The Italo-Turkish war and the subsequent Balkan Wars arguably did much to set the stage for WWI, but is it possible that the conflict could have itself become a continental conflagration?
There are two potential avenues to a general war. First, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that Von Hotzendorf was contemplating a pre-emptive strike against Italy during this conflict... an Austrian "intervention" against Italy, on land or sea, would IMO rather quickly escalate into a continental conflict.
The other possibility is if Bulgaria managed to take Constantinople in the First Balkan War, which would probably send the great powers into a general panic- a rash Russian mobilization/ultimatum in turn spiraling out into a string of mobilizations and counter-mobilizations much like the July Crisis.
Even though I've posed skeptical questions about how the Italo-Turkish war could lead to a 'World War One' in a 'recognizable' form of Triple Entente versus Central Powers, I am glad you
@The Undead Martyr started this thread and brought up this war, because it is an interesting war and has interesting alternate history possibilities from diplomatic complications and third party interventions.
I think any possible complications, coming in the first instance from the Italo-Turkish war, deserve a step-by-step, and not rushed, consideration.
@The Undead Martyr brought up two already:
Your first one - Von Hotzendorf's preemptive strike against Italy, is of course an interesting escalation and complication of the Italo-Turkish War.
I've heard
@Lee-Sensei's argument that the presence of the pro-Triple Alliance Italian Chief of Staff Alberto Pollio protects against an Austro-Italian clash, but I am not wholly convinced:
The Italian chief-of-staff during the war was Alberto Pollio. He was married to an Austrian noble woman, had served as a military attaché for years in Vienna, he was a Germanophile, a friend of Molke and Hotzendorf and a supporter of the Triple Alliance. Even if he did want to launch an attack against Italy in 1911-1912, he’s unlikely to get much support in Vienna or Berlin.
It is true Pollio was pro-Triple Alliance and appreciated by the partners, and he continued Triple Alliance related planning, and he conveniently died before Italy made its military decisions in WWI. But his presence had not stopped the negative slide in Austro-Italian diplomatic relations and build-up of bad feeling between the two and reduction of German and Austrian trust in Italy as a whole. Pollio's term was 1908 until July 1914 when he died. So his term coincided with the deterioration of Austro-Italian relations during and after the Bosnian Crisis. Regardless of any Pollio-Hotzendorff friendship, Hotzendorff at least twice advocated preemptive attack against Italy, once in 1909 and and once in 1911. And per wiki, despite his support for the alliance, Pollio began anti-Austrian contingency planning.
Of course Hotzendorff would not find any support in *Berlin* or Germany for an attack on Italy. For an attack on Italy in 1911, Hotzendorff would have had to convince the Emperor in Vienna, both that the operation would be a sure success, and that the best approach would not to be to ask Germany for permission it would be reluctant and unlikely to give, but to present Berlin with a fait accompli, let Austria's success speak for itself, and beg German forgiveness after the fact.
I suspect the Ottoman Empire would be quite happy with Austro-Hungarian intervention in the war, and motivated to resist longer, while Italy of course would be enraged but also distressed.
Germany would be quite unhappy in principle, even if many segments of German public opinion felt double-dealing Italians (who'd voted the wrong way at Algeciras) felt they kind of deserved it.
So with an Austro-Ottoman-Italian war now going on, the next most likely country to intervene is Germany....but not at all as a combatant, but as a hectoring mediator, vigorously attempting to stop the fighting between the two other members of the Triple Alliance as soon as possible, and trying to broker an inclusive peace with the Ottoman Empire too, seeing if that Empire could be brought into closer ties with Germany as well. It is a tall order diplomatically, but that is what they will be working on.
I do agree with this sentiment of
@Lee-Sensei though:
A war between Italy and AH would stay between them.
...in terms of Russia, France, and Britain being cautious of getting involved. When I've discussed the potential for an Austro-Italian war in 1911 with I believe
@lukedalton I think he's been very skeptical it could be contained, so I suppose his view may be different, and he may think that Russia and France might see the Austro-Italian fighting an an unmissable opportunity to fight the Central Powers when the Triple Alliance is divided, and feel like they have to intervene to show support for Italy to not let it get crushed, and in saving Italy, they get an ally forever, and steal Italy from Germany and Austria. But he would have to speak for himself.
The states of the Balkans would be very interested in the outcome of the Italo-Austrian-Ottoman war, but may be too intimidated to face a two front war with both Austria and the Turks. (at least the Serbs and Montenegrins might). But they'd really wish them to lose. Russian elite/popular sentiment would hope for Ottoman and Austrian defeat.
