Italy stays with the Central Powers: Entente Victory Still Happens?

[Ahab]

Churchill stole their two battleships, so it's not happening. Also they later promised Russia the Straits in writing.
The High Cost of Two Battleships: Churchill, Turkey and a Decision that Still Effects us Today

He could decide to give them something else instead, and surly Libya and Rhodes are worth more than two ships..
What he promised to Russia is not a problem, its not the first time the British promised something that they didn't plan to keep. A Turkish strait is much preferable from British pov, so the promise to Russia would be forgotten after the war.
If Italy enters the war on the side of Germany then the British would offer anything for the ottomans and Bulgaria to join them.

 

[VoidStalker]

Bulgaria would want a slice of Serbia, I think they had some claims on Greece as well. Ottomans, well between Russian Caucus region and Egypt there is more the CP can offer than the Entente- and it is possible the CP could setup a return Rhodes in exchange Italy gets a French colony.

Plus seeing Russia who has long been the biggest threat cut down would be of interest to the Ottomans. That said depending on what route the Goben takes Ottoman entry could be delayed a bit

 

[Gar48]

Italy joining the CP between 1914-1915 means:

1. Rome still sells grain and other food to the Central Powers. This could mean no submarine blockade as Italy was one of the main grain producer in Europe at the time

2. More Austrian and German soldiers are free to be used against Serbia and Russia. So an earlier defeat of both countries and involvement of Bulgaria is very likely.

3. When Serbia collapses, no ships are going to wait for Peter I and his soldiers in Albania. OTL Italian ships were the first ones to reach the Albanian coast thanks to the short distance between the two countries

4. The French aren't going to move their troops from Nice and Savoy because Rome is attacking

 

[Clandango]

What if an early Italian entry cause the Ottomans to join the Entente?
The entente can now offer them Rhodes and Libya, maybe border corrections in the Caucasus and Arabia. Thus the straits stay open.
The ottomans choosing the Entente means that Bulgaria also join the Entente, and so does Romania. Serbia might never fall in this scenario, and the romanians will do much much better with no southern front.

Corrections in the Caucus? It means giving up Georgian and Armenian land and I don’t see the Russians wanting to give up much of anything, especially when protecting Christians from being massacred was their excuse for their influence in the Ottoman Empire for the past half a century. I also feel they would not want the the Ottomans in, at least without getting concessions for themselves. Think like how the Allies against Napoleon near the end did not want Saxony to join in as the Prussians wanted to annex them entirely.

I also feel that Bulgaria and Romania cannot be guaranteed to join, as they were up in the air during WWI in which direction they would fall. Really, where is Bulgaria going to gain land if the Serbians keep refusing to give them any of Macedonia? The Bulgarians did not trust the Entente for the promises they tried to make that they knew would not be honored. They also offered the Bulgarians part of Ottoman Thrace, but in this world they cannot even offer that. Hell, IOTL the Ottomans gave land wrapping around their old capital to the Bulgarians, but that was in order to get the Bulgarians much closer to joining their alliance, as well as to have German and Austrian munitions sent to Gallipoli to protect their current capital. Also, you are going to have issues with Young Turks and the pro-German members of the navy, army, and business class perhaps not going along with the Sublime Porte if they feel that this will simply end up with the Russians, Italians, French, and British which kept picking off parts of their edges also trying to buy up or take for cheap German funded railroads.

Hmmm, doing something with Labania might be interesting, actually. Bit of a trade to get some islands back from Greece for Turkey in exchange for South Epirus. Or if the Greeks and Italians both end up in the Central Powers, the Bulgarians and Turks now have plenty of common ground for targets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian–Ottoman_convention_(1915)

 

[Ahab]

Corrections in the Caucus? It means giving up Georgian and Armenian land and I don’t see the Russians wanting to give up much of anything, especially when protecting Christians from being massacred was their excuse for their influence in the Ottoman Empire for the past half a century. I also feel they would not want the the Ottomans in, at least without getting concessions for themselves. Think like how the Allies against Napoleon near the end did not want Saxony to join in as the Prussians wanted to annex them entirely.

