Italy going with Germany and AH in WWI

[ivanotter]

Busy reading 'The White War' by Mark Thompson.

It is about the Italian front and has a rather interesting introduction.

It seems Italy tried to 'sell' its neutrality/participation to the highest bidder.

According to the book, Italy really wanted two things: Trieste and Trentino. It was also beefed up with a claim on South Tyrol.

UK/France were interested in getting Italy into the war to at least draw divisions away from the Western Front; hence promises of territory after war were cheap.

Italy demanded the transfer of Trentino immediately to stay neutral. AH would not entertain this at all. Italy would not accept a promise for after the war. Then that died.

Italy was also miffed by AH/Germany ignoring the Tripart alliance as AH gobbled up Bosnia/herzegovinia - without offering any compensation as the pact stipulated.

Despite the ridicule Italy received from Germany/AH, could it have been possible that Italy opted to go with Germany/AH?

If so, there would not have been an 'Italian' front and AH might have had additional reserves for the Russian campaign?

Maybe Italy would not have been a part of WWI, but could have stayed neutral (unless the public outcry in Italy demanded war - as was the case).

Nobody (UK/France nor Germany/AH) counted on any decisive impact by Italy.

This leads into the good question: did it even matter what Italy did or did not do?

If it did matter, what could have been the consequences?

 

[lukedalton]

Well it did matter, italian neutrality usually mean that 9 out of 10 WWI is a CP victory as the place soaked a lot of Austrian and German resources...(in the 4 years of war the CP suffered 400.000 deaths and 1200000 wounded) the 12th battle of the Isonzo aka the Caporetto Offensive was done due to the fact that the A-H higher up were sure that the Austrian defensive line was not capable to resist another offensive as in the previous it had come very close to break and become a route.

 

[Maponus]

It seems Italy tried to 'sell' its neutrality/participation to the highest bidder.

According to the book, Italy really wanted two things: Trieste and Trentino. It was also beefed up with a claim on South Tyrol.

UK/France were interested in getting Italy into the war to at least draw divisions away from the Western Front; hence promises of territory after war were cheap.

Italy demanded the transfer of Trentino immediately to stay neutral. AH would not entertain this at all. Italy would not accept a promise for after the war. Then that died.

Italy was also miffed by AH/Germany ignoring the Tripart alliance as AH gobbled up Bosnia/herzegovinia - without offering any compensation as the pact stipulated.

Despite the ridicule Italy received from Germany/AH, could it have been possible that Italy opted to go with Germany/AH?

If Austria and Germany's actions remain changed then not without rioting and public disorder followed by a possible leftist revolution as neutralists and interventionists alike are pushed together in opposition to the government instead of apart like they were OTL, no.

 

[Evil Crusader]

It's a bit of a catch-22. There is no trust between Italy and A-H, so both parties are extra cautious, but being extra cautious convinces the other party negotiation is useless; and of course, it's not 1918 so Germany is not able to strongarm A-H into anything of use.
Germany who isn't doing a concerned effort to prepare to war, because it expects to be done by Christmas, at which point it still basically didn't even try to outbid the Entente (in Italy and really everywhere else).

 

[lukedalton]

It's a bit of a catch-22. There is no trust between Italy and A-H, so both parties are extra cautious, but being extra cautious convinces the other party negotiation is useless; and of course, it's not 1918 so Germany is not able to strongarm A-H into anything of use.
Germany who isn't doing a concerned effort to prepare to war, because it expects to be done by Christmas, at which point it still basically didn't even try to outbid the Entente (in Italy and really everywhere else).

Well later Germany tried to convince Wien to give something but not only A-H protested this intrusion on their affair but also attempted to convince the Germans to go along in their scheme to promise Italy something but renege it after the war

 

[GodEmperorG]

Why didnt the Germans just promise Corsica/Nice/Savoy to the Italians as compensation? Seems the more valuable of the Irredentist claims for Italy to want.

 

[PolishMagnet]

Why didnt the Germans just promise Corsica/Nice/Savoy to the Italians as compensation? Seems the more valuable of the Irredentist claims for Italy to want.

