WI Italy neutral in WW1?

I've had this idea for a while. Let's say Italy stays out of the war. Austria-Hungary doesn't need to keep so many troops along the border. However, the most important thing is that the Central Powers has a lifeline. Raw materials can come in Italian ports into A-H and Germany. What effect(s) does this have?
 
Last edited:
I've had this idea for a while. Let's say Italy stays out of the war. Austria-Hungary doesn't need to keep so many troops along the border. However, the most important thing is that the Axis has a lifeline. Raw materials can come in Italian ports into A-H and Germany. What effect(s) does this have?

I do believe they were Central Powers in WW1.
 
The Central Powers will definitely get a boost of sorts. The two major fronts for the Austro-Hungarians would be Russia and Serbia and unfortunately they bungled their way in both theaters.

One should look at what happened to Greece since it may prove a model for what may happen to Italy. Greece was neutral pro-Central Powers so the Allies blockaded the capital and forced a change of government that became pro-Entente. The recently conquered Italian colony of Libya could find itself cut off from mainland Italy if the Allies want to apply pressure on Italy to 'change its mind'.
 
Italy was Central Power before WW1, then they betrayed the Central Powers and later (in 1915) entered the Entente.

You dont get it. He first said how would Italy`s neutrality affect the Axis in WW1. And as I recall, there was no Axis in WW1.

Plus, everyone with a better understanding of History must know Italy joined the Entante. Your "explenation" is therefore completly unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
you people are fucking ass holes... i mean really.. he asked a question, and you people are jumping around slapping your dicks together and arguing who is bigger/better..

Now to answer your question, a "Neutral" Itlay in WWI would not mean anything. they were aligned with the central powers, but wanted austrian lands. so suddenly, they arent going to war with Austria for their land, they sure as hell won't help them

Italy would observe the situation. If they assisted the CP while remaining neutral, they could possibly get Corsica if the CP is victorious. if the CP loses under the same situation, Italy loses territory... Sardinia might be French Occupied, and Sicily might be British occupied. If they align with the Entente but remain neutral, they get nothing for either side being victorious.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
you people are fucking ass holes... i mean really.. he asked a question, and you people are jumping around slapping your dicks together and arguing who is bigger/better..

Now to answer your question, a "Neutral" Itlay in WWI would not mean anything. they were aligned with the central powers, but wanted austrian lands. so suddenly, they arent going to war with Austria for their land, they sure as hell won't help them

Italy would observe the situation. If they assisted the CP while remaining neutral, they could possibly get Corsica if the CP is victorious. if the CP loses under the same situation, Italy loses territory... Sardinia might be French Occupied, and Sicily might be British occupied. If they align with the Entente but remain neutral, they get nothing for either side being victorious.
Post reported.
 
First of all, the Austrians have more resources to dedicate to the Russian and Serbian fronts, and after 1915, they'll have only one front to deal with.

But one of the major butterflies would be that Conrad von Hötzendorff would not move the best of the Austro-Hungarian forces from the Eastern Front to Italy for the Trentino Offensive, which would strengthen the Austro-Hungarian forces immensly for the coming Brusilov offensive.

Those battles were what did the Austro-Hungarian army in as a force capable of independent operations really.

Also, if the Brusilov offensive is a bloody stalemate, it is not very likely that Romania will enter the war on the side of the Entente. They did so only as it looked like Austria-Hungary would collapse. Indeed, if the Russian losses are worse, they might start collapsing late 1916 instead of early 1917, which might make Romania go for Moldavia and join the Central Powers instead.

After the fall of the Russians, the only front of Austria would be against the Entente and possibly Greek forces in Thessaloniki, hardly a very high burden. This might make Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary survive longer and perhaps also the Ottomans - if the Russians fall quicker and there's less need to prop up the Austro-Hungarians and Bulgarians (the Austro-Hungarians doing decently and able to handle supporting Bulgaria), the Germans can probably give more support to the Ottomans.
 
I don't think Italy can be neutral in WW1 - they effectively told both sides "make us a deal and we'll join your team". Italy wanted both the French North African colonies and the Tyrol.

For both sides to ignore Italy and completely leave them alone would be in the realms of ASB. 1915 saw the realisation by most European politicians and Generals that the war was going to be a long, drawn-out affair. The race was on to gather more allies. Whilst the Central Powers convinced Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire to join in 1914, the Entente convinced Italy, then Rumania (and Greece after intensive pressure).