I also feel that Bulgaria and Romania cannot be guaranteed to join, as they were up in the air during WWI in which direction they would fall. Really, where is Bulgaria going to gain land if the Serbians keep refusing to give them any of Macedonia? The Bulgarians did not trust the Entente for the promises they tried to make that they knew would not be honored. They also offered the Bulgarians part of Ottoman Thrace, but in this world they cannot even offer that. Hell, IOTL the Ottomans gave land wrapping around their old capital to the Bulgarians, but that was in order to get the Bulgarians much closer to joining their alliance, as well as to have German and Austrian munitions sent to Gallipoli to protect their current capital. Also, you are going to have issues with Young Turks and the pro-German members of the navy, army, and business class perhaps not going along with the Sublime Porte if they feel that this will simply end up with the Russians, Italians, French, and British which kept picking off parts of their edges also trying to buy up or take for cheap German funded railroads.

Hmmm, doing something with Labania might be interesting, actually. Bit of a trade to get some islands back from Greece for Turkey in exchange for South Epirus. Or if the Greeks and Italians both end up in the Central Powers, the Bulgarians and Turks now have plenty of common ground for targets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian–Ottoman_convention_(1915)

When I said border corrections in the Caucasus I meant minor ones in Kars and Batumi, not something huge, and even then the Russians could promise to hand it after the war but then to "forget" about this promise later on.
Regarding Bulgaria you are right that they don't have much to do without Greece joining the Germans, but if the ottomans join the Entente then Bulgaria would stay *at least* neutral, if not a friendly pro west neutral.
In regard to Romania, they joined OTL, the Ottomans joining the Entente and Bulgaria at least neutral means that they have a much simpler choice and a much easier fight as the would now have only one front and open supply lines.

 

[prester.john208]

Italy joining the CP between 1914-1915 means:

1. Rome still sells grain and other food to the Central Powers. This could mean no submarine blockade as Italy was one of the main grain producer in Europe at the time

2. More Austrian and German soldiers are free to be used against Serbia and Russia. So an earlier defeat of both countries and involvement of Bulgaria is very likely.

3. When Serbia collapses, no ships are going to wait for Peter I and his soldiers in Albania. OTL Italian ships were the first ones to reach the Albanian coast thanks to the short distance between the two countries

4. The French aren't going to move their troops from Nice and Savoy because Rome is attacking

Also Italy doesn't need to launch much of attack to tie down the French. Transferring three corps to Germany helps keep the right wing strong enough to at least win the race to the coast, if not win earlier. The Germans only came up a few divisions short in the otl.

6 more divisions for the German right and 6 to 7 less for the French left. That likely proves decisive. If the French African army units don't make it that's another 3 to 4 divisions missing from the French left.

 

[Wedgekree]

Also what you get is no Gallipoli - this butterflies away a lot of British losses/deployments there which are in turn free to be put on the Western Front or in Africa.

Also I'm not necessarily sure that A-H would cooperate fully with the French to the point of detailed logistics, command, and battle plans. Whatever it is though both fleets act as a deterrent to anything big happening in the Med. The Brits and the French have to cocnentrate more (and likely newer) ships down there. Which in turn might make the German Navy more incentive to sally forth, which is another headache for the Brits.

I don't really see A-H or Italy being able to push hard into North Africa - it's basically a garrison zone with forces there facing one another across the desert. The Ottoman attacks don't make any more headway than they did historically - they might even do worse if the British redeploy groups like the Anzacs to there instead if they feel like they can't get them to Europe.

But there are a lot more limitations on the Entente in Africa, which has lots of minor things - if not necessarily decisive if only as more troops are pinned and the Med isn't free to ship things back and forth at so quick a tempo. Also the Suez will have a lot slower shipments as everything through the Med needs convoys with escorts to hold off capital ships. This may mess up the Entente supply network in other ways.

