WI Italy surrenders after Caporetto?

Suppose the battle of Caporetto is slightly worse for the Italians and after some FUBAR action in the Italian High Command, the Italian government panics and requests an armistice in late 1917/early 1918? What kind of effects does this have on the Entente, assuming it could happen for real? How would they deal with loss of their ally and the appearance of additional German and Austro-Hungarian troops? Would they set out feelers for peace or not? If not, how will 1918 be?

Discuss :).
 
Suppose the battle of Caporetto is slightly worse for the Italians and after some FUBAR action in the Italian High Command, the Italian government panics and requests an armistice in late 1917/early 1918? What kind of effects does this have on the Entente, assuming it could happen for real? How would they deal with loss of their ally and the appearance of additional German and Austro-Hungarian troops? Would they set out feelers for peace or not? If not, how will 1918 be?

Discuss :).

Italy was always on the periphery of the Entente and an Italian surrender, whilst of concern for the Allies is not going to alter the course of the war too much, at least in 1917. However, if it means that the Austro-Hungarians and Germans are able to move more troops to the Eastern front, one could see Russia being forced out of the war a few months early. However, I still doubt that Germany could win in this position, in my personal view, she was already exhausted from the war by the time of Caporetto. At best, she could perhaps sue for a white peace in the event of a more successful Spring Offensive.

Regarding Italy, she is still going to turn radically to either the left or the right in this timeline. Whether the butterflies are enough to see a Communist take over is doubtful, but a dictatorship far more aggressive than OTL Fascists (it is possible) would be very likely to seize power in my opinion at least.
 
I remember mentioning this earlier and it being dismissed in a carefree way.

I think that had Austro-German forces been more coordinated they could have surrounded and forced the surrender of a major portion of the Italian Army. The Italian High Command was prepared to draw back pretty far in order to get some breathing room and time to reorganized and a lot of north-eastern Italy, including Venice, could have fallen.

IIRC its really Caporetto that finally gets the Italian people firmly being the war effort.

The defeat of Italy would have raised the specter that a new front could have been opened along the Franco-Italian border. Also Italy could have become available as a means for the Central Powers to restart trade with the likes of Spain, but probably not. The major impact of course would be the psychological impact of Italy being forced out of the war upon the general fighting spirit on those in the trenches.

I will consider that its possible that the situation along the French front would be decided by Caporetto and that a negotiated peace may ensue.
 
Discuss :).

Two things come to my mind:

First, for both Germany and Austro-Hungary this is the second major military victory within a year (in propaganda terms), which means the public support for the war may get stronger. For the Allies this means that two of the major allies have been knocked out of the war.

Second, the naval issues. With Italy out of the war the submarine campaign in the Mediterranean will get stronger due to less Allied bases and escorts. This may not be that significant due to inability to counter convoys but may have some effects.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I remember mentioning this earlier and it being dismissed in a carefree way.

I think that had Austro-German forces been more coordinated they could have surrounded and forced the surrender of a major portion of the Italian Army. The Italian High Command was prepared to draw back pretty far in order to get some breathing room and time to reorganized and a lot of north-eastern Italy, including Venice, could have fallen.

IIRC its really Caporetto that finally gets the Italian people firmly being the war effort.

The defeat of Italy would have raised the specter that a new front could have been opened along the Franco-Italian border. Also Italy could have become available as a means for the Central Powers to restart trade with the likes of Spain, but probably not. The major impact of course would be the psychological impact of Italy being forced out of the war upon the general fighting spirit on those in the trenches.

I will consider that its possible that the situation along the French front would be decided by Caporetto and that a negotiated peace may ensue.

I think Italian surrender already was close in OTL. The Italian Army was routed in October 17 at Caporetto (at Izonso) and I think we only need butterflies to have the reforming of a new defensive line the the Piave fail.

One PoD could be slightly more momentum in the A-H/German attack, I think a few 17th/18th century type "Streifkorps" advancing beyond the main line will be enough for the Italian rout to continue at the Piave. I.e. no need for alien space bat logistics for our WWI type army.

