WWI: Serbian army flees to Italy

From the 1918 timeline on Changing the Times:

(1918) ... With the collapse of the French forces Germany is free to focus on aiding the Austro-Hungarian push into Italy, which had only recently entered the war on the Allied side. Romania and Serbia were fully overrun by Austro-Hungarian forces and were inducted into the empire as full provinces. The Serbian Army retreats into Italy for safety.

...

1919 - Against better judgment and in the face of renewed warfare by the Germans accompanied by worse set peace terms the French government signs the Treaty of Mainz. Similar but less harsh terms are forced upon the Italians at a conference in Vienna; No foreign troops, equal trade, loss of the province of Veneto to Austria, and the limitation of arms and forces. However Italy grants all Serbian forces within her borders citizenship prior to the signing of the treaty allowing them to stay without violation. ...


...

(1920s/30s)
Fascist governments are established first in Italy as the Serbian army in Italy supports the Fascists under Mussolini as their best chance at liberating Serbia.

The idea of an army fleeing to another nation and settling there in the postwar is kind of novel- I haven't heard of anything like that in history, unless you count the Nationalists fleeing to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Civil War. Could something like this have happened in World War I? Logistically and diplomatically, how would it work out? You'd get a huge amount of foreign soldiers basically becoming refugees in their wartime ally's country. Not to mention all of their weaponry- I'm amused that at the bottom of the page where they list the international alliances "Serbian Army in Italy" is large enough to be considered a full force. Are there any similar examples in history of something like this happening?

As an aside, how plausible do you think this timeline is, anyways?
 
It depends on the size of the remaining army, but the basic idea might be more plausible in other scenarios. (e.g- before Italy was unified, Sardinia-Piedmont accepts the Mantuan army if Austria annexes them)
 
Are there any similar examples in history of something like this happening?
Well.... in Albania, white Russian emigres helped Zogu become president. But in this TL all of this is happening on a much larger scale so its hard to say for sure if it is plausible. And ofcourse Italy is not Albania in the 20s, a lot more internal anarchy would be needed for this to happen.
 
White Russians? Cool.

Also, is this even feasible?

A renewed German Spring Offensive breaks through British and French lines in Northern France utilizing Sturmstruppen, small groups of men armed with grenades and flamethrowers, etc. to infiltrate enemy lines and break through their weak points. The offensive is sufficient to push the Anglo-French forces behind the Seine River...

If it was, I would have thought that WWI would have been a whole different ballgame.
 
White Russians? Cool.

Also, is this even feasible?

If it was, I would have thought that WWI would have been a whole different ballgame.
Stormtroopers worked well enough at breaking British and French trenchlines in OTL, but the Germans ran out of trained stormtroopers before they could achieve a decisive victory. If the Allies are weaker, the Germans managing to gain a decisive victory enters the realm of possibility.

Whether the US staying neutral in WWI (as the timeline you cited indicates) would have been enough to allow Germany to get a decisive victory is a rather hotly debated topic on this board, but I would say it's close enough to count as being plausible.
 
Reminds me of a certain Emperor granting Roman citizenship to the Goths crossing the frontier.

Didn’t THAT turn out swimmingly?
:D

main problem of Valens-Theodosius is that they did NOT grant Roman citizenship to the Goths crossing the frontier.
Goths did not become Roman citizens (apart from a few chiefs, for which the citizenship was something like an additional title), thus were not absorbed in the empire, but retained their own customs => retained a "foreign" identity.

of course there are quite big barriers in this case too: alphabet (cyrillic/latin), religion (ortodox/catholic), history
 
main problem of Valens-Theodosius is that they did NOT grant Roman citizenship to the Goths crossing the frontier.
Goths did not become Roman citizens (apart from a few chiefs, for which the citizenship was something like an additional title), thus were not absorbed in the empire, but retained their own customs => retained a "foreign" identity.

of course there are quite big barriers in this case too: alphabet (cyrillic/latin), religion (ortodox/catholic), history

mailinutile2/Cook

Actually I think the key the religious problem was that the bulk of the Goths with a Christian identity were Arians. Not sure there was that much of a Catholic/Orthodox split at the time but Arianism was already denounced by the Roman churches I believe.