On the western front? The ITalian army is the Italian army. They're not going to do any better in the alps against the French than they did against Austria-Hungary. France has to keep more troops down there however. I don't think the Marne changes a ton - the German troops had run to the limits of their supply tether, thier troops were exhausted. Nothing significant changes.

But - big changes - Austria-Hungary has more free troops which can be used against Serbia (or likelier Russia) which makes the initial Russian invasion go somewhat rougher. More Austrian troops means that Germany doesn't have to put as much effort to holding the line down there and can focus more on offensive actions. The Russians likely gain less territory and take heavy casualties, while the Austrians take fewer ones. This makes the core of their army not as broken (look at all the troops they lost in the Galicia fortress).

Serbia falls within 1914 or early 1915 if not. Bulgaria joins in soon after. The Ottomans do around their historic period. Romania will be happy to sell grain at inflated prices to the Central Powers. Italy's mostly peasant baseda griculture in turn helps avoid the worst of the starvation that hit Germany. The US (with it's large Italian minority) in turn might make it less likely to have the US willing to give the Entente virtually unlimited loans without wanting more collateral (a pure hypothetical mind). Germany has lots of coal thanks to occupied Northern France they an give the Italians so their economy doesn't sink.

So by early 1915 Germany is able to send things from Berlin to Constantinople with the rail lines freed. The Ottoman Navy (for what it's worth) is added to the mix in the Med. Greece is going to stay neutral, surrounded on all sides by the Central Powers. Britain also has more troops in turn that are not bottled up at Salonika indefinitely (they can't even ship them in the first place).

The Balkans pretty much stabilizes with most countries staying neutral that aren't already involved directly and selling things. They may join the war at some point for opportunity or profit (if Russia is doing badly Romania might jump at seizing bits of Bellarussio (sp).

So by 1915 you have a quiet Balkans, a somewhat more solid front against Russia.. And more British troops on the western front without Gallipoli and Salonika. The Med navy-wise is beyond my grasp to say what things are, and there are so many different things which could effect things. I expect mostly a standoff with some battles/skirmishes but no one wanting to give decisive battle. Both sides hassle hte other's convoys and try to interdict them but no huge things.

Any gain troop-wise on the western front by Italy taking up chunks of the line is neutralized by the British having more troops in turn. Ultimately it turns on how things go with Russia, and whether the Entente in turn feels more pressure to go on the offense if Russia's not doing as well (which is hard to guess at given the competency levels of the AUstro-Hungarian army). Italy will not make it through the Alps to France, so it's just going to be the Isonzo on the opposite side of the country. Massed infantry charges through mountain bunkers along mountain supply roads go the same.

 

[SonnyBoy879]

On the western front? The ITalian army is the Italian army. They're not going to do any better in the alps against the French than they did against Austria-Hungary. France has to keep more troops down there however. I don't think the Marne changes a ton - the German troops had run to the limits of their supply tether, thier troops were exhausted. Nothing significant changes.

How is tying down France's Alpine divisions not significant for the clash at the Marne? Thanks to Italian neutrality, France was able to send these men north, including the 3 divisions guarding France's southern port in case of an Italian amphibious assault. Italy and Austria-Hungary had plans to combine and sail out to confront the French Mediterranean navy, which it would badly maul in any such scenario. How will France transport its north African divisions in time for the battle of the Marne if their convoys are under serious threat? Germany doesn't need more men, it needs a second front to pull resources away and allow for their rapid blow. Perhaps their shocking logistics still get the better of the Germans, but a second front against the Italians might stretch the French just enough to result in collapse in the north.

 

[VoidStalker]

How is tying down France's Alpine divisions not significant for the clash at the Marne? Thanks to Italian neutrality, France was able to send these men north, including the 3 divisions guarding France's southern port in case of an Italian amphibious assault. Italy and Austria-Hungary had plans to combine and sail out to confront the French Mediterranean navy, which it would badly maul in any such scenario. How will France transport its north African divisions in time for the battle of the Marne if their convoys are under serious threat? Germany doesn't need more men, it needs a second front to pull resources away and allow for their rapid blow. Perhaps their shocking logistics still get the better of the Germans, but a second front against the Italians might stretch the French just enough to result in collapse in the north.