AFAIK Italian politicians did not care as much about Nice/Savoy/Corsica, that was a more nationalist poet interest. Savoy was also 100% non-Italian.

Meanwhile, Trieste and Trentino *are* Italian, and Trieste gives you a good port.

 

[GodEmperorG]

AFAIK Italian politicians did not care as much about Nice/Savoy/Corsica, that was a more nationalist poet interest. Savoy was also 100% non-Italian.

Meanwhile, Trieste and Trentino *are* Italian, and Trieste gives you a good port.

I mean Nice is also a good port, Corsica gives a good chunk of the Med to Italy's economic zone, and Savoy is the namesake of the Royal Family. Heck two of those were Italian lands within living memory.

Another juicy morsel would have been the offer of Tunis which had a sizable Italian population at the time and is more valuable that all the rest put together.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I mean Nice is also a good port, Corsica gives a good chunk of the Med to Italy's economic zone, and Savoy is the namesake of the Royal Family. Heck two of those were Italian lands within living memory.

Another juicy morsel would have been the offer of Tunis which had a sizable Italian population at the time and is more valuable that all the rest put together.

Ninja'd on Tunis. I was going to suggest Malta and the British & French Somalilands too.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well it did matter, Italian neutrality usually mean that 9 out of 10 WWI is a CP victory as the place soaked a lot of Austrian and German resources...(in the 4 years of war the CP suffered 400,000 deaths and 1,200,000 wounded) the 12th battle of the Isonzo aka the Caporetto Offensive was done due to the fact that the A-H higher up were sure that the Austrian defensive line was not capable to resist another offensive as in the previous it had come very close to break and become a route.

Is it also true that the French Army had several hundred thousand troops deployed along the Italian frontier until Italy joined the Entente?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well it did matter, Italian neutrality usually mean that 9 out of 10 WWI is a CP victory as the place soaked a lot of Austrian and German resources...(in the 4 years of war the CP suffered 400,000 deaths and 1,200,000 wounded) the 12th battle of the Isonzo aka the Caporetto Offensive was done due to the fact that the A-H higher up were sure that the Austrian defensive line was not capable to resist another offensive as in the previous it had come very close to break and become a route.

Plus Italy as a member of the Central Powers instead of the Entente would change the naval war in the Mediterranean a lot.

 

[naraic]

Is it also true that the French Army had several hundred thousand troops deployed along the Italian frontier until Italy joined the Entente?

I believe it is but also that it didn't matter. I'm not sure how many troops on the border were combat deployable. Very few stayed there long.

The French used the Italian border as a training ground for troops being called up.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Why didnt the Germans just promise Corsica/Nice/Savoy to the Italians as compensation? Seems the more valuable of the Irredentist claims for Italy to want.

My impression is that it'd be a huge commitment on the behalf of a questionable ally and quite possibly make negotiations with Britain harder.
That said, from a prestige standpoint taking from the old enemy, Austria, beats taking from France; and achieving the OTL 1919 borders is extremely sound from a security standpoint, while Savoy and to a degree Nice would be very exposed.

 

[Grey Wolf]

My understanding from reading Albertini was that Austria offered territorial concessions in Gorizia, but these were not enough

Italy always had a rather inflated view of its own importance- in the Austro-Prussian War they LOST to Austria, but won the peace due to Prussia. They were defeated by the Abyssinians at Adowa. They lost out on a treaty port at Ningpo because the Chinese felt strong enough to say no. They defeated the Ottomans to take Libya but it was hardly the walk in the park they liked to project afterwards (the black hole of Tripoli etc)

Italian nationalism was not so much irredentism as a desire to annex territory with Italian majorities (Trentino, Trieste, Dalmatia etc). This is why Nice and Corsica seemed less attractive as prizes than taking provinces that had Italian majorities.

 

[DougM]

Isnt thier a joke attributed to Churchill about Italy? Someone said Italy (often attributed to the German ambassador) would be on Germany’s side in WW2. He supposadly replied. “That is only fair, we had them last time” or some such.

