You would need much earlier POD getting Germany as ally of UK and Russia. And this probably would mean that France is on other side. Eeasier is get neutral OE or Bulgaria. But that is not original question.
How would a defeated CP Italy be treated?
- Thread starter Snowstalker
- Start date
You would need much earlier POD getting Germany as ally of UK and Russia. And this probably would mean that France is on other side. Eeasier is get neutral OE or Bulgaria. But that is not original question.
German-American identity was throttled by WW1. The Italians might turn the tide, or not, or be as throttled as the Germans.
The focus here is on military matters. I've seen only one reference to anything economic, specifically German coal to italy. I'd want to see some in depth numbers for where Italys food was originating. Germany suffered from a lack of fertilizer imports, were there any critical imports for Italian agriculture of industry? Not examining the effects of the British blockade and loss of access to the Anglo/American banking system needs to be examined.
This seems to be a better shot than Italy in the CP. As in 1939/1940 it complicates the Brit efforts at blockade.
Modern Imperialism
Banned
Italy joining the central powers does tip it in their favor. Britain navy is an issue but the British had volunteer and professional army until later in the war. They are spread thin the more enemies that join. Italy and Germany might not hold up against Brits in navy power or straight up fight but Italy has a lot of coast to blockade and has defendable coastline especially for the tactics and technology the British would use. Germany was easier to blockade due to geography. Germany benefits from Italy being in just off the fact of being able to import more food from the south.
Without Italy, Austria can focus on knocking out Balkan countries and on defending against Russia until Germany can help push them back and make a counter offensive. Russia could face the full force of the Austrian military if things go well and fast enough in the Balkans. Italy would struggle at sea but could maybe grind down British and French navy a good bit especially when they come close to shores or rough sea areas like the strait between Sicily and mainland Italy or it’s Eastern coastlines. Italy might not be at high risk of losing large numbers of men or land but it’s navy and economy is where them fighting allies with hurt them the most but due to central powers being bigger bloc then otl and war likely ending faster will make this less of issue especially if Italy waited until 1915 to join.
Germany will be close to Paris in 1915. British and French are all focused on the Western front in northern France. Italy uses 1914 to mobilize and access the situation and options before deciding allies look weak and they could get a lot out of this. Italy could rush into southern France and French North Africa along the coast. With Germans near Paris that would likely screw France. Going for British positions would be stupid and suicide mission. The Italian navy trying to take and invade easily defendable Malta against British navy would not go well. The Italians and Ottomans also advancing into Egypt together from both sides will cause major issues for the Brits and take men away from the western front. If the actual empire is at risk Britain could very well say screw France and mainland Europe to protect its own holdings.
France and Russia will most likely lose and fate be in the hands of the Central Powers and lesser extent Britain who white peace out or carve up the Ottomans and join in on some of the spoils out of spite and to give off the image of this not being a complete waste of life and resources. Italy joining could also make the US more central power leaning. Many Italian Americans will still favor them. Besides Britain the US doesn’t have strong economic or cultural ties with the rest of the allies especially in comparison to this pod Central Powers. Italian, Germans, Jews, Irish, and many others will lean towards the central powers in the US. The US might actually have more navy conflict with allies in this pod because it is harder to isolate a place like Italy from trade with the US then it is Germany.
The Brits and France(honestly the more likely of the two to do this) might try to prevent US trade with Italy which will piss off a lot of Americans especially Italian Americans who are becoming more influential and often travel between both countries or have family there. America will come to the aid of its capitalist and private enterprises. Some Italian Americans will be volunteering to fight there and investing. Some aren’t even patriotic or even loyal to Italy anymore they just see money and opportunities in investing in this war. Their family ties making it much easier to set up shop there. More quickly follow that example. Britain or French start seizing ships with Americans people, resources, and money on them in the Mediterranean. Some of which are actual American own vessels. US gets mad and demands their citizens be released and valuables be returned. Britain probably tries to work with them a bit but France might very well tell them to screw off which American public would not take well. The US will claim they are their citizens and wealth while allies especially France state they are enemy collaborators and supporting them. Which they are but Americans and government don’t see it that way. Immigrant populations did have a great impact on public view of this war.