It is, they were transferring units from the Italian front North during 1914, plus some of the units transferred from Africa (if those are not delayed) will go to reinforce the Alpine front which is going to have all sorts of fun effects on 1914. More likely the Germans dont win the Marne but it is a closer thing and they will be better positioned in the Race to the Sea and do better there with France having fewer units to use in the race and those units they do have being more exhausted, potentially overrunning all of the coal fields and doing some not great things to French logistics in the process.

I am going to have to check and see when the first units started being transferred from the Alpine front but as you point the African division transfer would also not likely occur as they did OTL, if they occurred at all given Libya where the Italians are borders some of French North Africa. Not to mention the combined AH-Italian fleets.

 

[Wedgekree]

I don't see a level of willingness on the part of Italy and Austro-Hungary to agree to giving either side command of both fleets. Which is what you need to be completely effective. I also don't see Italy as willing to send out thier fleet to challenge the French in open waters the second war is declared. I don'tk now the state of the Italian navy as far as technology/numbers/training went, but I'm sure they'll be very wary of the French and British that can mass forces there a lot better than they can. Pending a political ultimatum or looking like the army will get all the glory, there's not a super lot of incentive for them to go for an all out attack. THe Italian coastline is very long and there are plenty of ports where the Entente can steam out quickly from, bombard, and then slip away.

I think you'll see a lot of skirmishes but neither side wanting a decisive battle but ultimately it depends on how aggressive the fleets decide to be. Guess you'd have to look into who was in charge of the navies in each theatre.

Italy is in no shape to go in a (successful) massed offensive through the Alps in 1914 - they don't have the logistics setup. While they'll station more troops there, all they can do is mild infantry pushes which will make them lose lot sof soldiers. The French will have to keep a few more divisions down there in 1914, but that won't make a huge difference. The Marne still was a battle that had the Germans at the end of their tether - their troops had been marching for weeks without stop and many had outrun their supplies. They had to stop for a day or two just to let thier logistics catchup. Any battle is still going to stop them as it would kill all of their momentum, and you still have the 'race to the sea' of flanking attempts and trenches.

Butterflies are hard to predict into 1915 though. France has to keep more troops in the Alps they transferred north, and the Italians can take up a chunk of the line the Germans had which gives them more operational reserves to work with. This is offset though by not having Gallipoli or Salonika - there isn't enough naval supremacy for a landing, and Greece isn't suicidal, pro-Entente or not - they're surrounded on all sides by the Central Powers.

Going through Northern Africa and the Middle East is still a major desert, infrastructure is really bad, and everything has to be shipped in. The Entente still has plenty of second and third line troops in Africa if need be they can move. Or decide to place the Anzacs there with no Gallipoli. There's not a huge threat from the Italians in Libya - any attack won't go far and there's nothing really immediately useful in the area to take. It could make British attacks on the Ottomans harder, particularly if Suez traffic is limited due to the naval threat. But there's no real threat to Egypt on either flank.

 

[Jacarí]

I wonder if the French and Russians would be more careful if they thought that Italy was pretty certain to honor its alliance with the Central Powers.

The Italians had signed a secret treaty with France in 1902 where they committed to remaining neutral even if France was ¨forced¨ to fight someone else...

...so, since then, the French knew the value of Italy's word.

 

[SonnyBoy879]

First, I have to say I'm a strong proponent of the fact that an Italy actually standing with the Central Powers assures a victory for their side. To forego any questions of why I have this opinion, it is quite simple. Just Italy allows the redeployment of around 3 million troops that were engaged on CP side on the Italian front added to that are around 5 million Italians...that is a massive shift. Please don't misunderstand me, such a reduction towards a singular point is an extremely simplistic viewpoint, but I think such simplifications help to showcase the massive shift a CP Italy encompasses.

