WI Italy knocked out of WWI after Caporetto?

And you don't think the whole switching sides and declaring war, despite treaty fine print, isn't going to cause a victorious Austria from having retribution? Only-defensive treaty or not, if I had an ally turn on me, I'd destroy them.

Which "fine print"? It was a purely defensive treaty, not to rehiterate that Austria had not lost one single opportunity to oppose Italy in the Balkans.
Is it so hard to understand?
 
I would consider that it is possible (tho a long shot) that Italy could have been driven out of the Great War after Caporetto. There is a very good book looking at just this particular battle Mario Morselli's Caporetto, 1917: victory or defeat? If the Germans and Austrians had really worked closely with each other - and particularly certain Austrian officers working better with each other - a greater portion of the Italian army could have been cut off and captured.

The Allied troops were not to get involved if there were a general collapse of the Italian army. The Italian people were not entirely behind entering the war until the shock of defeat at Caporetto with a defeat greatly magnified they may turn on Orlando and seek a cease fire.

I frankly doubt that the CPs could have gotten more than they did out of Caporetto (which again it was a dumb idea to start with and would not have been decisive in any case): they pushed the front back to the Piave and captured more than 250,000 prisoners, not to mention a lot of artillery pieces.
It is just not reasonable to postulate that they could get more.
BTW, it would have been also impossible to manage a better coordination in the attack, considering the length of the front: by comparison you should look at the botch up they made with the attack of 22 June 1918 (and which lasted one day). It's also to be noted that there was quite poor coordination on the Italian side: the relations between Cadorna and Capello were less than friendly.

As far as the politics of the post-Caporetto, there was never any doubt that Italy would have stayed in the war. The king moved to Peschiera to stay closer to the front, and all the parties in parliament supported war continuation. The only exception was to be found in the left faction of the socialist party, but their influence was minimal. When the continuation of the war was discussed in parliament it was approved by acclamation.

You're right when you say the Allies were not ready to commit troops to the defense of the Italian front: during the meeting in Rapallo the French in particular were very cold and the discussions were not really positive. It took a second meeting in Peschiera, with the attendance of the king, to thaw a bit the situation. However even after Peschiera the allied troops allocated to the Italian front (10 divisions from France and 4 from UK) were not positioned on the front but were kept as a reserve. Ultimately the front after Caporetto (as well as before) was held by the Italians only.
 
maybe if the gov't refused to fire cadorna or a larger disaster at the front, some sort of uncontrolled national strikes could ensue that cripple the country and bring it to the table
 
Which "fine print"? It was a purely defensive treaty, not to rehiterate that Austria had not lost one single opportunity to oppose Italy in the Balkans.
Is it so hard to understand?

As i entirely agreed with the purely defensive interpretation of the treaty and that frankly Italy as not switched side as a never seriously taken one,
but yes Austria will not be lenient in a peace treaty with Italy, simply because they hated us very much and the possibility that they pass the occasion to humilate and gut Italy is almost ASB, even if is against reason or they small-medium and long term interest. Probably if there is an almost white peace is becouse Germany pull is weight and coerce Vienna to reason.
And if or when A-H empire collapse well it's all over again because a peace treaty of that kind only produce a revanchist Italy...probably a socialist Italy
 
maybe if the gov't refused to fire cadorna or a larger disaster at the front, some sort of uncontrolled national strikes could ensue that cripple the country and bring it to the table

Cadorna was not immediately fired, at least formally: he was moved to the inter-allied commission in Paris. The firing came only in February 1918 IIRC, taking the opportunity of the appointment of a parliamentary commission to investigate Caporetto.

I take your point, anyway: Cadorna could not continue to be the CiC, and it is surprising that a military tribunal was not immediately set to examine his actions, prior and during the Caporetto debacle (the CPs had closed the Swiss borders one week before the offensive, and this should have been warning enough). But then Cadorna was the scion of a Piedmontese noble family with a long tradition in the army, and obviously was protected.

It should be noted anyway that both the king and the duke of Aosta (commander of the III Army) took a much more visible role after Caporetto and that the new CiC, Diaz, proved to be a much more human commander, when compared to Cadorna, who was very much old school in this too.
 
