausted in 1916-17, especially if the Germans and the Italians start to coordinate their offensives, so that Anglo-French strategic reserves cannot be used to plug local CP breakthroughs.

German-Italian strategic cooperation is quite reasonable, since Triple Alliance had standing military protocols to transfer leftover Italian manpower on the German front in case of war since the 1890s, which only need to be dusted off ITTL. This, too, will heighten the pressure on the French.

Another big favourable effect for the CPs from the Italian alliance will be that the full military potential of A-H, once Serbia is dealt with, can be used on the Russian front. Also the Germans can transfer more of their forces on the Russian front, possibly with some Italian troops too. This will increase the severity and quickness of Russian casualties and accelerate the collapse of Russia.

The third, only slightly less important, effect is that the Italian, Turkish, and A-H Navies, in cooperation, can certainly give serious problems to the Entente in the Mediterranean. Moving colonial troops from French Africa to Europe becomes rather more problematic, and the British Navy will be forced to either give up the Mediterranean to a large extent, or weaken the North Sea Fleet.

The fourth effect, not so decisive, but still significant, is that Serbia shall collapse rather more quickly and even more decisively, since Italy will most likely land an expedition corps in Albania and Motenegro and backstab Serbia. This may cause her collapse in late 1914, or the complete destruction of the Serbian Army in 1915. There will be no Salonicco front, and the Ottomans can redeploy more of their forces in the Caucasus.

In sum, the most probable outcome of this alliance is the collapse of either France or, most likely, Russia in 1916. Germany will have no good reason to employ unrestricted submarine warfare, so no USA help for the Entente. The full combined manpower (minus whatever occupation armeis for the defeated Entente nation) of DE-AU-IT shall be redeployed on either Russia or, most likely, France in 1917 causing a strategic breakthrough, despite British help.
 
Actually one of the assumptions of the Schlieffen Plan was that Italian units would be available for use defensively in Alsace-Lorraine freeing up German units for the strong right wing. IMHO this would make for a bigger delta than any Alpine offensive. Even in a late entry scenerio this would free up German divisions for use elsewhere (eg. in spring of 1915 it would give them the reserves to create a complete breakthrough at Ypres possibly capturing the key high ground at Mt. Kemmel before the line is stabilized).
 
The Italian army's quality was dubious at best. Their only major victory in the war required nearly a dozen British and French divisions and was won in 1918 against a dying opponent. When they first entered the war in 1915 the 400K Italians deployed were easily stopped by an enemy force barely 100K in number. So France is not likely to go down in 1914 and will certainly gut the Italians in 1915.

One possible result is the cancellation of Gallipoli, with those units seizing Italy's colonies and islands, including Sicily and Sardinia, with the remainder shoring up France's position.

The image of Italy having vast manpower to spare is simply wrong. In March 1915 Italy found all of 400K to attack AH so they go west instead and are again stopped cold. By autumn 1915 this frees 4-6 AH divisions against Serbia or Russia. Nor will Italian divisions arrive in Belgium in force, although I can imagine Berlin 'welcoming' one or two Italian units while rushing German units to shore up Italy. By 1916 Italy's economy is in tatters and Germany has to decide whether Germany should equip German troops or Italian troops.

Once Sicily and Sardina are lost Italy will likely become a serious burden as it takes all Rome has to hold the line against France yet the threat of a major landing on Italian soil remains. And if Italy goes entirely on the defensive, likely if she needs to hold on the French border and guard against invasion by sea, then her value to the Central Powers just nosedived.

With a total of 10 dreadnaughts, not all in service in 1914, in the combined Italian and AH fleets are not much stronger than the French in number and less so ship for ship. Four British dreadnaughts are probably more than enough to give the Allies a clear edge.

Paris and London will drool at the thought of two second-tier fleets which have never operated together and which have poor relations to boot leaving their harbors and the Adriatic to face them in battle. And there WILL be a battle as the Italian economy will be shattered if Italy loses the use of her coastal waters.

While the Italians will therefore be eager, not to say desperate, for a battle I wonder how enthusiastic AH will be, already stripped of key territories to bribe Italy.

Not to mention the small problem of how these two fleets can join forces in the first place without being destroyed piecemeal or stalked by subs and light forces.

Then this assumption that Germany can count on the Ottoman Empire. With the Ottoman grudge against Italy as recently as 1913, plus Allied bargaining chips of the Dodecanese and Libya...
 