The battle of the Marne is generally considered a close thing. If we follow historians like John Keegan and Showalter, there are multiple events detrimental to the German side of the Marne battle. Be it the order to pursue the France in direction of Epinal, the one that send two corps and a cavalry division to the Eastern theatre or the capture of the German plans, there are many PoDs that could affect the outcome.

What would you envision the western front shaping up IITL where Italy joins in 1914 and the combined Austro-Italian fleet stop the transport of the north african troops? Could we see a collapse of the French in 1914? 1915? With the cards on the table its hard not to see the Ottomans and Romania being in on the CP ITTL. If so, does the entente come to the negotiating table? I'm thinking the germans could negotiate a decenently reasonable peace. England will avoid giving up most anything, France will suffer the brunt and Russia will concede a few possessions.

Assuming a collapse of France in 1914/1915 perhas a peace might look like:

- Minor territorial concessions to Germany such as Briey, annexation of Luxembourg. Belgium under German rule is out of the question, most likely it will be used as leverage to regain her colonies in Africa.
- Bulgaria takes her pickings from Serbia, the rest stays a puppet under Austria
- Romania takes Moldova
- Ottomans take Kars from Russia, maybe a sliver more? Doubtful they can take anything from Britain, maybe they can use their victory to relieve some of their debts.
- Germany will establish a puppet in Poland, perhaps Lithuania too? I am unsure on the latter. Russia will not be too harshly punished, Germany is pleased with its military successes and unwilling to humble the paper bear further, Wilhelm will be happy for light demands.
- Italy will take Tunisia, perhaps savoy and nice? They wont be able to get anything else from the French such as Corsica I'd say, maybe they can get Madagascar or Eritrea?
- I know Italy will want Malta, but i'm not sure they have the clout to get it, perhaps they can take a sliver of Kenya? Doubtful.
- I'm not so sure that Japan will just up and leave Germany's eastern colonies, perhaps a separate agreement is reached and Japan pays a lump sum (albeit, quite cheaply). Or does Britain have enough sway to convince the Japanese to leave?
- I don't know what would happen to Germany's south pacific colonies, just handed over to Australia and New Zealand?


All in all, the world will return to the status quo for the most part. The Ottoman and Austro-hungarian Empires will remain intact. The Russian Empire, though given a bloody nose will continue its impressive industrialization. Britain will come out embarrassed but satisfied in returning a friendly Belgian government and stopping things before Germany can cement itself as hegemon. France will be a shit show, but the war has been quick and the integrity of the french mainland hasn't been completely jeopardized from the peace. Italy will be satisfied with its gains against the French and begin to shift their policy back towards Austria-hungary's territories and Albania. Germany will stand as the center of Europe, satisfied with its buffers against the Russians in the east and humbling of the French.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'm not sure how active the Italian dreadnoughts would be given OTL failure to risk them out of harbour. Even when allied to the Britsh & French against the Austo-Hungarians. Can't see them risking much when allied to the Austro-Hungarians against the RN and MN.

If they join from the start they are in a prime position to intercept the N African troop convoys, which IIRC are escorted by the Dantons. The British have a few battlecruisers in the Med, the ones which went after the Goeben, but I don't think much else. So, if the Italians sortie at the start, they will at best be fighting ships of lesser stature. Of course, this might not obtain for long, as Prince Louis and Churchill will have to do something to aid the French, but the Italians might have a clear week to ten days to dominate.

 

[Erzherzog_Karl]

What would you envision the western front shaping up IITL where Italy joins in 1914 and the combined Austro-Italian fleet stop the transport of the north african troops? Could we see a collapse of the French in 1914? 1915? With the cards on the table its hard not to see the Ottomans and Romania being in on the CP ITTL. If so, does the entente come to the negotiating table?

It honestly depends on how you want the chips to fall.

