WI: Italy Joins CP?

[AltoRegnant]

Otl, as I understand it, italy joined the entente due to relying on them for food, and AH owning Soth-Tyrol and their adriatic desires. What if then, AH offered to sell south tyrol to them, as well as the some of the north adriatic (AH would ideally get a good chunk of the southern portion after Serbia fell). And honestly idk how to make their food situation better so I'm just gonna say that they have better soil or something.

Would this be enough to give the cp a victory?

 

[Catspoke]

Really, Italy staying neutral would lead to a Central Powers win (but late, mid 1917 or later). The continuing blockade hole would be valuable as well as freeing up a chunk of the AH army for the eastern or Serbian front.

Italy coming in on CP side after the WF stabilizes in 1914, isn't a immediate CP win, the French probably with 10 divisions could seal the alps. But I see the major allied effort i 1915 being colonial and Mediterranean, and not western front. Probably a 1916 CP victory.

Italy coming in at the beginning could be a 1914 victory for Germany. (A few extra French divisions off the Marne, some Italian help on the upper Rhine is a big difference).

 

[Falecius]

In theory, yes.
If Italy is in the CP from the start, that vastly improves the military situation for that side:
1) France has to commit forces in the Alps, thereby having less for stopping the initial German offensive. This does not necessarily means Schlieffen Plan working as intended, but puts the frontlines a lot closer to Paris with worst Entente losses when (or if) the Western Front goes static.
2) Austria has considerably more forces free to use against Serbia and Russia, which may mean either that Serbia fall earlier, or that the Russian offensive in Galicia is less successful. The Eastern Front is better for the CP.
3) The Serbian Army has nowhere to retreat to.
4) Slightly more Entente resources tied in colonial theaters, though there's almost no contest here - Italy won't be able to keep her colonies.
5) The Entente would probably not commit to Salonika or Gallipoli, which frees Ottoman divisions to use (primarily against Russia) - although avoiding Gallipoli would actually a boon for the Entente manpower-wise
6) The Med turns from an essentially Entente lake to a contested sea - the Entente has still a significant edge but the overall naval balance is not so ridicolously lopsided - Entente navies streched a little thinner may have some effects.
7) Bulgaria probably joins earlier, Romania stays neutral or might even join CP herself - more bad news for Serbia and Russia.

Overall, an earlier Russian collapse followed by CP military victory in the West by 1916 is a plausible outcome, even though by 1916, Italy would be suffering huge shortages herself, since she was heavily dependent on British shipping for critical resources like coal (and Italian economy had important ties with France). The latter point is part of why Italy did not do this IOTL -without near-guarantee of a quick CP victory, it was considered too risky. Another important part was the almost iron-willed refusal by Austria to concede anything meaningful of what Rome wanted in Tyrol or the Adriatic - some proposals were vaguely made (by Germany mostly) but Austria was ultimately adamant. Finally, the Italian public and many decision-maker hated the notional Austrian ally more the notional French rival - a feeling warmly reciprocated by the Austrians - very few in Italy liked having to go to die for Vienna's interests, as that would have been perceived.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Overall, an earlier Russian collapse followed by CP military victory in the West by 1916 is a plausible outcome, even though by 1916, Italy would be suffering huge shortages herself, since she was heavily dependent on British shipping for critical resources like coal (and Italian economy had important ties with France). The latter point is part of why Italy did not do this IOTL -without near-guarantee of a quick CP victory, it was considered too risky. Another important part was the almost iron-willed refusal by Austria to concede anything meaningful of what Rome wanted in Tyrol or the Adriatic - some proposals were vaguely made (by Germany mostly) but Austria was ultimately adamant. Finally, the Italian public and many decision-maker hated the notional Austrian ally more the notional French rival - a feeling warmly reciprocated by the Austrians - very few in Italy liked having to go to die for Vienna's interests, as that would have been perceived.

Why was Austria so petulant about this? If they get serbian land, surely it's worth giving up some tiny spot on the italian border? I could understand hesitancy on the northern adriatic since Austria has a tiny coast compared to italy, tho

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Why was Austria so petulant about this? If they get serbian land, surely it's worth giving up some tiny spot on the italian border? I could understand hesitancy on the northern adriatic since Austria has a tiny coast compared to italy, tho

Because the Italian demands weren’t limited to South Tyrol. The way Vienna viewed it, start with the Tyrol, then it’s Triest, then probably the rest of the Littoral and after that the whole of Dalmatia.