I think Italy's entry into the war can be delayed by up to six months as negotiations are dragged out but no more. The point about Italian ports is somewhat moot however - where are the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians going to get raw materials from? The British were in control of most of these markets although they were losing ground to the USA and Japan. Most of their WW1 trade was with the Netherlands and Scandinavia who wouldn't need to use Italian ports for shipping in the first place.
 
I don't think Italian neutrality could have changed the entire course of war. Those are some of the actions produced by the Italian intervention:
  • Few changes in 1915: the Italian intervention didn't save Serbia from the invasion. Italy, however, saved the survivors of the Serbian army and contributed to the establishment of the Balkan front.
  • Many changes in 1916: Austria-Hungary diverted many troops from the Eastern Front in order to attack Italy with the Strafe-Expedition. This move allowed (and induced) Brussilov to attack, with devastating effects for A-H forces. This was positive and negative in the same time for the Entente's efforts: Strafexpedition allowed Russian's offensive, but the fear of an Italian collapse induced Russians to launch a premature offensive.
  • Negative effects in 1917: Italy had a negative role for the Entente during 1917. During spring and summer, Italian X and XI battles of Isonzo had no effects on the general course of war; after Caporetto, French and British troops had to rush in Italy to avoid its collapse.
  • Positive role in 1918: with the battle of Piave in June 1918, Italy contributed to bleed to death the Austro-Hungarian empire, giving it the "coup de grace" with the Vittorio Veneto counter-attack.
 
A Neutral Italy during WW1 would clearly favour the Central Powers. Austria would have a front less to man, and after Russia collapse, assuming that this is not butterflied away, the central empires would have more men to send against the entente in France. There would be also more manpower available for industries and agriculture, too. The actual end of the war would depend on the resistance of the entente and the eventual US entry into the war.

Having Italy stay neutral is actually not so difficult. The large majority of the nation was for peace and only a minority desired war against A-H. The italian entry in war was decided though by the goverment ignoring the parliament, with the blessing of the royal court. Basically, what you need to have Italy neutral is changing the mind of Vittorio Emanuele. Without his consent, the secret treaty of London would have never been signed.

Italy was Central Power before WW1, then they betrayed the Central Powers and later (in 1915) entered the Entente.

Yourworstnightmare, do you know the difference between a defensive alliance and an offensive one? I guess not, since you keep repeating things like that. Italy wasn't bound to enter war because Austria started it, period.
The italian partecipation to the triple alliance was anyway doomed, since the several problems that Italy got with A-H, mainly the control of the Adriatic sea and the expansion in the Balkans.

However Italy would probably side with the winners near the end of the war.

Another of your pet ideas...And exactly when they should join the war? If Italy join the CP after Russia collapse, the entente is going to crumble. But the real question is: would Italy join her former allies without receiving the austrian land that italians claimed? And would Austrian ITTL agree on this?

Greece was neutral pro-Central Powers so the Allies blockaded the capital and forced a change of government that became pro-Entente.

The idea of Entente exerciting pressure on Italy is dubious, since they could not afford the risk of Italy of joining the central powers... The french were already stretched thin without having a second front.

Negative effects in 1917: Italy had a negative role for the Entente during 1917. During spring and summer, Italian X and XI battles of Isonzo had no effects on the general course of war; after Caporetto, French and British troops had to rush in Italy to avoid its collapse.

This is not completely true. The entente sent eleven division, IRRC. Not really a huge expedition corp and not even a relevant one. The Austrian offensive was actually halted by their logistic, that was unable to provide them with supplies. The german and austrian troops could not launch coordinate attacks on the italians and had to stop the advance. This gave enough time to the italians to reform a line along the Piave.
 
I know... In 1917 Italy could have played a very better role. It could have provided a very useful ground for a general Entente's offensive against A-H. Lloyd George proposed that plan, it was discussed in Rome, but Nivelle's plan for a new offensive in France prevailed. This could be another What If: What If Lloyd George plan became operational? Italy had a very strong army in 1917, A-H was very weak... what could have happened after an Italian offensive supported by allied?
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
You dont get it. He first said how would Italy`s neutrality affect the Axis in WW1. And as I recall, there was no Axis in WW1.

Plus, everyone with a better understanding of History must know Italy joined the Entante. Your "explenation" is therefore completly unnecessary.

That was rude and insulting. I think you need to treat other posters with a bit more basic respect.
 
Top