In a best case scenario for the Central Powers, Klucks reinforced progress continues. The forts of Verdun get surrounded, which nearly happened in OTL in early September, and through this they are neutralized. Rheims falls, similar to the surrounding of Verdun it was occupied for a brief time period in OTL. The center armies turn to meet Klucks forces and Germany will have its Cannae. The decisive battle of the war would be fought somewhere southeast of Paris, maybe in the Seine Valley.

Overall, the decisive factor would be less the German troops but the increased amount of panic the French would feel. In OTL, General Joseph Gallieni, the militaty governor of Paris, was prepared to flatten Paris if they Germans fought their way into it. He planned to order the destruction of the bridges, Eifel Tower and many other strategical buildings to deny their use to the Germans. Around a million people had already fled Paris, which made up around a third of the people. The government had also left the capital. With more losses inflicted upon them and one bad message after the other, it is likely that the feeling of panic becomes more widespread. Panicked people make stupid decisions, which plays directly into the Germans' hands. Prime example would be Sir John French, the British commander, who contemplated a further withdrawal and had to be convinced by Kitchener, in person, to return their troops to the frontline, to fall victim to his worst fears and led a further withdrawal to Saint Nazaire.

Therefore, France would de facto be beaten around end of September 1914 or early October 1914. With France out, Russia will likely follow and come to the table. The same for Britain and Japan. In a potential peace treaty France and Serbia would be the ones suffering, while the rest would likely end up with a status quo ante situation. Russia got offered similar terms till Brest-Litvosk. Britain has lost nothing, the same for Japan.
Any colonial territory that was taken would likely be given back in return for Belgian restoration. Japan would acquiese under pressure not only from Germany, but Britain and the other countries. France would lose the most with Savoy, Tunesia and more depending on the course of negotiations.

In a scenario less skewed towards the Central Powers, the changed numbers would likely allow Kluck to hold his position and not need the troops, which kept his flanks secured. Therefore, no gap was presented for the British to plunge into. Without the threat towards the flanks of the German troops this action created in OTL, there is no hsty withdrawal from the German side. Essentially, the Battle of the Marne ends in a German victory or stalemate. This would mean German troops would be close to 35-40 kilometers from Paris. The changed strategic situation would impact future decision-making and it would be hard to argue that one of the chief aims would not be to threaten Paris far more comprehesibly than in OTL. Facing more enemies than OTL with fewer troops, France will logically perform worse. It's only a question of when, not if France falls.
Furthermore, there would be the logistical issues that arise from a contested Mediterannean Sea. In my mind there is a strong case to be made for an end to the fighting sometime in 1915. With the writing on the wall, France is either the first to be forced to the table or Russia accepts a peace offer bringing them to the table. Afterwards, things take their natural course.

In this case, negotiations would likely be more problematic with the increased numbers of participants on the CP side. With the least leverage France would still be the ones paying the biggest price for the war, but depending on the point in time Russia could also suffer minor losses. Personally, I'm really averse towards proclaiming that Imperial Germany wanted a Poland on the map again. The Easter promise was made in 1917 under certain circumstances that would not happen in this scenario. Also, there was a great difference in opinion on what or how the Polish question should be handled. A-H had ideas, as well as many crowned heads in Germany, German politicans and agitators. I sincerely doubt they would open this can of worms, if they don't have to.

 

[SonnyBoy879]

It honestly depends on how you want the chips to fall.

In a best case scenario for the Central Powers, Klucks reinforced progress continues. The forts of Verdun get surrounded, which nearly happened in OTL in early September, and through this they are neutralized. Rheims falls, similar to the surrounding of Verdun it was occupied for a brief time period in OTL. The center armies turn to meet Klucks forces and Germany will have its Cannae. The decisive battle of the war would be fought somewhere southeast of Paris, maybe in the Seine Valley.