In short, the start of a slippery slope.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Otl, as I understand it, italy joined the entente due to relying on them for food, and AH owning Soth-Tyrol and their adriatic desires. What if then, AH offered to sell south tyrol to them, as well as the some of the north adriatic (AH would ideally get a good chunk of the southern portion after Serbia fell). And honestly idk how to make their food situation better so I'm just gonna say that they have better soil or something.

Would this be enough to give the cp a victory?

If they come in right from the start, the CP might win. IIRC, the Italian declaration of neutrality allowed the French to move divisions from the Alps to fight the Germans. If they come in after the Western Front had stabilized, then a lot of Austrian troops would be freed up for the Eastern Front and the Balkans Front and we’ll probably see an earlier collapse in Russia. The Germans might be able to win the war on the Western Front before Americans arrive in strong enough numbers to change the balance. It would be a narrow victory though.

 

[Falecius]

Because the Italian demands weren’t limited to South Tyrol. The way Vienna viewed it, start with the Tyrol, then it’s Triest, then probably the rest of the Littoral and after that the whole of Dalmatia.

In short, the start of a slippery slope.

Yep, that was part of it.
Trieste, a key Italian desideratum, was Austria's main commercial port, and the sea outlet for Vienna itself. Fiume, Hungary's main port, was also claimed by Italian irrendentists, as was Pola, which I think was the main base of the Austro-Hungarian joint Navy.
While the Austrian Littoral and Fiume combined were small, their strategic importance for the Austrian state was existential. Italy actually would have wanted more than just the Littoral, but they wouldn't demand that, knowing that Austria would have dismissed any request to part with Trieste out of hand. IIRC, the switches under discussion only involved a small (and firmly Italian-majority) portion of the Littoral which had little strategic value in itself - but made Trieste less defensible anyway. The Austrians guessed (correctly I think) that Italy would not be placated without Trieste and thus saw no point in conceding something less anyway. Ceding Trieste was tantamount to losing the war anyway to their eyes.
This, of course, applies to the Littoral and thereabouts alone; the other area that Austria could have conceivably considered to sacrifice was South Tyrol. Here, again, Italy would still keep wanting Trieste, so why even begin the slippery slope and conceding anything at all anyway? But even there, Italy wanted more than Austria would realistically offer (the Brenner border) and the entire territory was felt to be hereditary Habsburg and historically German lands (even though the Southern part had a large "Italian" majority - in South Tyrol as a whole, however, it was not really the case).

 

[Falecius]

If they come in right from the start, the CP might win. IIRC, the Italian declaration of neutrality allowed the French to move divisions from the Alps to fight the Germans. If they come in after the Western Front had stabilized, then a lot of Austrian troops would be freed up for the Eastern Front and the Balkans Front and we’ll probably see an earlier collapse in Russia. The Germans might be able to win the war on the Western Front before Americans arrive in strong enough numbers to change the balance. It would be a narrow victory though.

If the war lasts so long that Americans join, CP is still likely to lose. By 1917, Italy would have turned the weak link the CP chain under continued war strain.
True, they could handle the French Army in the Alps, like they did with the Austrians historically, but lack of trade with the Entente would be doing a nasty number on the economy and supply of most of everything would be worringly low by now.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

If the war lasts so long that Americans join, CP is still likely to lose. By 1917, Italy would have turned the weak link the CP chain under continued war strain.
True, they could handle the French Army in the Alps, like they did with the Austrians historically, but lack of trade with the Entente would be doing a nasty number on the economy and supply of most of everything would be worringly low by now.

That would apply to all of the Central Powers, no? Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire weren’t wealthy and productive states. Certainly not compared to Germany or even Italy and Austria-Hungary.

 

[BigBlueBox]

If the war lasts so long that Americans join, CP is still likely to lose. By 1917, Italy would have turned the weak link the CP chain under continued war strain.
True, they could handle the French Army in the Alps, like they did with the Austrians historically, but lack of trade with the Entente would be doing a nasty number on the economy and supply of most of everything would be worringly low by now.