General Zod

Banned
Actually one of the assumptions of the Schlieffen Plan was that Italian units would be available for use defensively in Alsace-Lorraine freeing up German units for the strong right wing. IMHO this would make for a bigger delta than any Alpine offensive. Even in a late entry scenerio this would free up German divisions for use elsewhere (eg. in spring of 1915 it would give them the reserves to create a complete breakthrough at Ypres possibly capturing the key high ground at Mt. Kemmel before the line is stabilized).

I agree. Especially because in any likelihood even after making a complete deployment of forces on the Alps, a fully-mobilized Italian Army would still have some substantial leftover that could be very useful in Northern France, Alsace-Lorraine, or Russia, even after sparing some for the Albanian expeditionary corps to bring Serbia to her knees. And those Triple Alliance protocols to move Italian troops on the French front had been standing for many years in 1914-15.

My only uncertainety about the CP Italy scenario is whether it would be more fruitful for the CPs to focus on a "France first" or Russia first" strategy in order to exploit the additional manpower from Italy and freed manpower from A-H. France is the one Entente power that will exaust her manpower first, but is stronger internally, and can have British help, and the Western front is dominated by trench warfare. Russia has much stronger manpower reserves, but its society is also much less able to stand increased casualties and territorial loss, can have little British help, and the Eastern front is not really suited to trench warfare.
 

General Zod

Banned
So France is not likely to go down in 1914 and will certainly gut the Italians in 1915.

Using which troops ? :eek: France's manpower will be strained to the limit simply manning a defensive front running from Dunkirk to Nice with the single exception of the Swiss border. :rolleyes:

One possible result is the cancellation of Gallipoli, with those units seizing Italy's colonies and islands, including Sicily and Sardinia, with the remainder shoring up France's position.

If Italy joins the match at the start, France will have far worse problems than Gallipoli, when all the troops they have to redeploy to the Alps leave them crtically undermanned at the Marne.

If they enter in Spring 1915, the Gallipoli abattoir is already underway, so sorry no British troops available to attack Italy. :p

The image of Italy having vast manpower to spare is simply wrong. In March 1915 Italy found all of 400K to attack AH so they go west instead and are again stopped cold.

And German strategists suddenly have an orgasm at the sight of 25-30% of the French being tied down on the Alps. And the Western Entente was not exactly swimming in manpower to start with, thanks to France's demographic decline.

Nor will Italian divisions arrive in Belgium in force, although I can imagine Berlin 'welcoming' one or two Italian units while rushing German units to shore up Italy.

Against what ? the critically overstretched French making a breakthrough in the Alps ? Ridiculous. the non-existent British landings in Siciliy and Sardinia with the troops they wasted in Gallipoli and they would have needed to shore up the French anyway ?

By 1916 Italy's economy is in tatters and Germany has to decide whether Germany should equip German troops or Italian troops.

By 1916 Italian economy has seen some hardship as they had to substitute British coal with German coal, but they have survived and either France or Russia, whatever the CP focused their pressure on, is on her last legs and quickly on the way to revolution or exausting her manpower.

Once Sicily and Sardina are lost Italy will likely become a serious burden as it takes all Rome has to hold the line against France yet the threat of a major landing on Italian soil remains.

Ah, these mythical landings with the Entente pulling troops out of their collective bottoms...:rolleyes:

With a total of 10 dreadnaughts, not all in service in 1914, in the combined Italian and AH fleets are not much stronger than the French in number and less so ship for ship. Four British dreadnaughts are probably more than enough to give the Allies a clear edge.

Oh, I'm sure that the Germans will welcome the British Navy redeploying to the Mediterranean. :p

Paris and London will drool at the thought of two second-tier fleets which have never operated together

I respectfully remember that the Triple Alliance had been standing for three decades. Italian and A-H naval officers quite probably have had several more occasions to meet than British and French ones. The Entente Cordiale only came in 1904.

and which have poor relations to boot

If Trento and Trieste went to Italy, the main source of lingering bad blood will evaporate, at least as the Italians are concerned.

And there WILL be a battle as the Italian economy will be shattered if Italy loses the use of her coastal waters.

Loses them to what ? The mythical landings in Sicily and Sardiania with troops the Entente doesn't have or needs in France ? The British Navy redeploying to the Mediterraean and leaving the Home Isles underdefended ?

Not to mention the small problem of how these two fleets can join forces in the first place without being destroyed piecemeal or stalked by subs and light forces.

As if the Adriatic wasn't a CP lake in this scenario.

Then this assumption that Germany can count on the Ottoman Empire. With the Ottoman grudge against Italy as recently as 1913, plus Allied bargaining chips of the Dodecanese and Libya...