And yes Italy being on Germanys side would not be good but it would not be a sure way to lose. More then a few Wallie assests were used to kerp Italy in that war. Still overall it would be a bad thing assuming they attacked the south of France.

 

[Riain]

Someone posted an article here that the Moltke plan, in particular the transfer of the 6th Army from its mobilisation positions on the Franco German border to the right wing was dependent on the deployment of an Italian army in their positions no later than M+20. There were trains allocated to transport this army and this at least partly explained Moltkes actions during the offensive.

If Italy did join the CP in the early days this army would have been transported to the Franco German border, the 6th army would been tranferred to the right wing before the Marne and would likely let Germany win the race to the sea and therefore the war.

 

[Garrison]

Isnt thier a joke attributed to Churchill about Italy? Someone said Italy (often attributed to the German ambassador) would be on Germany’s side in WW2. He supposadly replied. “That is only fair, we had them last time” or some such.

And yes Italy being on Germanys side would not be good but it would not be a sure way to lose. More then a few Wallie assests were used to kerp Italy in that war. Still overall it would be a bad thing assuming they attacked the south of France.

I think it would undermine the endless scheming of the 'easterners' and mean more men and equipment for the western front, which is where the war will be won or lost. And honestly the French probably wouldn't need that much manpower to hold down the Italians, just look at the events of 1940 when the French were arguably in a far worse position.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

I think it would undermine the endless scheming of the 'easterners' and mean more men and equipment for the western front, which is where the war will be won or lost. And honestly the French probably wouldn't need that much manpower to hold down the Italians, just look at the events of 1940 when the French were arguably in a far worse position.

As has already been observed, it is the naval side of the war where drastic changes are made. All three Triple Alliance partners' navies had representatives draft up a plan that would see the Austro-Hungarian fleet based out of Augusta in Sicily. With a greater chance of intercepting the French troopships from North Africa, and more chance of outgunning any escorts, Goeben & Breslau may not make their fateful run to Constantinople. Also interesting if the Ottoman Empire would regard seeing their recent wartime foe as one of the Central Powers as another reason not to get involved - or maybe ask for the Dodecanese back!

 

[Grey Wolf]

As has already been observed, it is the naval side of the war where drastic changes are made. All three Triple Alliance partners' navies had representatives draft up a plan that would see the Austro-Hungarian fleet based out of Augusta in Sicily. With a greater chance of intercepting the French troopships from North Africa, and more chance of outgunning any escorts, Goeben & Breslau may not make their fateful run to Constantinople. Also interesting if the Ottoman Empire would regard seeing their recent wartime foe as one of the Central Powers as another reason not to get involved - or maybe ask for the Dodecanese back!

They almost certainly won't make that journey. With allied ports in Italy, they don't even need to go beyond Sicily. The reason they headed for Constantinople is that heading into the Adriatic did not seem a safe bet

 

[Evil Crusader]

My understanding from reading Albertini was that Austria offered territorial concessions in Gorizia, but these were not enough

Italy always had a rather inflated view of its own importance- in the Austro-Prussian War they LOST to Austria, but won the peace due to Prussia. They were defeated by the Abyssinians at Adowa. They lost out on a treaty port at Ningpo because the Chinese felt strong enough to say no. They defeated the Ottomans to take Libya but it was hardly the walk in the park they liked to project afterwards (the black hole of Tripoli etc)

Italian nationalism was not so much irredentism as a desire to annex territory with Italian majorities (Trentino, Trieste, Dalmatia etc). This is why Nice and Corsica seemed less attractive as prizes than taking provinces that had Italian majorities.

While I agree on Italy's constant inability to properly gauge its importance, the offer of a few extra acres of hardly defendable land, and an easily threatened city no Italian government could afford to leave unguarded, is a very thinly veiled insult.
As for demography, Italians only were a majority in Trentino and Trieste; Nice and Corsica had better pluralities than Sudtirol and Istria. It really boils down to hate of Austria and military concerns.