Italy Neutral in WWI

[Vanity 6]

Seems the cabinet and the Parliament were opposed to intervention and the King and popular opinion tipped the balance the other way.

Suppose Italy sat out the war despite obvious internal and external pressures. Would they still have picked up Trentino and Trieste after the war? The alternative would seem to leave the former to Austria and the award latter to the Kingdom of Serbs, et al.

I think without the disruption, cost and loss of the war, Italy could have resisted the lure of Fascism and could have been an earlier opponent to Germany by blocking the Anschluss.

Thoughts?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Here's a good start.

 

[Blackfox5]

Before Italy entered the war, the Austrians offered Italy a great deal in order to keep the country neutral:

1) Give up the city of Trento and most of its surrounding province to Italy
2) Give up Friuli up to the west bank of the Isonzo
3) Grant autonomy to Trieste as a Free Imperial City within A-Ha nd guarantee its "Italian character"
4) Approve the Italians occupying Vlore in Albania, and recognize it as part of Italy's sphere of influence

Italy would have obtained almost everything it would want without bloodshed.

The Italian front was not decisive. It did occupy some of the A-H (and later the German) army, but some A-H troops would need to be maintained there anyway. I don't see the freeing up of some additional A-H troops as materially affecting the outcome of the war.

Assuming A-H collapsed anyway like IOTL, Italy could then have moved into Trieste and even Istria in 1918/1919 and annexed it anyway with little opposition.

It would have been a big prestige boost to the government. Without the example of gross incompetence that lead to so many Italian dead, there would not have been support for someone like Mussolini. Also, as one of the few major economies not involved in the war, Italy would likely have boomed to fulfill Allied (and to a lesser degree Central Powers) demand for military and other supplies.

 

[Ameise]

Before Italy entered the war, the Austrians offered Italy a great deal in order to keep the country neutral:

1) Give up the city of Trento and most of its surrounding province to Italy
2) Give up Friuli up to the west bank of the Isonzo
3) Grant autonomy to Trieste as a Free Imperial City within A-Ha nd guarantee its "Italian character"
4) Approve the Italians occupying Vlore in Albania, and recognize it as part of Italy's sphere of influence

Italy would have obtained almost everything it would want without bloodshed.

The Italian front was not decisive. It did occupy some of the A-H (and later the German) army, but some A-H troops would need to be maintained there anyway. I don't see the freeing up of some additional A-H troops as materially affecting the outcome of the war.

Assuming A-H collapsed anyway like IOTL, Italy could then have moved into Trieste and even Istria in 1918/1919 and annexed it anyway with little opposition.

It would have been a big prestige boost to the government. Without the example of gross incompetence that lead to so many Italian dead, there would not have been support for someone like Mussolini. Also, as one of the few major economies not involved in the war, Italy would likely have boomed to fulfill Allied (and to a lesser degree Central Powers) demand for military and other supplies.

Well, there are 400,000 Central Powers troops dead who can fight on the other fronts in this case, as well as the 1.2 million wounded. Also, Italy provides another neutral trading partner like the Netherlands, which may also end up being decisive.

 

[Delta Force]

Here's a good start.

Also this thread on Italian neutrality in more general terms. I think there was another one regarding Italian neutrality in World War II a few days ago too.

If Italy remains neutral in general, it could conceivably exceed France and the United Kingdom in GDP, especially if it is able to develop Libya.

 

[Falecius]

Before Italy entered the war, the Austrians offered Italy a great deal in order to keep the country neutral:

1) Give up the city of Trento and most of its surrounding province to Italy
2) Give up Friuli up to the west bank of the Isonzo
3) Grant autonomy to Trieste as a Free Imperial City within A-Ha nd guarantee its "Italian character"
4) Approve the Italians occupying Vlore in Albania, and recognize it as part of Italy's sphere of influence

Italy would have obtained almost everything it would want without bloodshed.

The Italian front was not decisive. It did occupy some of the A-H (and later the German) army, but some A-H troops would need to be maintained there anyway. I don't see the freeing up of some additional A-H troops as materially affecting the outcome of the war.