As it concerns 1914, there is a good chance France will be on her knees even before Ottoman entry becomes an issue. If Italy enters in 1915, the OE has already been in the CP for half a year. Anyway Russia, a far worse hereditary enemy of the Ottomans than Italy, is on the other side. I won't say an Entente OE is overwhelmingly difficult, but the CP only need to play their diplomatic cards decently. If the Entente bribes with that, the CPs can always counter-bribe with the Caucasus, Egypt, Persia...
 
Last edited:
Using which troops ? :eek: France's manpower will be strained to the limit simply manning a defensive front running from Dunkirk to Nice with the single exception of the Swiss border. :rolleyes:
Haute Savoie. As I've understood, it was made so that you if placed forces there, the Swiss would come get you. So: France won't place forces there, probably (if they do, well, slightly CP Switzerland is a great victory for propaganda... and at least the French border is longer), but neither woud Italy strike there.
 

General Zod

Banned
Haute Savoie. As I've understood, it was made so that you if placed forces there, the Swiss would come get you. So: France won't place forces there, probably (if they do, well, slightly CP Switzerland is a great victory for propaganda... and at least the French border is longer), but neither woud Italy strike there.

I really doubt the Swiss would try and enforce that, considering that they are completely encircled by CP and Entente powers. If they enter the war, their territory will quickly become a battlefield as the other side invades them. Enforcing demilitarization of Haute Savoie in this scenario goes beyond what it is reasonable when France and Italy and all of Western Europe are at war. Besides, it is obvious that Haute Savoie will eventually belong to the victorious side. If the Swiss lay low, in all likelihood their neutrality will be respected. iIf they make a fuss, they will bring war on their heads, for no clear gain. The better course is obvious.
 
I agree. Especially because in any likelihood even after making a complete deployment of forces on the Alps, a fully-mobilized Italian Army would still have some substantial leftover that could be very useful in Northern France, Alsace-Lorraine, or Russia, even after sparing some for the Albanian expeditionary corps to bring Serbia to her knees. And those Triple Alliance protocols to move Italian troops on the French front had been standing for many years in 1914-15.

My only uncertainety about the CP Italy scenario is whether it would be more fruitful for the CPs to focus on a "France first" or Russia first" strategy in order to exploit the additional manpower from Italy and freed manpower from A-H. France is the one Entente power that will exaust her manpower first, but is stronger internally, and can have British help, and the Western front is dominated by trench warfare. Russia has much stronger manpower reserves, but its society is also much less able to stand increased casualties and territorial loss, can have little British help, and the Eastern front is not really suited to trench warfare.

Hmm it is not easy to land a fatal blow against either France or Russia even if Italy enters in spring of 1915. I am not sure Cadorna would like the idea of a large Italian expedition to Russia and Conrad would turn purple if the Italians tried to fight alonside his own men. However according to Lovetoknow the Italians had 26 regiments of cavalry which would be useless in either the Alps and Vosges. Send 3-4 cavalry divisions to assist Hindenburg in Courland. If they are sending cavalry maybe also send 5-6 light infantry divisions whose artillery is mostly this beauty http://www.landships.freeservers.com/75mm_deport_walkaround.htm which in an relatively open warfare situation would be highly effective. These divisions could well tip the balance in the important Battle of Modelchetno in late Sept.
 
?Would the A-H divisions freed from no Italy front, be enuff to take Serbia, or make a major difference on the Russian front?
 
Duq, given that Vienna only needed 100,000 to stop Italy in 1915 and almost 700,000 plus German and Bulgarian support to break Serbia, the answer is probably negative.


First, Zod, the Italian and AH navies had no real contact, poor relations, and weren't in especially good shape. It was WWI when the British learned that their Italian allies were making no effort at training, gun practice, etc. on the grounds that the AH fleet was behaving the same way.

Second, if the British and French deploy 30% of their combined armies in the south in 1915 then they'll be marching on Rome soon, as that would be in excess of ten times what it took for Austria-Hungary to stop the Italians in 1915. Unless you can explain why the French Army would need vast forces to do what a mere 100K AH troops did to Italy in 1915.

Third, if Italy's fleet retreats to the Adriatic then the Allies win a massive moral victory, following which they destroy Italy's vital coastal shipping and break the Italian economy. So the Italian fleet can't even avoid an unfavorable battle for long. The only question is whether the AH fleet feels any desperate need to move out if they anticipate losing their fleet without any corresponding gains. Oh, plus the issue of coordination, starting with how both fleets can get together without being sighted by the Allies and perhaps even defeated in detail by them.

