WI No Italo-Turkish war in 1911

There have been already threads on this, but not recently, so I will try to propose again the following POD:

Instead of giving just 24 hrs of ultimatum to the Ottoman Empire, the Kingdom of Italy adopts a more conciliatory stance, giving a ten-days ultimatum on the Libyan question. During this time the OE proposes a "Tunisian" suolution, so basically giving powers of administration and de facto rule over Libya to Italy, in exchange of an indemnity, while retaining formal sovereignity over the area.
Giolitti accepts, maybe because someone shows him more reasonable extimates on the costs of war.

What are the consequences? Can the Balkan Wars and maybe even WW1 as we know it be butterflied away? I doubt it, but maybe it could be slowed down, taking place in 1916 or so.

Italy would be better off, although without the Dodecannese, but not much, because I expect them to screw up relations with the local tribes and end up facing a prolonged guerrilla. What is more interesting is that there should be less militarism, and possibly the Socialist Party might stay united and closer to power together with the Catholics.
Relations with Turkey would be better than in OTL obviously, which might have some impact if/when WW1 starts.

In short, this could be a way to have a more democratic Italy in the first half of the XX century, what do you think of it?
 

Not considering the how and why; a diplomatic solution at the italo-Ottoman crisis generate a huge serie of butterfly

For Italy:

- well, no war mean no money wasted in the conflict and this is a very important thing in a moment of economic problem, so we can have less social tension in the moment.
Even the occupation will be probably much smoother than OTL as the local population was pretty apathic till the turks started fighting back; initially they just retreated from the garrisons losing support from the lybians.

- the socialist will not feel burned for the support given to the goverment in the conflict, so come a new war there will be a much stronger possibility of a goverment of national unity or in any case a more clear and large support by the socialist.

- Cadorna can forget to become Chief of the Army, OTL get the job only because was untouched by the Libyan troubles...and this in my book is always a plus.

- Relations with A-H will be somewhat better due to the avoided problems of OTL war; still with Italy not having fighting a costly war much more problem can start during any Balkan problems, expecially regarding Albania.

In general:

- A somewhat stronger OE, no war, no excessive loss of face and neither looking too weak. This can become handy when (not if) the Balkan war erupt but there is also the great possibility that a delayed BW mean that the conflict will spread to engulf the rest of Europe as many other nationw will feel that this is the right/last moment for wage war against their adversary.
 
All interesting and very reasonable points, Lukedalton.


Nobody else is interested in this POD? I am mostly interested in the possible impact on the Balkan wars.
 
The Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 was really something that turned Italian to the war path in Libya. Butterfly that away or make the Italians feel less slighted about it, and it is unlikely that the Italians will wage war to get something they already effectively controlled economically in any case.
 
The Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 was really something that turned Italian to the war path in Libya. Butterfly that away or make the Italians feel less slighted about it, and it is unlikely that the Italians will wage war to get something they already effectively controlled economically in any case.

I didn't know about that. In what way did the 1908 annexation of Bosnia by A-H relate to the 1911 acquisition of Libya by Italy? I see no obvious causal relationship.
 
All interesting and very reasonable points, Lukedalton.


Nobody else is interested in this POD? I am mostly interested in the possible impact on the Balkan wars.
The Balkan League attacked, because they were already preoccupied. Without the Triopilitaian War, it's unlikely that they would. The Turks wouldn't lose face and the Italians would get most of the same things (aside from the Dodecanese Islands) for little cost. Although, IIRC their poor performance in the war against the Balkan powers and Italy caused them to bring in Germans to help them reform before the Great War. I'm not sure they'd do it otherwise.
 
I read in Defeat in Detail that the cost and expenditure of the Italo-Turkish War weighed heavily on the Ottoman military as it entered the First Balkan War.

With no Italo-Turkish War, the Ottomans will be in better shape when the First Balkan War starts -- and it will start, I am convinced of that.