Overall, the decisive factor would be less the German troops but the increased amount of panic the French would feel. In OTL, General Joseph Gallieni, the militaty governor of Paris, was prepared to flatten Paris if they Germans fought their way into it. He planned to order the destruction of the bridges, Eifel Tower and many other strategical buildings to deny their use to the Germans. Around a million people had already fled Paris, which made up around a third of the people. The government had also left the capital. With more losses inflicted upon them and one bad message after the other, it is likely that the feeling of panic becomes more widespread. Panicked people make stupid decisions, which plays directly into the Germans' hands. Prime example would be Sir John French, the British commander, who contemplated a further withdrawal and had to be convinced by Kitchener, in person, to return their troops to the frontline, to fall victim to his worst fears and led a further withdrawal to Saint Nazaire.

Therefore, France would de facto be beaten around end of September 1914 or early October 1914. With France out, Russia will likely follow and come to the table. The same for Britain and Japan. In a potential peace treaty France and Serbia would be the ones suffering, while the rest would likely end up with a status quo ante situation. Russia got offered similar terms till Brest-Litvosk. Britain has lost nothing, the same for Japan.
Any colonial territory that was taken would likely be given back in return for Belgian restoration. Japan would acquiese under pressure not only from Germany, but Britain and the other countries. France would lose the most with Savoy, Tunesia and more depending on the course of negotiations.

In

After reading your sources I can't help but agree with your perspective on an Italian entry in 1914. However have you researched into what Germany/Austria would have to do to compel the Italians to enter on their side? Italy wanted Trentino because of Austria's adventures against Serbia, could this have been a realistic concession in the minds of the Austrian leadership in 1914? What is the most realistic way to bring the Italians into the CP camp in 1914 with the least amount of alterations?

Personally, I'm really averse towards proclaiming that Imperial Germany wanted a Poland on the map again. The Easter promise was made in 1917 under certain circumstances that would not happen in this scenario. Also, there was a great difference in opinion on what or how the Polish question should be handled. A-H had ideas, as well as many crowned heads in Germany, German politicans and agitators. I sincerely doubt they would open this can of worms, if they don't have to.

Facinating. I had always assumed that Germany would want to establish a Polish rump state in any such scenario to allieveate their wide border with the Russians. Perhaps a demilitarisation of Russian Poland would be a more realistic/ desirable alternative? I usually roll my eyes when people naturally assume that the Germans ever seriously aimed for a brest-litvosk style peace until the unqiue variables of the collapsing Russian state in 1917, but I suppose I just assumed Poland was always on the cards even in a 1914/1915 peace deal.

 

[Piave92]

The Italians had signed a secret treaty with France in 1902 where they committed to remaining neutral even if France was ¨forced¨ to fight someone else...

...so, since then, the French knew the value of Italy's word.

Would you mind to provide a source for this? I'm very interested about the topic

 

[Erzherzog_Karl]

After reading your sources I can't help but agree with your perspective on an Italian entry in 1914. However have you researched into what Germany/Austria would have to do to compel the Italians to enter on their side? Italy wanted Trentino because of Austria's adventures against Serbia, could this have been a realistic concession in the minds of the Austrian leadership in 1914? What is the most realistic way to bring the Italians into the CP camp in 1914 with the least amount of alterations?

The most natural course for Italy was neutrality. Afaik, it was the only country where the parliament voted for staying out of the war to then get outmaneuvered by the government barely a month later. For such a change only a minor pod is necessary, but an early entry is harder.

Personally, I don't think the 'price' is the correct angle to go for. Austria-Hungary was prepared for their altercation with Serbia, because they wanted to preserve their territorial integrity and saw the terrorist actions originating from Serbia as a valid threat to it. It's hard to see them agreeing to give territory away when their initial goal is keeping it all. It took the major losses of 1914/1915 for them to become open to the idea. The price angle will always be bad for the Central Powers. Therefore, I would argue that the national pride angle should be pursued. This personal or human factor is far too often ignored. Be it a closer cooperation between the Triple Alliance, earlier involvement of Italy in the crisis or an overhasty declaration from Russia that compells Italy to consider itself bound by the Triple Alliance is the only way to have them join early on. Italy needs to consider the casis foederis to be valid, that's the way.

