Italy quits after Caporetto

[sillygoose]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto

Pretty much what it says on the tin: what if Italy after the disaster at Caporetto gets cold feet and asks for an armistice and thereafter gets a white peace from the CPs to get them out of the war ASAP? Let's assume they ask for the armistice in November 1917 and drop out around the same time as the Bolsheviks in February or March 1918. How does this impact the rest of the war?

The Allies would have more for the Western Front:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_French_forces_in_Italy_during_World_War_I

The French expeditionary force consisted primarily of the French Tenth Army with the addition of the 12th Corps. They took up station around Verona.[3] Four of the six French divisions (46e, 47e, 64e, 65e) were to return to the Western Front in spring 1918.
The British Expeditionary Force (Italy) came under the command of General Herbert Plumer. The principal units in the BEF(I) were the 23rd, 41st, 7th, 48th and 5th divisions.[4] The 5th Division returned to France on 1 March 1918, followed by the 41st Division in April.[5] Lieutenant General Cavan was appointed Commander-in-Chief of British Forces in Italy on 10 March 1918, comprising the three divisions of XIV Corps (United Kingdom).[6]

Also the US had one regiment deployed to Italy from the 83rd division.

A-H really lost WW1 on the Italian front in 1918:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vittorio_Veneto#Aftermath

The Salonika Front could be contained if Italy weren't an issue.

 

[raharris1973]

Is it plausible? At least without an even much worse beating? If a white peace is accepted, wouldn't a revolution and civil war be pretty automatic.

If Italy did 'white peace' while suppressing revolution with efficiency, would re-entry into the war be a strong possibility in the late summer/fall of 1918 after the Entente turning of the tide in the west? Or spring 1919?

 

[sillygoose]

Is it plausible? At least without an even much worse beating? If a white peace is accepted, wouldn't a revolution and civil war be pretty automatic.

IOTL the government fell and there was considerable discussion about quitting. Whether the Allies would have allowed it is an option question and certainly if peace were accepted, even if they got the lost territory back yes a revolution and probably civil war is likely.

If Italy did 'white peace' while suppressing revolution with efficiency, would re-entry into the war be a strong possibility in the late summer/fall of 1918 after the Entente turning of the tide in the west? Or spring 1919?

I doubt they'd be able to risk reentry or be finished with suppression of the revolution enough to rejoin. Simply wouldn't have enough time to stabilize things. IMHO at least.

 

[WolfBear]

If Italy did 'white peace' while suppressing revolution with efficiency, would re-entry into the war be a strong possibility in the late summer/fall of 1918 after the Entente turning of the tide in the west? Or spring 1919?

Yep, very likely. Though the Allies might not be as generous towards them due to them previously dropping out of the war. So, no South Tyrol and no Fiume, most likely, unless of course Italy decides to ignore the Allied decisions and take these territories anyway.

 

[WolfBear]

I doubt they'd be able to risk reentry or be finished with suppression of the revolution enough to rejoin. Simply wouldn't have enough time to stabilize things. IMHO at least.

Germany took several months to crush its own revolution. AFAIK, Germany seriously considered resuming the fight in the summer of 1919. So, in theory, having Italy reenter the war is not out of the question. It all depends on events.

I do think that what prevented Italy from dropping out in late 1917 was the fact that the Allies were more capable of helping it out than they were Russia. Well, that combined with the US entry into the war and the fact that Italian defeatism was nowhere near as bad as Russian defeatism was. Interestingly enough, Russians were defeatists in 1917-1918 but ended up suffering much more severely in the long(er)-run with their civil war, 1930s purges, famines, and forced collectivizations, World War II, and late 1940s famines--not to mention their subsequent chronic alcoholism epidemic.

 

[raharris1973]

Whether the Allies would have allowed it is an option question

How do the Entente powers and Americans stop an Italy determined to quit from quitting?

 

[raharris1973]

I do think that what prevented Italy from dropping out in late 1917 was the fact that the Allies were more capable of helping it out than they were Russia.

Violently agree. Which is why something worse than OTL Caporetto is probably needed for Italy to drop out.

 

[WolfBear]

How do the Entente powers and Americans stop an Italy determined to quit from quitting?

They try using the power of persuasion. Perhaps also threaten to cut off economic aid to Italy and make it clear that if they win the war, Italy won't be getting very much, if at all.

Violently agree. Which is why something worse than OTL Caporetto is probably needed for Italy to drop out.

