Plausibility check - late Italian entry into WWI, Entente victory, lower price for Italy

[matzeskatze]

Late 1916 and Early 1917 looked very good for the Entente. The Somme and Verdun had been hard fought but were seen (to some degree correctly) as victories that had dealt severe body blows to the German Army. American entry into the war in early 1917 assured the Entente was the better resourced of the two alliances and that large reinforcements were possible (becoming more assured as the year went on).

I think you missed the qualifier "At least in OTL" here somewhere. Because of the changing situation from early '15 on using OTL late '16 and on presents the problem of how relevant it would be here.
That is not to say that general trends are worthless, such as trade patterns and longterm industrial production, but baseing military actions from OTL here could be very missleading. That is one point as to why I am leary of the Brusilow Offensive here. Without the Italian Adventure of the Austrians, the results could very well be massively different. And that could have further waves for the Germans that do not need as much force to hold it. Maybe add those to the Somme and the balance may shift.
Again, that would be something only the writer could clear up.

TLR using OTL circumstances after more then a year of changes is suspect in my opinion.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

Late 1916 and Early 1917 looked very good for the Entente. The Somme and Verdun had been hard fought but were seen (to some degree correctly) as victories that had dealt severe body blows to the German Army. American entry into the war in early 1917 assured the Entente was the better resourced of the two alliances and that large reinforcements were possible (becoming more assured as the year went on).

So an entry by Italy in the Winter of 1916-1917 seems pretty plausible. Even into spring and early summer 1917. it was only in the latter half of the year when Nivelle’s and Haig’s attempts at breakthrough had failed after a terrible campaign season (many areas in Northern France received twice their normal rainfall) and Russia dropped out that people started to wonder if the war couldn’t be won. Even then, they generally envisaged stalemate, not CP victory. Which is probably enough to disincentivize Italy to join, but still.

However, neutrality would have its own difficulties for Italy. Italy was dependent on British coal and, to a lesser extent, British credit. The British maintained strict control of supply and prioritized domestic and French needs, which had grown considerably. This caused serious problems in Italy prior to their entry. Possibly, though not definitely, enough to make longer term neutrality unsustainable.

Don't forget in this scenario Russia probably falls apart earlier, Austria-Hungary is much stronger and given the less desperate CP situation there is no guarantee USW has been adopted in this timeline, meaning no American participation.

Even in the best case scenario for the Entente it is probably significantly weaker than in OTL. In a (IMO more plausible) scenario where they haven't been benefitting from lucky breaks they'll have decisively lost the war on the Eastern Front by early 1917 and if the Americans are still neutral then Entente defeat seems very possible. In such a scenario Italy just has to wait out Paris and London throwing in the towel.

 

[raharris1973]

A question - If Italy is only at war with the CPs for a very brief time period, does that mean there is less time for the CPs and Ottomans to stir up Senussi uprisings and insurgency, and this could leave Libya under more consistent Italian control throughout the 1920s rather than being the scene of high-effort counter-insurgency campaigns through that decade?

 

[lukedalton]

A question - If Italy is only at war with the CPs for a very brief time period, does that mean there is less time for the CPs and Ottomans to stir up Senussi uprisings and insurgency, and this could leave Libya under more consistent Italian control throughout the 1920s rather than being the scene of high-effort counter-insurgency campaigns through that decade?

Probably, Cadorna basically stripoed almost everything from Libya leaving only enough personell to keep some coastal city/fortress and while the Ottoman will probably try to continue to stir up the Senussi, the Germans will not be on board this for fear to create a diplomatic incident too big to being put under the proverbial rug

 

[ardentglory]

The Italian army has ground about a million Austro-Hungarian fighters into dead and maimed. If the Italians do not enter the war in 1915-16, where will these fighters be sent?
The most likely option is the Russian front. In reality, A-X took 10 divisions from the Russian front to be sent to the Italian front. Alternatively, these divisions remain in the east. To these are added about a dozen divisions that A-X took for the Italian front from other sources. In total, within six months, the A-X forces on the Russian front may increase by 20-25 divisions. This will increase the pressure on the Russians, he is not so much that it will result in something decisive and irreversible.
But it seems not so improbable that the Austro-Hungarian divisions may end up on the western front. They will take over the passive sectors of the front, freeing up more German divisions for offensive actions.

 

[Aphrodite]

this thread has it backwards. If Italy wants to end the war quicker and get bigger gains, ahe needs to join earlier.

Join in August, and the Italians can warn the French off plan XVII as well as free up a large French force.

If the Italian fleet can catch the Goeben or the French and Russians improve their performance Ottoman entry becomes doubtful. That ends it much quicker and with far less blood.

Italian neutrality for as long as the OP suggests, likely leads to a CP victory

 

[ArtosStark]

I think you missed the qualifier "At least in OTL" here somewhere. Because of the changing situation from early '15 on using OTL late '16 and on presents the problem of how relevant it would be here.

True enough, however, assuming differences can be as bad Alternate History as assuming none. Between May and July 1915 AH added the equivalent of 10 divisions to the Italian front. Where would those be used, if they were not facing Italy, do you suspect? Gorlice-Tarnow seems unlikely to be more decisive, and I am not sure that the extra troops could move fast enough to stop the Russians from pulling back of their own accord in the Great Retreat. They could possibly allow greater AH performance south of the River Bug, as the high attrition rate of this campaign did definitely affect the AH performance in this sector and more reinforcements could make a difference. It won't cause the Russians to collapse in 1915 though.