As i entirely agreed with the purely defensive interpretation of the treaty and that frankly Italy as not switched side as a never seriously taken one,
but yes Austria will not be lenient in a peace treaty with Italy, simply because they hated us very much and the possibility that they pass the occasion to humilate and gut Italy is almost ASB, even if is against reason or they small-medium and long term interest. Probably if there is an almost white peace is becouse Germany pull is weight and coerce Vienna to reason.
And if or when A-H empire collapse well it's all over again because a peace treaty of that kind only produce a revanchist Italy...probably a socialist Italy

Germany sent out feelers to Italy in December 1917, after the offensive had completely stalled, proposing a separate peace on the basis of the status quo ante. The proposal was not accepted.

Re Austria, at the end of 1917 the objective was no more punishing enemies, but rather surviving. Karl was pursuing a separate peace, and was sounding the French through Swiss channels. It was all handled in a very indecisive and farcical way, and even ended up being discussed in the municipal council of Wien in early 1918; not to mention that in any case Austria was under the German thumb at this stage and would not have been allowed to sign a separate peace.
 
I dont see why. Czechoslovakia came into being without a conference about it.
The difference, little it may be, though, is that Czechoslovakia was already officially acknowledged as a member of the Entente prior to the armistice- with an own government in exile and a small army.
OTL, even the population of Trieste was surprisingly apathetic towards the Italian army.
Not so surprisingly, but surprisingly smart from the population. The 20th century hasn't exactly rewarded Trieste. It wouldn't be utopical that Trieste would now be a more important and proud city if the KuK-monarchy would have prevailed with Trieste as its major commercial port. In the context of belonging to Italy, what is the rank of Trieste as a harbour...?
For Germany it was a tertiary front, there is no way they'd press them hard, because getting them to surrender would be the most important part of all. A lenient peace is in their best interest, because it takes pressure off of AH, which can then send MORE men to the Western Front, as well as turn their economy into a resource farm for Germany.
but yes Austria will not be lenient in a peace treaty with Italy, simply because they hated us very much and the possibility that they pass the occasion to humilate and gut Italy is almost ASB, even if is against reason or they small-medium and long term interest. Probably if there is an almost white peace is becouse Germany pull is weight and coerce Vienna to reason.
But, alas, we can rely on the German ability to mess things up when it comes to early 20th century diplomacy. Given the bitterness due to the DOW of Italy in 1915, I doubt that Germany would pursue the matter in a sensible way. This perception may well be totally false, but the Germans saw the Italians as traitors and wished them to be punished as such. I would go so far as to say that even if Caporetto might push an Italian government into negotiations, the Germans would go too far and once again send the Italians firmly into the Entente camp with known results.
I do not see Austria pushing for a humiliation of Italy for several reasons: a) the relatively dove-ish Karl I b) the lacking desire to govern even more Italians. I do not recall far reaching war-aims against Italy being discussed - Austria's hungry eyes were focused on the Balkans.
"Gutting" Italy stands out of the question. To enforce such a treaty, Italy would have to de-construct on its own (which I deem ASB at this point of time) or the CP would have to conquer and occupy large potions of Italy, which is close to impossible given the possibility of esp. Britain to react all around the Italian peninsula. It simply cannot happen.
Unless... we could get into a very interesting situation if Italy become the set of a messy socialist revolution leading to Civil War (a completely "red" Italy could and rather should probably simply walk away as a neutral). We might have a red North vs a white South and depending on a) who is in control of Rome b) what state the pre-revolutionary government is in order to fight on as legitimate Italian government. If the latter is not given, white forces might resort to the independence of e.g. the Kingdom of Naples. But these improbable developments would be internal.
 
---
Concerning the question how Italy should have lost the war while only certain parts of its territory were conquered I would like to note that Germany quit fighting without Entente soldiers on its soil... What matters in WW1 is a to bring a nation to a point where its population and to a large degree its soldiers deem a continuation of the war undesirable to such a degree that this particpant comes down losing.
The question is less how far the CP forces can advance, but what could happen/change in order to make the Italians act as the Russians did in 1917 and the Germans did in late 1918.
 
Top