Agreed; I mean, Caporetto didn't even result in the loss of Venice, let alone in the loss of Rome.

 

[sillygoose]

How do the Entente powers and Americans stop an Italy determined to quit from quitting?

Economic sanctions, military invasion, supporting a coup.

Germany took several months to crush its own revolution. AFAIK, Germany seriously considered resuming the fight in the summer of 1919. So, in theory, having Italy reenter the war is not out of the question. It all depends on events.

I do think that what prevented Italy from dropping out in late 1917 was the fact that the Allies were more capable of helping it out than they were Russia. Well, that combined with the US entry into the war and the fact that Italian defeatism was nowhere near as bad as Russian defeatism was. Interestingly enough, Russians were defeatists in 1917-1918 but ended up suffering much more severely in the long(er)-run with their civil war, 1930s purges, famines, and forced collectivizations, World War II, and late 1940s famines--not to mention their subsequent chronic alcoholism epidemic.

Some might have considered restarting the war, but there was no realistic chance of that happening if for no other reason the continuing and tightening the blockade, which resulted in the worst starvation experienced by Germany, worse than any point during the war.
I don't see how the Italian public would be willing to reenter the war after dropping out.

I think you're right that the Allies sending troops was ultimately what kept Italy in the war more than anything. That and not really having their country occupied all that much until 1917. However a POD could be the Italian army mutinies, so that instead of 350,000 Italian soldiers separated from units retreating until they could be reformed they could simply refuse to fight any more and surrender as well as the remainder of the army experience major disorder and refuse to fight.

Russians in 1917 didn't realize what was coming.

Violently agree. Which is why something worse than OTL Caporetto is probably needed for Italy to drop out.

Perhaps more soldiers surrendering. 350,000 men were separated from their units, but retreated and eventually reformed. Have the bulk of them surrender instead that things could change.

That and/or the Battle of Mount Grappa ends up a CP victory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Monte_Grappa

Tactically if one or two units on the Italian side didn't fight to their own near destruction there would have been a breakthrough that collapsed Italian lines. Not too big of a POD. Its loss then could precipitate a breakdown in morale in the Italian 4th army which would lead to the Venetian Plain being left open. At that point I suppose we could see the Italian government sue for an armistice.

 

[WolfBear]

I don't see how the Italian public would be willing to reenter the war after dropping out.

The opportunity for easy territorial gains. Similar to Romania in late 1918. Italians wouldn't have given up on the dream of a Greater Italy, at least not emotionally.

I think you're right that the Allies sending troops was ultimately what kept Italy in the war more than anything. That and not really having their country occupied all that much until 1917. However a POD could be the Italian army mutinies, so that instead of 350,000 Italian soldiers separated from units retreating until they could be reformed they could simply refuse to fight any more and surrender as well as the remainder of the army experience major disorder and refuse to fight.

Even in 1917, Italy wasn't occupied all that much. They didn't even lose Venice (or Milan), for instance. And Yes, giant Italian army mutinities could work for this, but they would probably have to be worse than for the French in 1917 and their leaders would have to avoid being receptive to any compromise.

Russians in 1917 didn't realize what was coming.

Yep. But even then, a reasonable person could have realized that the US entry into the war would win it for the Allies. But one might have theoretically anticipated final victory occurring in 1919 rather than in 1918. Still, what's the point of making three years of military sacrifices (including over a million lost lives) if you're not going to win a war but are nevertheless still capable of winning it?

Perhaps more soldiers surrendering. 350,000 men were separated from their units, but retreated and eventually reformed. Have the bulk of them surrender instead that things could change.

That and/or the Battle of Mount Grappa ends up a CP victory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Monte_Grappa

Tactically if one or two units on the Italian side didn't fight to their own near destruction there would have been a breakthrough that collapsed Italian lines. Not too big of a POD. Its loss then could precipitate a breakdown in morale in the Italian 4th army which would lead to the Venetian Plain being left open. At that point I suppose we could see the Italian government sue for an armistice.

Couldn't the Italians simply create a new front line south of Venice in this scenario? I mean, France lost Lille in 1914 and yet that wasn't enough to get the French to give up.

 

[sillygoose]

The opportunity for easy territorial gains. Similar to Romania in late 1918. Italians wouldn't have given up on the dream of a Greater Italy, at least not emotionally.

Romania didn't have 12 battles of the Isonzo to demoralize them. I'm sure the upper class in Italy would love to reenter the war, but would they have the public on their side, would they survive a surrender, and would the soldiers fight again?

