Larger impact of a fighting Central Powers Italy on WWI?

[raharris1973]

What if Italy fought on the side of its Central Powers/Triple Alliance partners from the beginning of WWI?

What would the larger impact be on the war?

Would the Entente still win, or would the Central Powers win instead?

Even if the Entente wins, how do they win differently without Italy against them, and by what year?

 

[Buba]

Loose thoughts:
- I wonder how much faster the Central Powers' railroad system collapses - Italy needs coal which in peacetime came by sea ...
- Fuckwits like Churchill dillute the war effort with moronic plans "capturing Capri will knock Italy out of the war!". Also "the Italians and their horse-drawn wagons will march 1000km across waterless desert, fight their war across the Nile Delta and block the Suez Canal! We must keep an army in Egypt/invade Cyrenaica!"
- stronger voices in the USA pressuring Wilson to tell the UK and France to shove their rules of blockade where the sun doesn't shine?
- if the Italian army is used as planned - in Lorraine (fancy that, pre-WWI there were people who thought it stupid to attack France over the Alps) - then the end of 1914 trenchline may very well be less favourable to the Entente. If the CP reach the sea somewhere between Dieppe and Boulogne, supplying the BEF will be much more costly due to longer turn around times, thus needing several times more shipping.
- the aforementioned Regio Esercito, if used in the west, may free up German reserves to shore up the Austrians in 1914. Also - more forces for the 1915 CP offensive in the east, as the A-H does not keep 1/4th of its army in the Alps.
- with Italy at war with Entente, Turkey probably goes with the Entente, hoping to recover Rhodos.
- Italy in the CP may complicate Entente logistics by forcing part of maritime traffic to go around the Cape. For how long? I dunno.

 

[raharris1973]

- stronger voices in the USA pressuring Wilson to tell the UK and France to shove their rules of blockade where the sun doesn't shine?

Why this one in particular?

- with Italy at war with Entente, Turkey probably goes with the Entente, hoping to recover Rhodos.

I guess this could happen. Honestly I think it is less than a 50/50 chance. I actually did sketch out a war scenario from beginning to end where Italy and Turkey "switch".

However, if it happened, it would be important. I voted in the poll that Italy in the CP makes the CP win. That's with all else being equal. With Italy in the CP, the Entente *needs* Turkey at least on its side to still win, in my opinion.

One knock-on effect if Turkey is on the Entente side with an assumed promise of Rhodos/Dodacanese back: Greece sits and sulks in a little neutrality corner, never joining the Entente.

 

[Buba]

Why this one in particular?

Loss of yet one more export market and/or Italian voters.
But this is very unlikely, I admit.
IIRC the cotton lobby did manage to force Wilson to demand the Entente to allow exports of this commodity to the CP for some time.

Greece sits and sulks in a little neutrality corner, never joining the Entente.

In OTL Greece was INVADED by the Entente. Same as Norway would had been in WWII if the Germans had arrived a few days later.

As to the poll - my answer would be "it is likely to produce a Central Powers' victory, but never underestimate human stupidity and capacity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory".

ADDED LATER:
Side effects - Lenin and his band of genocidal psychopats rots in Switzerland, there being no need to carry out Operation "Poisoned Fruit" and send them to Russia.

 

[raharris1973]

In OTL Greece was INVADED by the Entente. Same as Norway would had been in WWII if the Germans had arrived a few days later.

I never denied that, but it went from an invaded, partially occupied neutral from early 1916, to a belligerent whose government (under Venizelos) actively raised significant forces to take part in campaigning no later than early 1918, motivated by the prospect of territorial loot. I'm projecting the Venizelists would be 'de-motivated' by an Entente-Ottoman alliance.

 

[Buba]

I'm projecting the Venizelists would be 'de-motivated' by an Entente-Ottoman alliance.

OK, now understood.

 

[sillygoose]

The invasion of France in 1914 likely works given that the French have to garrison the border with Italy and cannot have nearly as many troops on the Marne. From then on Austria doesn't have to worry about Italy, so can focus even more on other fronts, while in terms of the navy the Austro-Italian fleet could easily balance out the French fleet, though the British might tip the balance. Like WW2 having Italy in the war would disrupt the Mediterranean as a transit point with major problems for Britain and France as a result.

I don't know how France would handle 7/8ths of the German army AND the entire Italian army at the same time, especially if Italy also invades Tunisia.

IMHO France is knocked out in 1914 and Russia cuts a deal in 1915 along with Britain...though if the BEF is lost the entire war might end in 1914. The Ottomans may never join in, but if France is falling I don't see how they won't. Italy gets its cut of France in the form of Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and Tunisia, Germany gets the September Program if they actually want it, while Russia probably loses Poland and Lithuania. A-H gets to dominate Serbia, while the Ottomans might end up reclaiming Egypt if the war goes into 1915 (when they attacked the Suez IOTL in January). Maybe Kuwait is dealt with by the Ottomans so it never goes British when it revolts in 1914 (final step of various pro-British moves they made since 1901).

The Entente nations are seriously diminished by the loss so might think about round 2 in the not so distant future if it is a short war without that much damage to territory or population.