Another PoD could be in the Italian camp. In OTL the Italian commander Cadorno was sacked after the intitial defeat and replaced by Diaz, who rallied the fleeing army and organised the successful defence at the Piave. A few butterflies in this change of command and/or the staffwork in these crucial days would probably be enough for the Italian government to see no hope in continuing the war.

The Entente later sent alltogether 11 Divisions to Italy, but they were far away in early november 17, when this happens. The CPs had 35 Divisions taking part at Caporetto vs. 41 Italian.

This is simultaneous with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which had Russia withdraw from the war. If Italy is out too it will be quite a boost to the CPs and ditto "depresser" for the Entente.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
One PoD could be slightly more momentum in the A-H/German attack, I think a few 17th/18th century type "Streifkorps" advancing beyond the main line will be enough for the Italian rout to continue at the Piave. I.e. no need for alien space bat logistics for our WWI type army.

The problem of this POD is that the logistic capability of the central powers was already stretched to his maximum. Rommel, in his book, wrote that his men were too exhausted and hungry to advance any more. So its questionable if the offensive could go on in a coordinated manner.

To get the italian surrender the best choice would be a political POD. OTL the socialist party decided to support the goverment and the war, thus allowing Italy to reorganize her forces.
If the socialist had decided to ride on the war discontent and to oppose actively the goverment, Italy could have easily fallen in a civil war, similar to the russian one. The direct consequence of this would have been a peace treaty with the central powers, who would have had in turn even more manpower to throw against France before the USA involvment.
 
I would say that what could have happen it that the crushing blow delivered by the Central Powers to the Italian Army causes the Socialist to withdraw from the government. As a result the new government that comes to power decides to end Italy's participation in the war and seeks peace.

It is possible that this might trigger a peace proposal by the allies and the Central Powers.
 
In case of Italian surrender in late 1917, consequences could have been:
  1. a possible naval breakthrought of Otranto barrage (not very plausible, considering the superiority of Anglo-French fleets in Mediterranean Sea also without Italian support in 1914)
  2. an upgrade of A-H and German intervention in the Salonika Front and a possible offensive against the Entente's Eastern Army in spring 1918; the target could be the complete surrender of Entente's forces in the Balkans and the surrender of Greece
  3. the opening of a stronger lifeline for the Ottoman Empire
  4. the opening of a new Southern front against France, with few chances of success: Italian-French frontier is a very difficult terrain for an offensive (quoting Napoleon: it's like taking a gun from its bayonet)
  5. No sensible effects on Eastern and Western fronts: in the East, Russia was militarly out of war since the October revolution; in the West, A-H didn't want to send other troops to Germans because emperor Karl wanted to keep open a diplomatic contact with Paris
If WW1 was won by the Entente because of the Us intervention, the naval blockade and the German heavy losses in the Western front, the surrender of Italy could not have reverted the course of the conflict. It could have protracted it. It could have also prevented the collapse of Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire in 1918.
This Pod could have provoked HUGE effects in Italy. The military occupation of Northern Italy could have been a major blow for king Vittorio Emanuele III and the liberal ruling elite, paving the way for extreme subversion from the left (socialist) and/or a rightist dictatorship like fascism. But much more radical then fascism. Another possibility (less plausible) was an Italian territorial "balkanization", with the birth of many Italian states after the collapse of the unitarian nation.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
a possible naval breakthrought of Otranto barrage (not very plausible, considering the superiority of Anglo-French fleets in Mediterranean Sea also without Italian support in 1914)

This could have caused the British to divert a few battleships to the area, but by this stage such a move wouldn't alter the balance of power that much.

an upgrade of A-H and German intervention in the Salonika Front and a possible offensive against the Entente's Eastern Army in spring 1918; the target could be the complete surrender of Entente's forces in the Balkans and the surrender of Greece

I doubt it. Why waste the resources? The CPs already referred to the Allied army in Salonika as their "biggest prisoner of war camp", and even conquering Greece wouldn't do them much good. By this stage, the CPs were looking for a decisive blow that would end the war in their favor, and engaging in subsidiary operations on the fringes wouldn't have helped.

the opening of a stronger lifeline for the Ottoman Empire

Sure, but would that make any difference by this point?

the opening of a new Southern front against France, with few chances of success: Italian-French frontier is a very difficult terrain for an offensive (quoting Napoleon: it's like taking a gun from its bayonet.