That’s a pretty big if. In any scenario where Italy joins the Central Powers it can be assumed that the CP did at least as well or even better than OTL in 1914. The only way the war could last long enough for America to join if:
A: A MASSIVE diplomatic blunder caused America to join the Entente in 1915-1916. Probably requires a pre-1914 PoD
B: Pre-war PoD makes Russia hyper-competent, but this hyper-competence doesn’t start showing itself before Italy already joined the CP
C: Ottomans join Entente

 

[Falecius]

That’s a pretty big if. In any scenario where Italy joins the Central Powers it can be assumed that the CP did at least as well or even better than OTL in 1914. The only way the war could last long enough for America to join if:
A: A MASSIVE diplomatic blunder caused America to join the Entente in 1915-1916. Probably requires a pre-1914 PoD
B: Pre-war PoD makes Russia hyper-competent, but this hyper-competence doesn’t start showing itself before Italy already joined the CP
C: Ottomans join Entente

I tend to agree.
CP Italy by itself makes the circumstances of US-American DOW quite unlikely.

 

[A Piece of History]

Italy would never join the Central Powers. The territory that it desired was controlled by Austria-Hungary and Austria-Hungary is too stubborn to even think about giving up part of it's empire just for the sake of a wartime alliance.

 

[Falecius]

That would apply to all of the Central Powers, no? Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire weren’t wealthy and productive states. Certainly not compared to Germany or even Italy and Austria-Hungary.

Italy was particularly dependent on the Entente for its industry and more vulnerable to attacks on shipping, but I suppose the same dynamic did hurt the Ottomans IOTL. I don't know about Bulgaria but I'd guess Austria was the main trading partner. Also, Bulgaria and OE were both less industrialized than Italy, which made them ironically less reliant on overseas shipping I suppose.

 

[Falecius]

Italy would never join the Central Powers. The territory that it desired was controlled by Austria-Hungary and Austria-Hungary is too stubborn to even think about giving up part of it's empire just for the sake of a wartime alliance.

Especially because said territory would either not sate Italian ambitions, or constitute a truly unacceptable loss (as most of the Austrian Littoral).

 

[Dorknought]

Otl, as I understand it, italy joined the entente due to relying on them for food

and Coal.

 

[33k7]

the war would be over by Christmas the British and French barely stopped the Schlieffen Plan too many French forces would be diverted to fight the Italians Germany takes Paris by Christmas or it undergoes a sieges similar to the franco-prussian war

Austria can also divert more soldiers to fight the Russians possibly preventing their failures in the Russian front

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Italy was particularly dependent on the Entente for its industry and more vulnerable to attacks on shipping, but I suppose the same dynamic did hurt the Ottomans IOTL. I don't know about Bulgaria but I'd guess Austria was the main trading partner. Also, Bulgaria and OE were both less industrialized than Italy, which made them ironically less reliant on overseas shipping I suppose.

That would make them more reliant on their more advanced allies for weapons, equipment and supplies though, right? Italy does have a long and vulnerable coast, but so does the Ottoman Empire and they didn’t have a large or skilled enough Navy to defend it.

 

[46566]

That would make them more reliant on their more advanced allies for weapons, equipment and supplies though, right? Italy does have a long and vulnerable coast, but so does the Ottoman Empire and they didn’t have a large or skilled enough Navy to defend it.

True though maybe instead of Galipoli you get a invasion of Italy. Would the invasion force be primarily French or British? I would figure that the Ottoman navy would block the Suez Canal. The main question is how much would a potentially blocked Suez Canal hurt the British.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

True though maybe instead of Galipoli you get a invasion of Italy. Would the invasion force be primarily French or British? I would figure that the Ottoman navy would block the Suez Canal.

I don’t think that they’d invade Italy instead of the Ottoman Empire. Part of the purpose of invading the Ottoman Empire, was to open the Dardanelles for the Russians. In addition, the Italians have a large Navy. The French and British Navies were stronger of course (although they were spread across the world for obvious reasons and I’m not sure how many ships they had in the Mediterranean).

This isn’t a 1 to 1 comparison of course for a number of reasons, but in 1941 the British tried to make landings on the Italian island of Castellorizo, off the coast of Turkey and they were repulsed. This was a different war, but making landings in mainland Italy would probably be more difficult than making landings in Gallipoli.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I would figure that the Ottoman navy would block the Suez Canal.

lol