Also we haven't talked about the butterflies of Italy dropping out even for a period of time on the rest of the course of the war. The situation by mid-1918 might be different enough that rejoining for final victory might well not be an option.

Even in 1917, Italy wasn't occupied all that much. They didn't even lose Venice (or Milan), for instance. And Yes, giant Italian army mutinities could work for this, but they would probably have to be worse than for the French in 1917 and their leaders would have to avoid being receptive to any compromise.

Sure, but the army's morale broke down badly in 1917 and everything hinges on their willingness to fight. At a certain point losses and retreats mean the army could well refuse to fight on or start surrendering en masse. IOTL the French peace groups were willing to achieve piece at nearly any reasonable price. A white peace would be something most Italians would want in 1917.

Yep. But even then, a reasonable person could have realized that the US entry into the war would win it for the Allies. But one might have theoretically anticipated final victory occurring in 1919 rather than in 1918. Still, what's the point of making three years of military sacrifices (including over a million lost lives) if you're not going to win a war but are nevertheless still capable of winning it?

At the time that wasn't guaranteed. The US had a lot of manpower, but not a prepared army or industry. Providing support for the Entente for a price didn't mean they had industry capable of providing for a mass army, hence the US army having to use a ton of French gear. If it were such a sure thing why did the Russians drop out?
The point of stopping is to avoid losing even more men for a potential future victory. You still need some alive at the end to run your country.

Couldn't the Italians simply create a new front line south of Venice in this scenario? I mean, France lost Lille in 1914 and yet that wasn't enough to get the French to give up.

Theoretically, but then there is the morale issue and loss of population and industry.
1914 isn't 1917.

 

[WolfBear]

Romania didn't have 12 battles of the Isonzo to demoralize them.

No; rather, they simply had the CP conquest of most of their country, including their capital city, and the imposition of a 99-year indemnity on them.

If it were such a sure thing why did the Russians drop out?

Because foresight was not a strength of the Russians back then?

 

[Buba]

What @sillygoose said - things would change if Italian losses were even high. This is simple to change - simply have at Caporetto the 3rd Army for whatever reason begin to retreat later and/or be cut off and lost. This probably doubles (at least) both unrecoverable manpower losses to 500-600k (half a million POWs) and material losses (cannon, wagons, limbers, etc.).
This would probably leave Italy without a field army, the Piave frontline being shored up not by 11, but 20 or more French and British formations. In OTL those 11 dwindled down to 5 by IV.18 while here their seconding from the Western Front would be longer. Or would the Salonika Front be as good as dropped? Withdrawals from ME?

Even if there would be perspectives of rebuilding the 2nd Army and for recreating 3rd Army units using their depots, this still means equipping half a million men or so (the 350k stragglers from 2nd Army plus whatever may be raised to replace lost 3rd Army units). Even with war industry at this point in time running flat out and churning out munitions by the tonne this would be a burden.
Hence from a certain point of view dropping Italy - even if for a year or two - could be a boon for the Entente. No troops diverted from France, more cannon etc. weapons to arm the Americans with.

Now, impact on rest of the war. Maybe decisive? 20-30 A-H Divisions in Kaiserschlacht? Maybe lead to Allied collapse, maybe do not achieve much ...

 

[ATP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto

Pretty much what it says on the tin: what if Italy after the disaster at Caporetto gets cold feet and asks for an armistice and thereafter gets a white peace from the CPs to get them out of the war ASAP? Let's assume they ask for the armistice in November 1917 and drop out around the same time as the Bolsheviks in February or March 1918. How does this impact the rest of the war?

The Allies would have more for the Western Front:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_French_forces_in_Italy_during_World_War_I

Also the US had one regiment deployed to Italy from the 83rd division.

A-H really lost WW1 on the Italian front in 1918:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vittorio_Veneto#Aftermath

The Salonika Front could be contained if Italy weren't an issue.

Central Powers would fall later,but still fall.
Italy would not get anything after WW1.
That is all,unless....A-H remain strong longer,and ,as a result,see writing on the Wall and ask for white peace,too.
That would be change.
Europe with A-H would be better place - Hitler would be stopped earlier,and we would not have WW2,only small war against Germany./Poland wanted prevention war in 1934,France refused,but A-H would agree.and get southern germany as result./

 

[sillygoose]

Central Powers would fall later,but still fall.