I doubt it. Northern Italy would probably have just been left alone. The French would have little trouble holding the Alpine frontier, so why waste the resources? Again, they were aiming at a knockout blow by this point.

No sensible effects on Eastern and Western fronts: in the East, Russia was militarly out of war since the October revolution; in the West, A-H didn't want to send other troops to Germans because emperor Karl wanted to keep open a diplomatic contact with Paris

Pretty much agree. Besides, the logistical effort to move huge numbers of A-H troops to the Western Front might have made the effort simply uneconomic.
 

Deleted member 1487

The socialists in Italy were being actively suppressed, much like the French were after 1917 and the rise of Clemenceau. There is no military way to knock Italy out, as others have explained here already. If a reasonable peace offer was made hard on the heels of Caporetto that included status quo peace, or perhaps even the secession of Italian speaking areas, I do think Italy would have been knocked out. However, this would require a completely different mindset in Vienna than historical, which probably would have precluded Italian entry into the war in the first place.

Now for those suggesting that magically a Franco-Italian front would have opened, that is not going to ever happen, ever. Italy depended on England for its coal imports, without which the country collapses economically. They could not afford to make a peace that would involve letting the Austrians fight from their territory (nor could the Austrians logistically sustain it, or want to continue fighting on other mountainous fronts). The Italians would have continued fighting rather than submit to such a peace, as the Entente would have a bloody revenge on them. Besides, once the retreat stopped the Western Allies had already sent several divisions to Italy to shore up the front, though they never really served in major combat operations (the only "fighting" they did was mop up at Vittorio Veneto). Italy did almost all the heavy lifting themselves.
 
The socialists in Italy were being actively suppressed, much like the French were after 1917 and the rise of Clemenceau. There is no military way to knock Italy out, as others have explained here already.

That makes it really odd that their government fell and they actually had to hold a vote on whether to continue the war, which passed by something like 70%-30%, a dangerously high figure for the Entente.

If a reasonable peace offer was made hard on the heels of Caporetto that included status quo peace, or perhaps even the secession of Italian speaking areas, I do think Italy would have been knocked out. However, this would require a completely different mindset in Vienna than historical, which probably would have precluded Italian entry into the war in the first place.

True. It would require some pretty stupid leadership to return to status quo or cede territory when Austrian boots are are in Venice.

Now for those suggesting that magically a Franco-Italian front would have opened, that is not going to ever happen, ever. Italy depended on England for its coal imports, without which the country collapses economically. They could not afford to make a peace that would involve letting the Austrians fight from their territory (nor could the Austrians logistically sustain it, or want to continue fighting on other mountainous fronts). The Italians would have continued fighting rather than submit to such a peace, as the Entente would have a bloody revenge on them. Besides, once the retreat stopped the Western Allies had already sent several divisions to Italy to shore up the front, though they never really served in major combat operations (the only "fighting" they did was mop up at Vittorio Veneto). Italy did almost all the heavy lifting themselves.

While I disagree with your other points entirely, I agree with you here. Italy can be knocked out of the war, but it won't join the other side.

I can imagine a peace restoring Rome and some small, additional territories to the Pope (German and Austrian diplomats were both very much in favor of this, and if they can negotiate with a proto-fascist or at least authoritarian government...) and perhaps some minor border adjustments to give Austria undisputed defenses against any future Italian incursions. Italy drops out, then dissolves into Civil War.
 