Probably more seriously was the appalling way the Romans treated the Goths, which virtually forced them into rebellion. Might have been a lot different if they have not tried to bled them white.

Steve
 
Whether the US staying neutral in WWI (as the timeline you cited indicates) would have been enough to allow Germany to get a decisive victory is a rather hotly debated topic on this board, but I would say it's close enough to count as being plausible.


Like most such questions, it's a matter of "how and why".

Just saying that the US stayed neutral doesn't really tell us enough. We need to know why they stayed neutral and just how neutral they stayed. The most likely cause would be for Germany not to adopt unrestricted sub warfare, but given her difficult circumstances in Dec 1916, that in turn would require explanation. About the best idea is probably Churchill's from "The World Crisis" ie have the Russian Revolution come a few months earlier, say October or November instead of March. So when the German bigwigs get together at Pless (OTL Dec 8, but maybe earlier now) the big debate is not about USW, but about whether to help Lenin and Co get home. Most likely they do, and USW is left on hold - after all, they still don't have the 200 u-boats which were reckoned to be the desirable number.

That meets the why, taking us on to the how. If it is assumed that the Allies somehow manage to go on importing from the US on the same scale as before (or else get the imports from some other source), then on paper at least it is possible for them to win even without the AEF. But that's a big if. British credit in America was in a bad way by the end of 1916, and she was already having to cut back on purchases in the US, while the government's advisers were warning it that for a lot of essentials there was effectively no substitute for America as a supplier. Getting round that probably requires the US (meaning effectively President Wilson) to become a lot more amenable to granting unsecured loans.

But would he? In Jan 1917, thanks to British "blacklists" and other blockade measures, Anglo-US relations were absolutely awful. Congress had already empowered Wilson to take retaliatory measures against countries which discriminated against American firms (everyone knew which country they meant) while Wilson had refrained from protesting about the sinkings of the armed merchantmen Marina and Arabia, implicitly acquiescing in the German position that armed ships, at least, were fair game. Nor, of course, had his talk of brokering a "peace without victory" done anything for his image across the Pond. That just wasn't what people wanted to hear, and many responded with a torrent of abuse. Wilson, in short, owed Britain no favours whatsoever, and was probably in no mood to grant any.

Such was the position whan Count Bernstorff got Britain off the hook by delivering a little note to announce the resumption of USW. Take that away, and afaics things just go from bad to worse. If Britain herself is being "blockaded" by her financial difficulties, the last thing she can do is relax her own blockade against the CPs. On the contrary, she is likely to try and tighten it - a sure guarantee of more and worse clashes with the United States.

While a shooting war - effectively bringing America in on the German side - is surely ASB, a trade war is not. If Wilson is provoked into holding up essential supplies (eg by deciding that America must keep her oil at home for the needs of an expanding Navy) the Allies could be in serious trouble to say the least - quite possibly enough to tip the scales in 1918, assuming that economic troubles haven't forced them to seek peace earlier.
 
The timeline in the OP had the U.S. being neutral because they were involved in Mexico due to escalation following Pancho Villa's raids. Also Anglo-American relations were bad thanks to an unexplained American aided-Quebecois secession.
 
Mikestone8

I presume by "against countries which discriminated against American firms" you mean applying a blockade of war materials? Which was applied by the allies against all sources of import into the central powers.

Also by this time the US economy is also highly dependent on trade with the allies. If they stop buying a lot of Americans become unemployed. If their defeated, especially heavily, then a lot of loans from the US won't be repaid because the Germans won't allow it. Also they will face a large and very powerful Germany, both militarily and economically and while it doesn't have trade barriers as high as the US their a lot higher than a number of other powers.

Not to mention while some businessmen were unhappy at being able to sell to Germany a lot more people were worried about the German blockade which involved sinking ships and killing people, including Americans occasionally. [I know your talking about the unrestricted warfare campaign not being resumed but resumed is the relevant word. The Germans had had two previous goes which had caused a lot of civilian deaths and there was always the danger they would do it again, as they did OTL.