Without Italy, Austria can focus on knocking out Balkan countries and on defending against Russia until Germany can help push them back and make a counter offensive. Russia could face the full force of the Austrian military if things go well and fast enough in the Balkans. Italy would struggle at sea but could maybe grind down British and French navy a good bit especially when they come close to shores or rough sea areas like the strait between Sicily and mainland Italy or it’s Eastern coastlines. Italy might not be at high risk of losing large numbers of men or land but it’s navy and economy is where them fighting allies with hurt them the most but due to central powers being bigger bloc then otl and war likely ending faster will make this less of issue especially if Italy waited until 1915 to join.
Germany will be close to Paris in 1915. British and French are all focused on the Western front in northern France. Italy uses 1914 to mobilize and access the situation and options before deciding allies look weak and they could get a lot out of this. Italy could rush into southern France and French North Africa along the coast. With Germans near Paris that would likely screw France. Going for British positions would be stupid and suicide mission. The Italian navy trying to take and invade easily defendable Malta against British navy would not go well. The Italians and Ottomans also advancing into Egypt together from both sides will cause major issues for the Brits and take men away from the western front. If the actual empire is at risk Britain could very well say screw France and mainland Europe to protect its own holdings.
France and Russia will most likely lose and fate be in the hands of the Central Powers and lesser extent Britain who white peace out or carve up the Ottomans and join in on some of the spoils out of spite and to give off the image of this not being a complete waste of life and resources. Italy joining could also make the US more central power leaning. Many Italian Americans will still favor them. Besides Britain the US doesn’t have strong economic or cultural ties with the rest of the allies especially in comparison to this pod Central Powers. Italian, Germans, Jews, Irish, and many others will lean towards the central powers in the US. The US might actually have more navy conflict with allies in this pod because it is harder to isolate a place like Italy from trade with the US then it is Germany.
The Brits and France(honestly the more likely of the two to do this) might try to prevent US trade with Italy which will piss off a lot of Americans especially Italian Americans who are becoming more influential and often travel between both countries or have family there. America will come to the aid of its capitalist and private enterprises. Some Italian Americans will be volunteering to fight there and investing. Some aren’t even patriotic or even loyal to Italy anymore they just see money and opportunities in investing in this war. Their family ties making it much easier to set up shop there. More quickly follow that example. Britain or French start seizing ships with Americans people, resources, and money on them in the Mediterranean. Some of which are actual American own vessels. US gets mad and demands their citizens be released and valuables be returned. Britain probably tries to work with them a bit but France might very well tell them to screw off which American public would not take well. The US will claim they are their citizens and wealth while allies especially France state they are enemy collaborators and supporting them. Which they are but Americans and government don’t see it that way. Immigrant populations did have a great impact on public view of this war.
They must still be fought. That requires taking troops from the German front, troops that quite frankly, neither England nor France can really spare. The Alternative is losing the war by default and allowing the Italians to literally just walk into Paris from the south. Not to mention that Austria is in a VASTLY Better position here...
I'd think that England at least would be looking at an Occupied France and probably deciding that it really doesn't need more trouble at this moment, that it's probably going to be able to get fair terms, and then willfully and knowingly completely fuck Russia and France in the peace treaty in exchange for nonexistent terms against England and probably Belgium.
I really don't think defending the Alps requires a lot of effort on France's part - if you thought the White War was bad, you didn't see the bad part of the Alps. On the other hand, France lacked the tactics needed to break through such a front themselves - as did the Austrians, mind you (Caporetto was an exquisitely German child), so that part of the frontline is probably going to be static for the entire war. Africa is a straight loss for Italy, of course - try as they might, I can't see them resupply and defend their beleaguered and surrounded colonies (though both the Royal Navy and the Marine Nationale are going to have a tougher time of controlling the Mediterranean, of course).