A useful POD might be Prime Minister Boselli replaced by Giolitti, a notable antiwar liberal (the troops retreating from Caporetto were literally singing his name), rather than Orlando. After all, he was the 'magician' of coalitions- it wouldnt take a great stretch of the imagination to say that he could pull it off.

I was going to suggest this as a possibility!
 
I doubt it. Why waste the resources? The CPs already referred to the Allied army in Salonika as their "biggest prisoner of war camp", and even conquering Greece wouldn't do them much good. By this stage, the CPs were looking for a decisive blow that would end the war in their favor, and engaging in subsidiary operations on the fringes wouldn't have helped.

Why not? You have the possibility to knock out another Entente's nation (Greece) and a large enemy force. After an eventual collapse of Italy, you don't have to waste resources, if you send A-H troops: they are unnecessary in France and unuseful in Russia. A useful alternative could be: send A-H troops in the Balkans, just to hold defensive positions, then you can relieve German XI Army and Mackensen's Army Group and send them in France. This move could have helped the spring offensive.
On all the other points I absolutely agree with you. CPs had very few chances to force the Otranto Barrage, or open a new front in Southern France (given the fact that they could not pass the Alps with those little forces in Italy).
The essence of my post is: a surrender of Italy in 1917 could have provoked little changes in the general course of the conflict in Europe. But its impact could have been enormous in the history of Italy.
 
A useful POD might be Prime Minister Boselli replaced by Giolitti, a notable antiwar liberal (the troops retreating from Caporetto were literally singing his name), rather than Orlando. After all, he was the 'magician' of coalitions- it wouldnt take a great stretch of the imagination to say that he could pull it off.

Great point. He's always my go-to guy in Italy Neutral WIs.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Why not? You have the possibility to knock out another Entente's nation (Greece) and a large enemy force. After an eventual collapse of Italy, you don't have to waste resources, if you send A-H troops: they are unnecessary in France and unuseful in Russia. A useful alternative could be: send A-H troops in the Balkans, just to hold defensive positions, then you can relieve German XI Army and Mackensen's Army Group and send them in France. This move could have helped the spring offensive.

The Germans never saw the Balkan front as particularly important, and were happy to see Allied troops being sent there, since every Briton and Frenchmen sent there was one fewer they had to fight in France. So I think your suggestion of stiffening it with A-H troops to free up some German troops for service on the Western Front is a far more likely scenario than the Germans launching a major offensive there. Even defeating the Allied army there and conquering Greece really gains the CPs little of value.
 
I'm curious. In the event of an Italian surrender, what kind of peace terms would they get? A white peace or would A-H demand territory? The latter seems like a stupid idea since it would only make the ethnic Italian group even bigger. But would the Habsburgs have seen this?
 
The most massive result would have been the chance for Karl to securely establish himself on the throne, and to stabilise the empire. They have large garrison commitments in the East, but thats not killing anyone much, and they have some commitments in the South, but minus the Italian front and the pressure is going to be hugely reduced, allowing Karl to implement his reforms. He won't get his economy back, after the Germans stole it, but he will only have to send relatively small elite forces to the Western Front

In terms of morale, the average Allied citizen is going to wonder how the Alliance keeps falling apart. True, the Americans are coming, but its late 1917 and when did the Alliance last win anything, other than in the deserts ?

Peace terms are an interesting question. I don't think Vienna will be much of a problem, but the Third Supreme Command might be, since they aren't exactly very good diplomats.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The Austrians would probably be content with merely forcing Italy to give up it's current claims on Austrian territory, and maybe making a few minor adjustments to make the border more defensible.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I think one aspect people forget is that if Italy leave the war a large part of AH military can be demilitaries even with a continued front in Greece (not a sure thing), which mean that the agricultural and industrial production can be increased, and some of the hardship of the war decreased. Likely Austrian industry and agricultur will take over some of the German marked with a increased prosperity as result, so even if the CP still lose the war, we will see a much stronger AH at the end of the war.
 
Top