The thing is, the Ottomans will still lose the First Balkan War. They are outnumbered, their reservists are largely of poor quality, they lack the strength to carry out the offensive fighting that their war plan demands, they don't have control of the sea-lanes that they need to freely ship their reserves.

It just isn't enough to make a decisive difference.

I figure the best course of action (in theory) would've been for the Ottomans to bring as many units of their Western armies as possible east to the Thrace theater. Conduct a delaying action against the Bulgarians and eastern Serbian armies. Inflict enough casualties and maybe they could bog their enemies down well forward of Chatalja.
Then wait for their enemies to start squabbling.

The problem is that they needed much better Intel on their foes' forces and internal fractures, and a different military doctrine, to do this. I also have doubts about whether their lines of communication and transport, not to mention logistical structure, would permit many units to move so far, and to still be combat effective if they did. Finally, effectively abandoning the western area would've been politically impossible.

So I just can't see anything resembling an Ottoman win.

That's from the military perspective. I have no idea how the political and diplomatic butterflies work out.
 
The Balkan League attacked, because they were already preoccupied. Without the Triopilitaian War, it's unlikely that they would. The Turks wouldn't lose face and the Italians would get most of the same things (aside from the Dodecanese Islands) for little cost. Although, IIRC their poor performance in the war against the Balkan powers and Italy caused them to bring in Germans to help them reform before the Great War. I'm not sure they'd do it otherwise.

I haven't seen anyone make a supported claim that Ottoman distraction was an absolute prerequisite for the Balkan League to attack. I'd be willing to consider it carefully if I did, though.

Given the steady degradation of Ottoman power, the centuries of resentment, and the national yearnings of the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians, I cannot imagine that they would've refrained from attacking the OE very much longer under any circumstances.
 
I didn't know about that. In what way did the 1908 annexation of Bosnia by A-H relate to the 1911 acquisition of Libya by Italy? I see no obvious causal relationship.

After Austria had "disrespected" Italy like that, Italian nationalists felt that the Ottoman Empire could not be allowed to do the same.

Italians took slight when Austrians did not consult their de facto allies before the annexation, and didin't offer Italy any compensation in the Balkans afterwards. Instead the Austrians were planning to build a rail line to Thessaloniki, a move that seemed poised to bury the Italian hopes of annexing Albanian areas and expand towards the Adriatic. And since neither Austria or France could not be challenged without evoking a major European war, Italy had to look elsewhere, and had only one viable area where to expand. And in Libya the two “courtesy” Great Powers of Europe were each fatally determined to treat other as a lesser power, since the new Turkish government felt (correctly) that showing weakness towards Italy in Libya would invite the Balkan states to attack.

They sent in a new vali, Ibrahim Pasha, who sought to determinedly resist the slow economic penetration strategy of the Italian Banco di Roma, led by Ernesto Pacelli, the papal aristocrat, and Romolo Tittoni, brother of Tommaso Tittoni, the former Foreign Minister.

This change of Ottoman policy ("Even the vile Turks disrespect us!") fuelled the chauvinist nationalism of ANI (established in December 1910) and led to the press campaigns agitating for war, which provided the main domestic impetus in 1911 for the expedition to Libya.

The nationalist hawkish press agitators argued that since Austria had slighted and humiliated Italy in 1908, Italy should "return the favor" before the scheduled renewal of the Triple Alliance in 1912 and show strength worthy or respect, or Vienna would regard Rome as a declining nation not worth of respect as a Great Power.

The nationalists were also worried that unless something could be done and quickly, the best and brightest of Italian youth would simply emigrate. In the fifteen years prior to 1910, over seven and half million Italians had emigrated overseas. Like the press agitators said: “It is necessary either to conquer colonies, to emigrate, or to become Malthusians. But to become Malthusian is vile, to emigrate is servile, and only the conquest of colonies is worthy of a free and noble people.”
 