Assuming A-H collapsed anyway like IOTL, Italy could then have moved into Trieste and even Istria in 1918/1919 and annexed it anyway with little opposition.

It would have been a big prestige boost to the government. Without the example of gross incompetence that lead to so many Italian dead, there would not have been support for someone like Mussolini. Also, as one of the few major economies not involved in the war, Italy would likely have boomed to fulfill Allied (and to a lesser degree Central Powers) demand for military and other supplies.

I strongly disagree on both your points.
What Austria was prepared to give (understandably with extreme reluctance) was nowhere near "almost everything would want" by any stretch of imagination, although I agree that what Italy actually wanted was indeed unreasonable on many counts.
However, Italy basically wanted, among other things, Trieste, and that Austria could not give.

It is true that the Italian front was, in itself, indecisive. But it engaged relatively huge numbers. It was mostly bloody, dirty trench warfare. Italy lost over half a million people there (many from sickness and frostbire I'd think, although don't have precise figures handy) and I'd Austria's losses were roughly in a similar order of magnitude. That' hardly irrelevant to the overall war efferto, not mention the reduced strain on logistics, economy, etc.
All in all, I tend to say that a neutral Italy increases the chances of CP victory. I don't know the specifics, but I tend to see a negotiated peace in a WWI context as sadly unlikely. So would a "normal" peace, at least past 1916. I mean that after sometime in (probably) 1916, WWI in Europe became a matter of who collapsed first, a scenario where the victor would go big for victory. IOTL, Russia collapsed first, then the CP did (OK, Germany perhaps did not technically "collapse", but came pretty close). Italy staying out could increase the likelyhood of the Western Entente not being able to shore up the Russian collapse, assuming it happens ITTL as well.

 

[BlondieBC]

I think without the disruption, cost and loss of the war, Italy could have resisted the lure of Fascism and could have been an earlier opponent to Germany by blocking the Anschluss.

Thoughts?

CP win. Italy makes a killing in WW1 in supply various materials to warring powers, and Italy might even get some spoils at the peace treaty. CP win by 1917 at the latest.

Use the search, we have lots of threads on this subject.

 

[jahenders]

I'm not sure it's enough to guarantee a CP win, but it certainly helps.
- Lots of additional A-H troops freed up hastens the fall of Serbia and the collapse of Russia
- Italy benefits from trading with both sides
- CP benefits from having a neutral Italy to trade with
- France also keeps more troops tied down on Italian border
- CP might be able to contest control of the Med somewhat

CP win. Italy makes a killing in WW1 in supply various materials to warring powers, and Italy might even get some spoils at the peace treaty. CP win by 1917 at the latest.

Use the search, we have lots of threads on this subject.

 

[Tallil2long]

Saving the CP a million and a half casualties, thousands of tons of expendables, and providing another entrepôt of unblockaded goods, will count for a fair bit.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Saving the CP a million and a half casualties, thousands of tons of expendables, and providing another entrepôt of unblockaded goods, will count for a fair bit.

It also heads off the Strafexpedition, which means the Brusilov offensive is nowhere near as successful, probably keeping Romania out of the war and Falkenhayn in charge, which in turns prevents US entry into the war because EvF didn't want to restart the USW. Without that and the Hindenburg Program then Germany pretty much wins.

 

[riggerrob]

Who cares about territory?
Access to salt water is far more important. The Austro-Hungarian Empire clung to Trieste, as a nice-free port, to retain access to shipping lanes in the Adriatic, Med and Atlantic Oceans.

Would AH concede enough territory to lose their access to the Adriatic Sea?
OTL AH maintained significant naval assets in the Adriatic, and substantial trade links to the Mediterranean.

 

[tenthring]

Well, there are 400,000 Central Powers troops dead who can fight on the other fronts in this case, as well as the 1.2 million wounded. Also, Italy provides another neutral trading partner like the Netherlands, which may also end up being decisive.

+1.............

 

[lukedalton]

Oh right, here we are in one of the classic scenario (and if you try the search engine you will find various TL and thread about this argument)

What Blackfox5 wrote was what Vienna was ready to give to Italy for her to mantain a neutrality favoring the CP and while it was not even near to all what Italy wanted still was enough to keep her satisfied and just for remain out of the fray.