The big win is for Austria, who now can move a million or so men to the Eastern Front. Of course, if Italy is in the CP it means that Germany bent A-H's arm to get them to cede at least Trento, and probably something about Trieste (Italian, but with full naval rights for Austria? Maybe Italy has to build up Pola or Fiume before getting full control?), so it's not a total win; but it still is something.
Also, the devil is in the detail: Hotzendorf loathed the Italians, to the point of suggesting a backstab during one of the worst humanitarian crises in the history of the country. If Austria comes to term with their ally, and maybe even gives some concessions... might we see one of the worst generals of WW1 walk out and pave the road for marginally better leadership?
Italian neutrality by itself frees up millions of Austrian soldiers for the russian front.
Consider that the Brusilov offensive only did as well as it did because the Austrians had stripped the front dry for the war in the Tyrol. Now imagine that France has to pull off millions of men from the Somme to fight the Itlaians in the Alps in addition to that.
War's over by 1916 at the latest.
Well, certainly there was huge public support for neutrality in Italian public opinion. The pro-Entente interventionists eventually won the day, especially because the Court inclined to their view, and they were a significant minority across the political spectrum. Public appetite for intervention on the CP side was very low, and relationships with Austria, despite the (very theoretical, on both sides) alliance fairly bad.
In theory, Italy had territorial claims on French territory that could be painted as "Italian" with about the same degree of plausibility of many the Austrian-held Italy desired. France also had colonies that Italy more or less wanted (Tunisia, Djibouti, the northernmost parts of modern Chad) though only Tunisia raised any significant passion (due to the large number of Italian nationals there). But even if, say, Corsica was about as ethnically "Italian" as Trento, and indeed more so in purely linguistic and historical terms, most people in Italy were only mildly interested, if at all, in regarding it as Italia Irredenta. While Trento and Trieste, and also places not very much ethnically Italian at all such as large parts of Trieste's hinterland or most of Dalmatia, were publicly considered to be freed from the boot of the Austrian oppressor.
So, while it is not impossible for Italy to opt for intervention on the CP side in 1914 (but that probably requires Austria actually treating Italy as an ally, as opposed to effectively writing them off as a potential enemy from the start) barring an earlier such a war would be unpopular and Italy would likely prefer to find a loophole to sit it out (which they did historically, only to enter the slaughterhouse later on the other side). So yes, a neutral Italy is significantly more likely than a CP Italy, and it still helps the CP quite a lot.
I am fairly sure Austria is not giving up Trieste. Period. Trieste is the port of Vienna, it is an existential need for the Habsburg Monarchy at that point, a detail the Italian counterparts always failed to fully appreciate.
Trento is a possibility, and some largely Italian area near Trieste, probably up to the Timavo river.
Even these would be only be given extremely grudgingly and Austria would try her utmost to avoid that (they hated even having to consider the notion, even if it was quite clearly implied in the Triple Alliance treaty itself).
1) Italy in 1914-15 is barely holding a few occupied cities on the Libyan coast. There are really in no position to move into Egypt.
2) As I noted, intervention on the CP side would be very unpopular in Italy, and Austria was very unlikely to do willingly very much to sweeten the deal. Which means that such a scenario has a very narrow window, in the immediate outbreak of hostilities in August, September at most. Perhaps with a different unfolding of the July Crisis where the Austrians, or more likely the Germans, seek to involve the Italians more and the Italian decision-makers feel duty-bound to honour the Triple Alliance anyway somehow.
England has the Navy needed to bite any attempts at direct invasion, so it's going to be quite hard to actually enforce terms on her. Plus she owns everyone else's oversea colonies if she has half a brain... and can offer them back at the low low price of peace treaty terms favorable to her. If she's smart, she'll get out before submarine warfare can seriously harm her, throwing whoever else she needs to under the bus, and arm for round two.
Well, reguardless of how potent their army actually is, France will have to shift something south to deal with it and that's something that won't be fighting the Germans. Additionally, by not having Italy as an enemy Austria-Hungary has a third of its army free to assist on the other fronts. Additionally, the combined Austro-Hungarian, Italian, and Ottoman navies make the Mediterranean a rather dicey theatre.