I haven't seen anyone make a supported claim that Ottoman distraction was an absolute prerequisite for the Balkan League to attack. I'd be willing to consider it carefully if I did, though.

Given the steady degradation of Ottoman power, the centuries of resentment, and the national yearnings of the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians, I cannot imagine that they would've refrained from attacking the OE very much longer under any circumstances.
These countries had existed independently for several decades by that point, yet they onl declared war in unison after the breakout of the Libyan war. Every source I'veever read mentioned the Ottoman war in libya.
 
These countries had existed independently for several decades by that point, yet they onl declared war in unison after the breakout of the Libyan war. Every source I'veever read mentioned the Ottoman war in libya.

I would suggest that it required a few decades for these countries to establish their administrations and armies on a solid footing before being prepared for such a war. Once they had done so, it was extremely likely to happen, Libya or no.

But sure, it's a matter of judgement and I could very well be wrong.
 
I would suggest that it required a few decades for these countries to establish their administrations and armies on a solid footing before being prepared for such a war. Once they had done so, it was extremely likely to happen, Libya or no.

But sure, it's a matter of judgement and I could very well be wrong.
Yhe overlap suggests otherwise.
 
Yhe overlap suggests otherwise.

Overlap does not prove a causal relationship.

Show me documents indicating that the Balkan League members considered the Libyan conflict to be a necessary precondition for their own war effort, and I'll happily believe it.

It's certainly plausible; after all, other European nations expected the Ottomans to put up a much better fight than actually occurred. So the Balkan League might well have thought that their only chance was to hit the Ottomans while otherwise preoccupied. But 'plausible' doesn't mean 'proven'.

I suspect that their Intel was good enough for them to realize that they held significant advantages regardless of whether the OE was otherwise engaged or not. By this point the League nations had established their civilian administrative and military systems satisfactorily; their forces obviously outnumbered the Ottomans; the OE was clearly growing decrepit. it was essentially inevitable that by this point they'd be looking to expand at Ottoman expense. These greater currents were going to bring about war very soon, IMHO.
 
Overlap does not prove a causal relationship.

Show me documents indicating that the Balkan League members considered the Libyan conflict to be a necessary precondition for their own war effort, and I'll happily believe it.

It's certainly plausible; after all, other European nations expected the Ottomans to put up a much better fight than actually occurred. So the Balkan League might well have thought that their only chance was to hit the Ottomans while otherwise preoccupied. But 'plausible' doesn't mean 'proven'.

I suspect that their Intel was good enough for them to realize that they held significant advantages regardless of whether the OE was otherwise engaged or not. By this point the League nations had established their civilian administrative and military systems satisfactorily; their forces obviously outnumbered the Ottomans; the OE was clearly growing decrepit. it was essentially inevitable that by this point they'd be looking to expand at Ottoman expense. These greater currents were going to bring about war very soon, IMHO.
I could, but I don't care enough. I'm just going by what the history books say.
 
Well, while the averted war with Italy mean a stronger OE, the fact that they have been 'forced' to loan another part of the Empire, even with all the diplomatic fiction possible...so it will not look good in general.

The OTL Balkan war will be probably averted as the perfomace and cost of the war against Italy convinced the other slavic nation that the right moment has come.
Nevertheless a Balkan war is just a question of time not if; too many tension, both local and international.

Going for one of the most used meme about WWI motivation; the German feared that by 1916 they were no more capable of beat Russia and/or 1917 renovation of the Treaty with Hungary can be the lit that will spark a balkan crisis...or the contrary
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if there were no Italian ottoman wars or Balkan wars by the summer of 1914, but that summer there is an assassination and it sets off Austro-Serbian war and WWI. The Balkan and Austrian theater of that war is thereby significantly altered.

It seems to me the ottomans would either be benevolently neutral toward Austria or allied with her. Serbia, smaller and landlocked, likely cannot hold out as long as Serbia did in otl. That has beneficial effects in terms of Austria being able to devote more troops in Galicia and for it to be seen as less weak by the Italians making an Italian DoW somewhat less likely, which would amplify positive knock ons for the central powers.
Like showing a stronger face to Romania.