Depends on the circumstances, things could go a few different ways.

Italy would not get anything after WW1.

Agreed.

That is all,unless....A-H remain strong longer,and ,as a result,see writing on the Wall and ask for white peace,too.
That would be change.

Things there get interesting, as by 1918 if Germany is doing poorly and there isn't a good way to get rid of A-H militarily the Allies might cut a deal to peal off the Habsburgs with a white peace. Without Russia or Italy to placate there is little reason not to, as the Allies didn't really care about Serbia or the Czechs outside of Russian desires beyond a means to weaken the CPs, but if they could turn the Habsburgs away from the CP alliance and into a Franco-British-Austrian alliance instead (again now that Italy and Russia are effectively neutralized) then Germany is isolated and surrounded on virtually every side. A surviving A-H that becomes Entente aligned would be quite interesting, especially if assuming Germany still loses Bavaria might be broken off and joined to Austria.

Europe with A-H would be better place - Hitler would be stopped earlier,and we would not have WW2,only small war against Germany./Poland wanted prevention war in 1934,France refused,but A-H would agree.and get southern germany as result./

Agreed. I'm a A-H what if-er. A surviving A-H probably prevents the Depression from happening too, which has wild butterflies. Bavaria might be split off and given to Austria if they defect here and join the Entente. Without Italy or Russia to be concerned about it would be quite the geo-political play to make.

 

[Buba]

Depression is unrelated with A-H's fate. It was part of the economic cycle, in the US greatly aggravated by Hoover's and FDR's interventionism.

 

[sillygoose]

Depression is unrelated with A-H's fate. It was part of the economic cycle, in the US greatly aggravated by Hoover's and FDR's interventionism.

Look at Austria's Credit Anstalt and the role it played in the European banking collapse. If A-H remained intact with an integrated economy it is highly unlikely it would go down if for no other reason than France wouldn't have a reason to yank their money out of it due no risk of it trying to enter into a customs union with Germany in 1931.

 

[Buba]

Look at Austria's Credit Anstalt and the role it played in the European banking collapse.

Good point!

Nevertheless a recession at some point around 1930 still is likely, as such is the way of the world.

 

[WolfBear]

Depends on the circumstances, things could go a few different ways.

Agreed.

Things there get interesting, as by 1918 if Germany is doing poorly and there isn't a good way to get rid of A-H militarily the Allies might cut a deal to peal off the Habsburgs with a white peace. Without Russia or Italy to placate there is little reason not to, as the Allies didn't really care about Serbia or the Czechs outside of Russian desires beyond a means to weaken the CPs, but if they could turn the Habsburgs away from the CP alliance and into a Franco-British-Austrian alliance instead (again now that Italy and Russia are effectively neutralized) then Germany is isolated and surrounded on virtually every side. A surviving A-H that becomes Entente aligned would be quite interesting, especially if assuming Germany still loses Bavaria might be broken off and joined to Austria.


Agreed. I'm a A-H what if-er. A surviving A-H probably prevents the Depression from happening too, which has wild butterflies. Bavaria might be split off and given to Austria if they defect here and join the Entente. Without Italy or Russia to be concerned about it would be quite the geo-political play to make.

Why would a surviving A-H prevent the Great Depression? As for Bavaria, will all of it be given to A-H or only the core eastern part? Because Bavaria had a small territory near Alsace-Lorraine that was not contiguous to the rest of Bavaria. And what effects does this have on the Romanian reentry into the war in late 1918? Does the incentive for Romania to enter the war become much less if Romania cannot achieve the dream of a Greater Romania at A-H's expense?

 

[sillygoose]

Good point!

Nevertheless a recession at some point around 1930 still is likely, as such is the way of the world.

Of course a recession is going to happen, I'm just saying it was possible to prevent it from becoming the Great Depression.

Why would a surviving A-H prevent the Great Depression? As for Bavaria, will all of it be given to A-H or only the core eastern part? Because Bavaria had a small territory near Alsace-Lorraine that was not contiguous to the rest of Bavaria. And what effects does this have on the Romanian reentry into the war in late 1918? Does the incentive for Romania to enter the war become much less if Romania cannot achieve the dream of a Greater Romania at A-H's expense?

See post 17.
The contiguous parts of Bavaria.
I'd think Romania would like to drive out the Germans even if it meant no territorial gain from the Germans. Of course if Austria defects that might prevent Romania from having a chance to reenter.