The extra troops could conceivably be used to attack Serbia earlier but a direct attack from the north without Bulgarian assistance will be more costly than OTL. And Bulgaria is unlikely to be swayed earlier. It took as long as it did to bring in Bulgaria because the CP had to be willing to outbid the Entente and the Entente had to be shown to be limited in what it could give due to other commitments in the Balkans .Italy and Serbia had conflicting claims which caused Serbia to play even harder to get in regard to concessions to Bulgaria. Between this no longer being a factor and AH possibly being less willing to grant Bulgaria what it wanted it is possible (though perhaps not the most likely) that the Entente win that bid, keeping Bulgaria neutral. If so, the Serbian withdrawal would probably be to the south, toward Salonika, rather than to the west through Albania. If, as would be more likely, Bulgaria still joins in then the Serbians are admittedly in a tough spot if they cannot evacuate through Italian held Albania. It could cause some interesting negotiations between the Entente and Italy on that front.

In any case, at least for 1915, the changes would likely not be that great. In 1916, that is a different manner. It’s possible, but not assured that the Serbians would not be able to escape. If they do not it is possible, but not assured that the British would get their way and be able to withdraw from Greece. The Russians probably cannot launch a Brusilov offensive which may well keep Romania neutral. This is probably a net positive for Russia but it is unclear what effect this would have on Verdun.

Regardless, you are probably not looking at a collapse of Russia in 1916 or a German breakthrough in France. And unless the Germans are convinced that they can win in France USW is probably still on the table. So Italian entry in late 1916-early 1917 still seems quite possible. Especially considering the needs of the Italian economy for energy. Which can only be supplied by the Allies.

 

[matzeskatze]

True enough, however, assuming differences can be as bad Alternate History as assuming none.

Very true that.
And my comment was not meant to say it could not happen in TL roughly like OTL. Simply as you say, same changes but to what extent?

And to be honest, I also do not think a Russian exit before mid '16 is very unlikely. Not impossible mind.

My general thinking is that the better AH situation offsets most other changes for Bulgaria and might push Romania further to neutrality. I thereby assume that the Bulgarian lust for "Serbian clay" is strong enough to pull them to the CP. Romania on the other hand probably sees the better CP performance and thinks again about the Entente promises... more so in view of Imo a certainly worse situation for Russia.

For Italy I think it could be a boon for the CP in trade and information, or lets call it counter propaganda..., but right now I am unsure how much Italy would risk / dare the Entente in trade for the CPs. Depends on how the TL goes I guss. But overall I think still a net positive.

The West could get interesting in how it plays out. Falkenhayn certainly would still have Verdun in the menu for '16. But I could see some rebalancing the odds here. As the Germans should be less invested in the East with a better AH. So would Verdun go as OTL? And what about the Somme? Without the OTL Russian commitement to reliving the sterss on France, would Britian be "forced" to go a different route? Could they or would that risk a French crisis. Certainly not war ending, but could shift perception if Russia and France face internal struggle.
Again all that is open to discussion.

What I think will happen though, is that Hindenburg and Ludendorff will be less prominent here. Add that without Romania Falkenhayn likely stays in command longer then OTL and USW might change. Becasue as I understand it, he was not that for USW. Also the whole sheebang of the "Hindenburgplan" or disaster could be averted. Butterflys I say.

And should USW go off differently or not at all, I think a USA entry changes in likelyhood. Depends on the actual TL but again Imo without that I see serious problems for the Entente on the horison. And i will not go into the financial situation as that is a discussion all on its own and depends too much on the actual TL.

 

[raharris1973]

Join in August, and the Italians can warn the French off plan XVII

How/why would Italy joining the Entente very early change the French *offensive* plan?

Otherwise, I totally comprehend and respect the logic of your overall argument. That is an interesting subsidiary what-if. How could the ground be politically prepared within Italy, without changing the July crisis and Austria's slide to war and the German blank check, for Italy to commit a truly stunning betrayal of its CP allies during the month of August 1914 and declare war on Austria right at that moment? I imagine the civil leadership would need to be different and somebody besides General Pollio would need to be in charge. What realistic readiness and capability could the Italian Army and Navy have? It seems to be this would make 1914 just awful, even more terribly awful, than OTL 1914 was. How soon would this result in Germany conceding defeat? What would be the net butcher's bill for Italy compared to OTL? When might Romania get into the war?

 

[lukedalton]

Come in mind that one of the reason why Italy join the Entente later can be A-h being too succesfull and trying very openly to not honor any previous agreement with Italy regarding compensation. Sure a lot of italian politicians know that any agreement with A-h was not worth the ink used, but they hoped to get other things but if Wien high on her own supply decide to openly say that any previous agreement need to be 'rethough' and that they don't have any intention to leave their occupied part of Albania, things will go sour very very quickly

 

[raharris1973]

Come in mind that one of the reason why Italy join the Entente later can be A-h being too succesfull and trying very openly to not honor any previous agreement with Italy regarding compensation. Sure a lot of italian politicians know that any agreement with A-h was not worth the ink used, but they hoped to get other things but if Wien high on her own supply decide to openly say that any previous agreement need to be 'rethough' and that they don't have any intention to leave their occupied part of Albania, things will go sour very very quickly

The OP continuing this thread.

How does this lead to Italy joining the Entente *later* than OTL? Is it because Austrian greater successes (on Serbian front or Russian, in 1914 or 1915, or both) discourage the May 1915 entry, but then, having won these successes, Austria opens its big mouth at some point in late 1916 or early 1917, saying it it has to 'rethink' previous agreements with Italy?