Steve

Like most such questions, it's a matter of "how and why".

Just saying that the US stayed neutral doesn't really tell us enough. We need to know why they stayed neutral and just how neutral they stayed. The most likely cause would be for Germany not to adopt unrestricted sub warfare, but given her difficult circumstances in Dec 1916, that in turn would require explanation. About the best idea is probably Churchill's from "The World Crisis" ie have the Russian Revolution come a few months earlier, say October or November instead of March. So when the German bigwigs get together at Pless (OTL Dec 8, but maybe earlier now) the big debate is not about USW, but about whether to help Lenin and Co get home. Most likely they do, and USW is left on hold - after all, they still don't have the 200 u-boats which were reckoned to be the desirable number.

That meets the why, taking us on to the how. If it is assumed that the Allies somehow manage to go on importing from the US on the same scale as before (or else get the imports from some other source), then on paper at least it is possible for them to win even without the AEF. But that's a big if. British credit in America was in a bad way by the end of 1916, and she was already having to cut back on purchases in the US, while the government's advisers were warning it that for a lot of essentials there was effectively no substitute for America as a supplier. Getting round that probably requires the US (meaning effectively President Wilson) to become a lot more amenable to granting unsecured loans.

But would he? In Jan 1917, thanks to British "blacklists" and other blockade measures, Anglo-US relations were absolutely awful. Congress had already empowered Wilson to take retaliatory measures against countries which discriminated against American firms (everyone knew which country they meant) while Wilson had refrained from protesting about the sinkings of the armed merchantmen Marina and Arabia, implicitly acquiescing in the German position that armed ships, at least, were fair game. Nor, of course, had his talk of brokering a "peace without victory" done anything for his image across the Pond. That just wasn't what people wanted to hear, and many responded with a torrent of abuse. Wilson, in short, owed Britain no favours whatsoever, and was probably in no mood to grant any.

Such was the position whan Count Bernstorff got Britain off the hook by delivering a little note to announce the resumption of USW. Take that away, and afaics things just go from bad to worse. If Britain herself is being "blockaded" by her financial difficulties, the last thing she can do is relax her own blockade against the CPs. On the contrary, she is likely to try and tighten it - a sure guarantee of more and worse clashes with the United States.

While a shooting war - effectively bringing America in on the German side - is surely ASB, a trade war is not. If Wilson is provoked into holding up essential supplies (eg by deciding that America must keep her oil at home for the needs of an expanding Navy) the Allies could be in serious trouble to say the least - quite possibly enough to tip the scales in 1918, assuming that economic troubles haven't forced them to seek peace earlier.
 
Mikestone8

If their defeated, especially heavily, then a lot of loans from the US won't be repaid because the Germans won't allow it.

Prior to May 1917, all the loans had been secured on British property or securities in the US, which would have been out of Germany's reach even if she won. There were no unsecured ones until after the US entered the war. So lenders would not have lost their money.

they will face a large and very powerful Germany, both militarily and economically and while it doesn't have trade barriers as high as the US their a lot higher than a number of other powers.

In the case of a decisive German victory yes. But in early 1917 Wilson had no reason to anticipate that. It didn't become an obvious danger until after the second Russian revolution, which is probably still months away. So Wilson can get tough with the Allies if he chooses, without any reason to expect imminent danger as a result. When it does happen Wilson may well change his attitude, but by then of course it could be too late.

Not to mention while some businessmen were unhappy at being able to sell to Germany a lot more people were worried about the German blockade which involved sinking ships and killing people, including Americans occasionally. [I know your talking about the unrestricted warfare campaign not being resumed but resumed is the relevant word. The Germans had had two previous goes which had caused a lot of civilian deaths and there was always the danger they would do it again, as they did OTL. Steve

In theory no doubt, but in late 1916 the issue was on the back burner. Quarrels with Britain over blacklists etc had gone a long way to push it off the front page, until the resumption of USW brought it abruptly back.
 
Top