How this way can be achieved? There are many possibilities. I think an easy one would be to have Umberto I. survive the assasination in 1900 and not be succeeded by his son. Umberto was far more positively inclinded towards the Triple Alliance than his son.
A more complex way that may be a tad more convincing is to have the pope allow FZJ to visit him during a state visit to Rome. This can happe through the current pope dying, being assassinated or a change of mind. This was the major hurdle for state visits of the respective monarchs between A-H and Italy. Victor Emmanuel was extremely irked that FZJ never reciprocated the ones his father made to help establish the initial Triple Alliance. The knowledge of the attack on Franz Ferdinand, that Italy got from France and Pasic would reach the king and through the better relations with FZJ they actually bond over losing family members to such acts. Driven partly by guilt, personal animosity and a sense of solidarity, VE promises his support for any act of Austrian-Hungarian against Serbia. A similar course of events then pushes Italy towards aligning themselves with their allies and joining them.

A bidding war is something the Central Powers will always lose. At most they can offer crumps compared to the whole bread and butter the entente can put on the table. In OTL, they did offer the Trentino for neutrality and they didn't even get that.

Facinating. I had always assumed that Germany would want to establish a Polish rump state in any such scenario to allieveate their wide border with the Russians. Perhaps a demilitarisation of Russian Poland would be a more realistic/ desirable alternative? I usually roll my eyes when people naturally assume that the Germans ever seriously aimed for a brest-litvosk style peace until the unqiue variables of the collapsing Russian state in 1917, but I suppose I just assumed Poland was always on the cards even in a 1914/1915 peace deal.

Afaik, the military experts wanted some minor border alterations to make it more defensible. Ironically, I don't quite remember Imperial Germany ever arguing or going for a demilitarization of any region. Be it overconfidence or a feeling of if you're the best, you don't fear the rest.

The underlying fear in regard to the creation of any independing Polish state was that it would be the creation of a Polish Piedmont. A new herd of agitation and problems that would constantly try to stir up trouble in the former territories of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Serbia saw itself as the Piedmont of the Southern Slavs, Italy was the initial product that A-H had to suffer from and no one wanted to have the same thing happening from another direction. You can see the lack of trust in OTL. Germany had so many prerogatives and control over the Poland they created that it could've hardly be called an independent state.

Would you mind to provide a source for this? I'm very interested about the topic

He means the so-called Prinetti-Barrère Accord, which was an exchange of notes. It should be mentioned in any book about Italian Foreign policy before WW1 or about the Triple Alliance(Fellner, Dreibund, S. 57-60, Albertini, Origins 1, S. 127-132, Lowe-Marzari, Italian Foreign Policy, S. 82, Behnen, Rüstung, S. 19-100).

Essentially, opinions differ on it.

That is the text of the note they exchanged and a slight amendment done by request.

“Should France be the object of a direct or Indirect aggression on the part of one or more Powers, Italy would maintain a strict neutrality. It would be the same were France, as the result of a direct provocation, to find herself compelled, for the defense of her honor or of her security, to take the initiative of a declaration of war.
In this eventuallty, the Government of the Republic must previously communicate Its intention to the Royal Government, enabling the latter to determine that It ts Indeed a case of direct provocation.”

Further noted by the Italian Foreign Minister regarding the word direct in direct aggression:
“I hasten to confirm for you In the matter what I have had the occasion to express to you verbally.
The word, direct, has this meaning and intent, in understanding that an action could be considered eventually as constituting provocation if it concerned the direct relations between the provoking Power and the Power provoked.”

Here, you find the text of the Triple alliance.

 

[Jacarí]

Would you mind to provide a source for this? I'm very interested about the topic

IIRC I read it on the ¨The Sleepwalkers".

I have an old quote saved, but not form that book:

"In the case where France [or Italy] would be the object of direct or indirect aggression on the part of one or several Powers, Italy [or France] will maintain strict neutrality. It will be the same in the case where France [or Italy], because of a direct provocation, would be found reduced to taking the initiative in a declaration of war for the defense of her honor or security."