Fourth, given the size of the fleet that the British deployed against the Ottomans without difficulty from Germany for months in 1915 a smaller contingent to the Med would be a simple matter. In the unlikely event that the existing OTL RN contingent wasn't enough.

Fifth, Italy's railroad network in the southern half of the country was almost non-existant and sadfully inadequate in the north. No amount of German coal can change the fact that being unable to use coastal shipping will break the economy.

Sixth, Italy's ability to hold Sardinia against a single division is uncertain, with Sicily somewhat stronger, unless the Italians have left the regular army units there. In which case a British corps of @70,000 would still suffice to take them one at a time.

Seventh, Gallipoli began in April of 1915 so the operation can certainly be called off in March.
 

General Zod

Banned
Duq, given that Vienna only needed 100,000 to stop Italy in 1915 and almost 700,000 plus German and Bulgarian support to break Serbia, the answer is probably negative.

Serbia is irrelevant ITTL, it will be attacked by three sides and very swiftly crushed. A-H Domites and their very good fortifications to rely on, no such luck in Serbia.

First, Zod, the Italian and AH navies had no real contact, poor relations,

Not that much better than the Anglo-French navies in that regard by 1914-15.

and weren't in especially good shape. It was WWI when the British learned that their Italian allies were making no effort at training, gun practice, etc. on the grounds that the AH fleet was behaving the same way.

Good point.

Second, if the British and French deploy 30% of their combined armies in the south in 1915 then they'll be marching on Rome soon, as that would be in excess of ten times what it took for Austria-Hungary to stop the Italians in 1915. Unless you can explain why the French Army would need vast forces to do what a mere 100K AH troops did to Italy in 1915.

My fault, I meant to write 25-30% of the French Army. I corrected my post. :eek: However, you make far too easy for the French to stop the Italians, the French side of the Alps was nowhere as well fortified as the Dolomites were in 1914. Even if it is true that the Alps front will rather quickly come to a stalemate, it will tie down rather more French troops than A-H on the Dolomites. And even if it weren't, it would play the same way on both sides of the Alps after the front is stabilized, so any substantial excess Italian manpower can be redeployed elsewhere: Belgium, A-L, Russia...

Third, if Italy's fleet retreats to the Adriatic then the Allies win a massive moral victory,

Who spoke about retreating, you asked about a place where Italian and A-H fleets can get together.

Fourth, given the size of the fleet that the British deployed against the Ottomans without difficulty from Germany for months in 1915 a smaller contingent to the Med would be a simple matter.

Very doubtful it could be smaller, since it has to face three hostile fleets in the Mediterranean.

Fifth, Italy's railroad network in the southern half of the country was almost non-existant and sadfully inadequate in the north.

Not so inadequate where it matters for this purpose, Italian industry in early 1900s was concentrated in North-Western Italy, in the Turin-Milan-Genoa triangle.

Sixth, Italy's ability to hold Sardinia against a single division is uncertain,

True, but Sardinia (or Corsica) are no big loss.

with Sicily somewhat stronger, unless the Italians have left the regular army units there.

Why they shouldn't, since they know the UK will be hostile ?

In which case a British corps of @70,000 would still suffice to take them one at a time.

Yeah, the omnipotent British landings that worked so well at Gallipoli...

Seventh, Gallipoli began in April of 1915 so the operation can certainly be called off in March.

And if Italy enters in late May as it did OTL Gallipoli has been raging for a couple months already. Goodbye British landings in Sicily. :p
 

General Zod

Banned
I am not sure Cadorna would like the idea of a large Italian expedition to Russia

Italian expedition to Russia is a bit speculative but not unreasonable since there had been standing protocols to move Italian troops to Germany for years in 1914.

and Conrad would turn purple if the Italians tried to fight alonside his own men.

The PoD needs to assume that A-H ruling elite has been successfully persuaded to cede Trento and Trieste to Italy. If they can do so, Conrad's Italophobia has been overruled. He has either managed to put his pre-war prejudices against major allies aside, has been removed, or has stepped down. Irrelevant.

Hmm it is not easy to land a fatal blow against either France or Russia even if Italy enters in spring of 1915.

A quick fatal blow that could bring either France or Russia down by 1915 if Italy enters in late Spring is indeed possible but not especially easy, thanks to the realities of trench warfare, although as you point out, this is rather less of a problem on the Eastern front. But stretching French manpower to the limit, or causing Russia so many casualties and terrtorial loss that it collapses, in about an year is quite likely. And the Entente has not manpower enough to withstand the combined pressure of the Triple Alliance if either France or Russia is taken out of the picture in 1916-17.
 
Last edited:
Top