But it's not all gold what it shine, there are some little problem:

1) the negotiation, very difficult and very hard, with both side fighting for every inch of territory...litteraly. This bought time for the entente to launch her diplomatic offensive and greatly hampered the work of the neutralist.

2)general lack of trust between the two side. Both Rome and Vienna in the past 15 years had too much diplomatic squabble to be capable to sign any serious treaty very easily and trust the other side to keep her word.

3)The 'payment' was after the end of the war and as said above there were little trust between the two side.

4)It's not that being neutral it's all flowers and sunshine, the commerce reduced, both side trying to get concession (many time bullying the neutrals), etc. etc.

5)The new border was favorable to Austria-Hungary in term of defense (basically Conrad said that he wanted to be capable to retake the ceded territory in hours)

Regarding Trieste, well while it was a too important city/port to give away (the autonomous city line on the concession basically mean some cosmetic concession plus an italian university)...but with Italy controlling Albania there is already the possiblity that she will be blocked.

With a little insight Italy keep her neutrality will have permitted to be the only Great Power untouched by the war at the end of the hostilites and this is a great diplomatic card, expecially when all your neighbours are embroiled in the postwar internal problem. Italy will have probably extrated some other concession to both France and A-H (if things are kept on the very reasonable both nations are too weak, tired and full of internal strife to oppose it).

Internal change for Italy? Well, more than a million of death noth happening (not counting the wounded), no crippling debt, no infrastructure destruction on Veneto, no general disillusionement with the Liberal goverement and the rise of fascism and communist (sure there will be still a period of political violence but will remain manageable) and the economic boom due to the war will not last much (but it will be much much better than OTL), the colony of Somalia and Libya will be pacified much earlier.

Unrelated foreign change? Switerzland will have her general situation greatly improved as there is no need to guard her southern border and can commerce through Italy. Abyssinia is in the middle of a civil war in 1916, while none in Rome had plan to invade, the situation can explode beyond everyone control (and Giolitti can use this to keep the interventionist occupied).

War related change? No Italian front, Otranto barrage much more difficult, rescue the Serbian Army much more hard as no italian ships and no possibility to use South Albania, Italy as a leak on the blockade, France capable to keep hire italian seasonal workers, no British loan to Italy and no troops send in Italy after Caporetto (sure only 7 division...but they can become precious in certain circumstance).

 

[Blackfox5]

I could very well be wrong, but I'm not convinced that a neutral Italy means the Central Powers win because the Austria-Hungary army is now freed to be used elsewhere in eastern Europe.

The A-H army was notoriously bad. It lost multiple battles against the Russian Army which wasn't known for being superb. Having lots more of bad troops doesn't make give the Central Powers a war winning advantage.

Furthermore, there is a limit to how much additional damage can be done to Russia. The more the Central Powers advance in Russia, the harder their own logistics are and the greater advantage given to Russia. I have severe doubts that even with more A-H troops that the Central Powers can decisively beat Russia much earlier and drive it out of the war than it did IOTL. The ravages of the war takes time to cause a societal collapse. At the most, things might get sped up by a few months.

Austria-Hungary was close to collapse in 1916 itself and sought peace. Food supply was very bad, and the strains of the war was causing societal collapse. The ethnic tensions were tearing it apart. Not having the Italian front won't make much difference.

A neutral Italy can relieve some of the supply problems of the Central Powers, but Italy is dependent on imports allowed by the Allied navies. They simply aren't going to allow Italy to be used as an entrepot to avoid the blockade. The British knows what Italy's domestic needs are and how much more would be needed to support any Allied orders. Italy won't be allowed to be import key raw materials to do more than that. It's lack of natural resources are going to make it reliant on keeping good terms with the Allies. There are limits to how much neutral Italy can benefit the Central Powers.

I am more likely to believe that the balance of power changes enough that a negotiated peace becomes possible in 1916, but not a Central Powers victory. Perhaps the British and French are more willing to agree to a separate peace with A-H (which may possibly force Germany to agree to a separate peace as well) than IOTL because Austria is a big stronger without the drain of fighting Italy. I doubt the Central Powers are so unstoppable that they can win the war outright in 1916 or 1917 before the Americans get involved.