On the upside for the entente, they can't get themselves stuck in Salonica, because the Ottomans will refuse them a landing and can make their refusal stick. Given Ottoman control of the general region, and the lack of a common Serbo-Greek border in the ATL, the idea of a Sallonica expedition is not even likely to occur to the Allies in the first place. Additionally, with Albania still an Ottoman territory, defeated Serbian and Montenegrin forces cannot retreat through it to meet with Allied ships.
 
What if there were no Italian ottoman wars or Balkan wars by the summer of 1914, but that summer there is an assassination and it sets off Austro-Serbian war and WWI. The Balkan and Austrian theater of that war is thereby significantly altered.

It seems to me the ottomans would either be benevolently neutral toward Austria or allied with her. Serbia, smaller and landlocked, likely cannot hold out as long as Serbia did in otl. That has beneficial effects in terms of Austria being able to devote more troops in Galicia and for it to be seen as less weak by the Italians making an Italian DoW somewhat less likely, which would amplify positive knock ons for the central powers.
Like showing a stronger face to Romania.

On the upside for the entente, they can't get themselves stuck in Salonica, because the Ottomans will refuse them a landing and can make their refusal stick. Given Ottoman control of the general region, and the lack of a common Serbo-Greek border in the ATL, the idea of a Sallonica expedition is not even likely to occur to the Allies in the first place. Additionally, with Albania still an Ottoman territory, defeated Serbian and Montenegrin forces cannot retreat through it to meet with Allied ships.

If the OTL balkans war are butterflyed away and WWI start as OTL, well it's almost assured that the balkans will quickly erupt in violence with the Albanians nationalist, Bulgaria and Greece probably accept offers from the entente to join against the CP and the Ottoman as i doubt that anyone in Paris and london will decide that they will remain neutral for long and in any case they are a too high risk
 
It seems to me the ottomans would either be benevolently neutral toward Austria or allied with her. Serbia, smaller and landlocked, likely cannot hold out as long as Serbia did in otl. That has beneficial effects in terms of Austria being able to devote more troops in Galicia and for it to be seen as less weak by the Italians making an Italian DoW somewhat less likely, which would amplify positive knock ons for the central powers.
Like showing a stronger face to Romania.

Without the Balkan Wars, Serbia and Montenegro would be in much better shape - they'd have around 50,000-70,000 more soldiers (and potentially even more available due to lack of other distractions). The Balkan Wars had also severely depleted their stocks of ammunition, uniforms, field equipment, medical supplies, ...in this scenario Serbia (and Montenegro) would be going in fresh, with fresh stocks of all that.

All in all, Austria-Hungary is still likely to have a string of embarrassing failures in Serbia...in the end, it could break through earlier than in OTL, but it will be hard and still take a pretty long time. Italy's DoW might still happen.

Much depends on what the other Balkan countries are doing. If the Ottoman Empire has allied with the Central Powers, then it's probably facing a threefold invasion by Russia, Greece and Bulgaria, and probably not doing well. Maybe a 'benevolent neutrality' type deal would be more useful to the Ottomans.
 
Last edited:
I'm currently reading a couple of books on Greece before and during First World War, and they have a bit to say on the Balkan states' reaction to the Italo-Turkish War. Basically, the reaction of the Balkan League was surprise that the Ottomans were doing so poorly, followed by a sense of urgency/panic to jump in before the war ended and the Great Powers could come up with some sort of settlement. That's why the arrangement of the Balkan League was so important-individually, the Great Powers could prevent any of the Balkan nations from doing much to change the status quo, but acting together they were enough of a block that they could act independently. So without the Italo-Turkish War, the Balkan Legaue would still attack, but they might wait a little bit longer for a different opportunity.
 
Top