It's not impossible for the Entente to somehow pull out a win, but it absolutely shifts the balance in favour of the CP.
Modern Imperialism
Banned
It really has nothing to do with how effective Italy is. If Germany does what it did in otl the distraction of Italy by itself is enough to help them get a victory. More troops south fighting the Italians at home and in Africa is less troops defending Paris from the Germans. Same goes for Britain. Italy is a lot of coast to cover which only makes blockade over Germany and its allies less bad. The Brits also would have to move troops to Egypt to defend against Italy. Even if Italy can’t beat Brits in a straight up fight they still need to move troops there to defend that border.
Russia goes out like otl. Balkans are taken out due to Austria being able to focus more on them especially after Russia out. Britain could still win in Arab lands but I think Italy they keep Italy to its colonies at best. The British have a large navy. Their military didn’t start doing more mass conscription until later in the war. Multiple front War is bad for Britain especially early on. They would have to mostly rely on local support which isn’t always a sure thing when your empire starts looking vulnerable. I doubt France could advance on Italy anywhere with Germany near its capital. At best they could hold the lines.
By 1917, I see Germany capturing Paris after they knock out Russia. Their allies are helping them occupy lands in Eastern Europe while also providing more aid Western front now. Austria has no one to fight but maybe partisans at that point. Italy could be bogged down in southern France and at a stalemate in the colonies too but with Germany doing the more heavy work Paris likely falls with British and French forces more spread out and Germany focused solely on one front now. That probably ends the war. Britain might still get something out of this and Ottomans still fall apart. They can at least prevent Germany from building that railroad and seize Congo to build the cape to Cairo railroad. Britain could still kind of win but I don’t think France or Russia will in this situation
Yeah I agree, Italy being CP would be pretty decisive. That said, re-rolling every dice from a PoD of Italy honouring the alliance still leaves a fair amount of wiggle room, enough for maybe a 5-10% chance of the Entente pulling through. If the Ottomans decide they'd rather remain neutral than ally with Italy Britain has a lot of manpower freed up relative to OTL. Also, Britain ended up sending troops to Libya and Somalia iOTL as well, so having to fight the Italian colonies doesn't change the balance sheet too much. The biggest challenges are the Italian fleet, the second western front, and the freed up Austrians.
Last edited:
Consider that Italian forces in Somalia at that point were ludicrously small and the place is exposed to British holdings on every side. That theatre in particular is so lopsided that it's not even funny.
Libya was, by 1915, in the situation where local forces seemed close to expelling the Italians on they own, with some paltry covert Ottoman support. The British need just to make a deal with the rebel leadership and use Malta to intercept Italian reinforcement there, though if the Ottomans are CP as well that may create some very strange diplomacy: Italy migh cut a deal with the Libyans instead, which would create a potential threat to Egypt... but it is the same threat it faced IOTL, as the Libyans were loosely CP-aligned and coordinated with the Ottomans (and, theoretically, Darfur) a joint invasion of Egypt that was repulsed easily. Even with the Italians on side, they would not add much to that doomed plan, simply because they paltry and scattered forces in Libya are cut off.
Big deal would be if Italy is able to seize Malta early upon entering the war, but I highly doubt this is possible or can even be attemped.
So, the only colonial theatre where CP Italy is even meaningful would be Eritrea, where local forces under Italian command and decent defensive terrain might make the British having to redirect some units from elsewhere (the place is also cut off, so the final outcome is beyond question: Italy loses it, probably in months).
Where Italians really matter is in European theatres, particularly regarding Austria's manpower thus freed, and French troops conversely tied down into a likely static Alpine front.
Also, with Italy onside the Ottoman position looks more secure. It is not guaranteed that the Arabs rebel, and if Gallipoli does not happen, the OE has a lot more troops to deploy in the Arab provinces.
I agree that Entente victory is still not impossible, especially if the war lasts long enough for the US to enter and change the strategic picture again, but that in itself is unlikely.