The colonial situation actually might not change much or at all in a short war.

A surviving Czardom in Russia would be highly interesting especially if they avoid revolution.

 

[raharris1973]

Some very interesting replies- two of the most elaborate replies point to ways this should change the battles in 1914 to either give the Germans a crucial long-term advantage on the western front

- if the Italian army is used as planned - in Lorraine (fancy that, pre-WWI there were people who thought it stupid to attack France over the Alps) - then the end of 1914 trenchline may very well be less favourable to the Entente. If the CP reach the sea somewhere between Dieppe and Boulogne, supplying the BEF will be much more costly due to longer turn around times, thus needing several times more shipping.

....or simply cause the the Germans to triumph entirely on the western front in 1914:

The invasion of France in 1914 likely works given that the French have to garrison the border with Italy and cannot have nearly as many troops on the Marne.

This points out that the Italians can concentrate their own forces to a greater or lesser degree on the Alpine front or Alsace. The Italians can't exactly bring the benefits of having their armies at full strength in *both* places. But, regardless of specific locations, with an Italian DoW, and without an Italian neutrality declaration, the French will have to guard the whole border more thoroughly and stretch their lines.

One thing I wonder though. In the initial days, weeks, months of the war, the French did alot of self-inflicted damage by jumping headlong into the Battle of the Frontiers with powerful, fully-committed offensives into Alsace-Lorraine.

I wonder if the Italian DoW comes early enough, the French might adopt a more defensive deployment, do less offensives, commit less reserves and thus suffer fewer losses, and thus be able to make up for their new liabilities, being able to later hold back the Germans at the Marne, man the border down through the Alps, and get the same result as OTL with the race to the sea, after wasting fewer forces in the beginning.

Alternatively, if the Italians deploy in strength to Alsace in the early weeks while the French are attacking and the Germans use this to reinforce their right wing for the Marne and race to the sea, and if the Italians are weaker in holding that sector against the French than Germans, allowing for more French advance, it might actually hurt *the French*, because French lines would lengthen with their troops and reserves being further out of position to reinforce the decisive Marne sector or the race to the sea, more prone to getting split somewhere by a German attack.

IIRC the cotton lobby did manage to force Wilson to demand the Entente to allow exports of this commodity to the CP for some time.

You know this is a sidebar but an interesting factoid. I was aware that the south was angry about losing sales to the CP because of blockade. That's actually one reason why I've thought that in hypothetical Confederate victory scenarios, if there is a WWI, it doesn't *have* to be the Britain and the Entente and Confederacy versus Germany and the CP and the USA, it could fall out Germany and the CP and Confederacy versus Britain and the Entente and USA instead. It's not impossible.

 

[Buba]

I got the cotton from here:

LETTERSTIME - The British Blockade

letterstime.com

Amusing alt-hist based around a Marty Stu Kaiserlichmarine Admiral. But the cotton thingy seems to be true.
I wrote one of the hopefully funny omakes, BTW .

 

[raharris1973]

Buba mentioned the Ottomans being more likely side with the Entente in this scenario.

I think almost the *only* way the Entente can win in this scenario is the Entente can have the good fortune to not do worse in 1914 (perhaps by taking fewer losses in opening Lorraine offensives) and *then* having the Ottomans join in on the Entente side as a counter-balance against the Italians being on the other side. If the Ottomans are still on the CP side, along with the Italians, in my view, the advantage tilts even more to the CP.

So here is a quick and dirty scenario I worked out where World War One in western, northern, central, and Eastern Europe ended up with similar results to OTL, an ultimate pyrrhic Entente victory, but with details changing in Southern Europe, the Mediterranean, and Middle East, because the Italians and Ottomans are on opposite sides from OTL. Enjoy:

The Italians join the CP from the beginning. But the British grant the Ottomans their dreadnoughts. The Entente also diplomatically do a full court press on the Ottomans. Meanwhile, the Goeben and Breslau, if not sunk en route, reach safe harbor in an Italian or Austrian port before reaching the Ottoman Empire to reinforce German diplomacy with the Turks.

The Entente, especially France, and more grudgingly Russia, decides its important to bid for Ottoman support when the French front is up in the air. They offer the Ottomans straightaway the restoration of the territories the Italians conquered and occupied in the 1911-1912 war, Libya/Tripolitania and the Dodecanese.

The Ottomans like the sound of that. But they bargain harder. The Entente can't offer back territories lost in the the 1st Balkan War because the Balkan neighbors of Turkey are presently neutral and they don't want to put large Christian populations under them. Likewise, Russia won't be offering Kars-Ardahan, and Britain won't be offering Cyprus or Egypt, France won't be offering Tunis.

However, they can yield their capitulations and special economic rights, and by declaring war on the CP, the Ottomans can unilaterally seize CP properties and revoke their capitulations. The Ottomans can also demand more territory at enemy expense, and the Entente can oblige them by promising them the Italian colonies in East Africa, Eritrea and Somalia, provided the Ottomans provide troops to take and occupy them. Handing over African Muslims to the Ottomans is not seen as problematic as handing over Balkan Christians, or Muslim subjects of Paris, London, or St. Pete.