 

[euromellows]

This is always an interesting scenario which has been explored several times before: all with intriguing possibilities. Lukedalton's excellent timeline is the best I'm aware of.

What I would be intrigued about is a scenario where Italy's military is exemplary when joining the Entente. Of course this does seem a stretch from the debacle of OTL, but it would be interesting to explore a scenario where Italy's entry is decisive and makes the Italian front far more important to the overall war.

 

[sloreck]

I have to agree that Italy being neutral is a big plus to the CP. I would not say it guarantees a CP victory, but things were very close run in 1916/17. The manpower and materiel not spent on the Italian front by A-H and Germany could put them over the top during the critical period when France and the UK were stretched and the French an inch from collapse, and the USA had not yet had much of an effect yet.

Another effect of an neutral Italy is that the Mediterranean Sea becomes somewhat more of a battlefield. Sure the RN and French navy are way more powerful, and the A-H surface fleet is not going to do much more than OTL. However A-H submarines, and some German ones, will have a much more secure base to operate from. Decisive, no but more for the Entente to deal with. A positive for the Entente is that if the U-boats are a real nuisance, Gallipoli might be considered a no-go.

Another factor is that with Italy neutral, the Italian-American community will not be pushing for US involvement on the Entente side. Anything that makes the USA more "neutral" and/or keeps them out of the war longer works for the CP.

 

[LordKalvan]

Before Italy entered the war, the Austrians offered Italy a great deal in order to keep the country neutral:

Germany had to work a lot to convince A-H to offer "something" against Italian neutrality. The problem was that any "offer" would not have meant thst a particular territory would be handed over immediately: the caveat was that all compensations would happen at the end of the war. Considering the Austrian behavior of the past (just referring to the 20th century only there were the good examples of the Bosnia annexation - Austria refused to compensate Italy as foreseen under the Triple Alliance pact - and the war of Libya - Austria was staunchly on the Ottoman side. Incidentally, Conrad's proposal to launch a preventive war against Italy soon after the major earthquake that razed the city of Messina was nominally a state secret but every diplomat in Europe had heard of it), trusting Austria's promissory motes would have been a bit naive.

 

[LordKalvan]

This is always an interesting scenario which has been explored several times before: all with intriguing possibilities. Lukedalton's excellent timeline is the best I'm aware of.

What I would be intrigued about is a scenario where Italy's military is exemplary when joining the Entente. Of course this does seem a stretch from the debacle of OTL, but it would be interesting to explore a scenario where Italy's entry is decisive and makes the Italian front far more important to the overall war.

I do wonder which "debacle" you are talking of: the Italian front remained pretty static for the duration of the war, both on the Alps (where a breakthrough was close to impossible) and on the Isonzo river (where 14 or 15 major battles were fought without other result than increasing the butcher's bill. There were two exceptions only: Caporetto in 1917 and Vittorio Veneto in 1918. The former was certainly a significant CPs victory, but not decisive: WW1 was not a war of movement, and by the time the CPs reached the Piave they were out of steam (I'd like to note that the new defense line on the Piave was always manned by Italian troops only; the Entente sent something like 10 divisions - not a lot for WW1 - but they arrived in Italy only when the new front had already stabilized and played a role of strategic reserve in Verona, 100 km from the front); the latter was a decisive Italian victory and resulted in the collapse of the A-H army.

Cadorna was not a great general by all means (calling him a "hammer" general would be more than he deserves, but I'd say that great generals were pretty scarce in WW1: the bloody war was a slugging match, where defense was routinely prevailing on offense and generals on both sides were throwing away thousands and thousands of men with the abandon of a drunken sailor in a port dive.

Given the constraints of geography, there was not a lot of space for alternative brilliant strategies. The only reasonable ways of putting A-H out of the war sooner should have been searched in the Balkans. There was an Italian proposal discussed during the negotiation of the London pact which foresaw a landing in Istria or Dalmatia. It required however some support (naval, mainly but also troops) from the Entente and neither UK nor France signed on it.