Russia would also suffer from, and be irritated by, any prolongation of the war caused by encouragement of continued Ottoman resistance to Italy, because that keeps the closure of the straits to Russian merchant traffic as well as warships going on longer as well, reducing grain export revenues and encouraging binge vodka drinking.
The Balkan League members Greece and Bulgaria are relatively less exposed to Austria, so they, at least theoretically, could still push to start the Balkan War basically on schedule. Even the Greeks would need to factor in the Austrian navy however as an issue. If the whole Balkan League were bold enough to attack the Ottomans in 1912, despite Austrian engagement with Italy, Romania would be instantly encouraged and supported by Austria in attacked Bulgaria's north to claim southern Dobruja.
Perhaps, if the Balkan League is so bold as to engage against the Ottomans, even with the Austro-Italian war going on, and the Romanians attack the Bulgarians, and before long the Austrians probably engage against the Montenegrins and Serbs (for attacking the Turks)........this, this just might be the thing that gets Russia to mobilize, to threaten Romania and Austria on behalf of its Balkan allies, and forces Germany to consider whether it will stand by an prop up its Austrian ally (which means two front war, most efficiently prosecuted via Schieffen-Moltke plan) or not.
---
The other possibility
@The Undead Martyr mentioned isn't directly from the Italo-Ottoman War, but it is escalation based on a Russian ultimatum/mobilization against Bulgaria, over the possibility it might take Constantinople [because Russia felt like nobody else should be able to take from the Turks, except themselves], from some point after at least the first Balkan War started.
I voiced my opinions on that one earlier, but before we get into escalatory possibilities of the Balkan war, we should keep looking at the Italo-Turkish war.
--
For example --
Might Russia have intervened in the Italo-Turkish war, or at least threatened too?
I can think of the Russians intervening for grand, ambitious motive, or intervening for a limited, pragmatic motive.
-The grand, ambitious motive, of intervening for the express purpose of gaining major territories from the Ottomans like Armenia, Trebizond/Pontus, and the Straits is actually the less likely case. But out of what the Ottomans had, those territories would be what Russia would have an interest in, and seeing the Italians given carte blanche by the rest of Europe, both European alliance sets, to grab a chunk of the Ottoman Empire, Libya, could be an inspiration for a Russian government inclined to wishful thinking.
The Russian government of late 1911, early 1912 likely could mount a pretty effective Caucasus campaign against Turkey, penetrating to significant depth into the coastal and interior Armenian plurality provinces of eastern Anatolia. Russia at this time would still lack the ability to take Constantinople and the straits by amphibious storm.
Russia making this move would impress and alarm its friends and foes at the same time. None of Germany nor Austria had an alliance commitment to the Ottoman Empire, but they would have to decide if heavy Russian blows, aimed close to the Turkish heartland and at the Turkish capital, and likely to signal a partition of Turkey that Italy and Entente powers, but not Germany, would collect booty from, is an unacceptable shift in the balance of power and requires German-Austrian decisive action to save the Ottoman Empire. Of course Germany could call a conference and try to stop the war. Trying to use military force to affect the situation in the Middle East directly isn't that practical for Germany. It's military option is using the Schlieffen plan to take out two major potential partitioners of the Ottoman domain - Russia and France.
Britain and France would have to worry about Russian competition oncc
-A more pragmatic motive for Russian intervention could be to get the Ottoman Empire to simply concede to Italian terms (ceding Libya, and possibly Rhodes) right away, to end the war ASAP, so that the straits may be reopened for commerce post-haste. If this is the aim, Russia may not have any demands for territorial concessions from the Ottomans at this time, even if it is willing to invade and occupy Ottoman lands to put pressure on them to end the war. Reopening the straits is important for Russian commerce and the economy.
Of course regardless of whether Russia wants to take a big bite and practically bring down the empire, or just end the war quickly with minimal change, the Balkan states are pretty likely to take their DoW as an signal for them to move to take over Ottoman Rumelia in Europe.
--Another thing that might have happened is if the Italians had been more ambitious and had more fronts besides Libya. For instance, what if the Italians sent a force across the straits of Otranto to take Albania. It is hard to see the Serbs and Austrians and Greeks not get involved after that. What if the Italians started a front in Arabia- perhaps in Yemen or the Persian Gulf coast