At most, such promises of Italian loot slightly complicate relations with Abyssinia. The Entente could consider compensating Abyssinia by compensating her with a small Eritrean coastal strip or port.

This adds up to convincing Talaat and Djemal to overrule Enver and declare for the Entente.

In the mid-term, with more Italians in the west, the Germans can send the Austrians a little more help in the east earlier. Przemysl never falls and is relieved. The anti-Serb campaign doesn't go any better than OTL for Austria.

The Austro-German offensive throwing back the Russians in Poland and Galicia happen a little earlier than OTL, with more Germans participating than OTL, although more Russians can participate on the other side, not having an Ottoman front. Relieved on that front, the Austro-Hungarians can take down the Serbs in fall 1915 while the Italians take down the Montenegrins and occupy Albania, even while getting stalemated in the Alps (vs. France, not Austria), and slowly getting ground back in their African territories under Ottoman, French, and British pressure.

The Serbs do no escaping to the west in this TL, but instead to the south to Salonika. With an Entente Ottomans providing an Entente base in Thrace, the Bulgarians dare not declare for the CP, despite the temptation of Macedonia. The probable meeting of western Entente occupying forces and retreating Serbs in Salonika after a slow fighting retreat through Macedonia likely reinforces this deterrence.

While securing the straits for Entente use in shipping (and saving the opportunity cost, especially from winter 1914-1915 and beyond by sparing the British and Russian Empires from anti-Ottoman campaigns and troop commitments, Ottoman-Entente ties, and suspected and open secret about the retrocession of the Dodecanese means active pro-Entente sentiment is squelched in Greece. [Possible alternative, no Entente landing in Salonika, and Serbs are interned]

The takedown of Serbia relieves Austria-Hungary's situation alot.

Not sure what happens in Romania.

But 1915 and 1916 and 1917, the Russians have more men for the front, they also have more export earnings, and are importing more locomotives, so they are matching increased Austrian strength on their mutual front.

In 1915 and especially 1916 and 1917, the British Empire has many more troops in France, having pretty much settled colonial front in the Pacific and Africa, including Italian possessions, and possibly even taken Sardinia or Sicily. (though that's doubtful, and would be a dead-end manpower suck for GB and Italy both)

By 1916 or so, naval attrition of CP, Triple Alliance fleets and effectiveness of blockade has matched OTL levels, so Germany is doing USW.

Results in 1917 - US entry, Russia breaking under strain and revolutions and quitting, then 1918, CP capitulating, end up in a wash, matching OTL.

Maybe Italians loses Valle D'Aosta to French occupation like the Saar. Treaty for Germany is identical to OTL. Trianon for Hungary is basically identical (especially assuming Romania enters and there is an eventual Salonika front), but Bulgaria is status quo ante - so no Neuilly and it keeps its Med coast, and no Sevres for Turkey because it's a winner. St. German for Austria is nearly identical to OTL, except that the Italo-Austrian Republic border is on ethnographic lines, and possibly as the Habsburgs and Italians set it, with German -speaking Sudtirol staying with the Austrian republic (no need to reward Italy as an enemy power). Italy loses its colonies to the Ottomans which become LoN "."Mandates" of the Ottoman Empire, that it treats in most cases as sovereign territory.

As a consequence of the Russian collapse and Civil War, the Ottoman Empire also occupies Kars-Ardahan.

 

[stevep]

An interesting idea but if the Ottomans joined the entente I could see Russia avoiding OTL collapse into Bolshevism and possibly there isn't the OTL revolution replacing the Czar with some Provisional government afterwards. Although either way there could be instability with say demands for reform post-war if the Czar is still in power or unrest from both extremes against a relatively weak democratic government.

 

[ATP]

An interesting idea but if the Ottomans joined the entente I could see Russia avoiding OTL collapse into Bolshevism and possibly there isn't the OTL revolution replacing the Czar with some Provisional government afterwards. Although either way there could be instability with say demands for reform post-war if the Czar is still in power or unrest from both extremes against a relatively weak democratic government.

You are right,Russia collapsed becouse of lack of products from Allies,especially ammo.
And,according to memories of Hipolit Korwin-Mikke,tsar was weak-willed,but belived in his duty of preserving orthodox monarchist Russia.He would not let any reforms,except economical,happen.
But...it worked for OTL China after Mao died,so why not Russia ? maybe we would live in world ruled by orthodox absolute monarch.

 

[raharris1973]

An interesting idea but if the Ottomans joined the entente I could see Russia avoiding OTL collapse into Bolshevism and possibly there isn't the OTL revolution replacing the Czar with some Provisional government afterwards. Although either way there could be instability with say demands for reform post-war if the Czar is still in power or unrest from both extremes against a relatively weak democratic government.

My rationale in that variant for there still being a Russian revolution is that the straits still aren't *everything* or the be all-end all for Russia. While Entente Ottomans are a relief for Russia on the straits and the Caucasus, the CP Italians mean that the Austrians are much less tied down, more formidable, and do more to wear the Russians down. Plus, Russia is needing to throw itself harder at the CPs in Europe the whole time, just to keep France alive.

In any case, here is the epilogue to my Ottomans and Italians swapped in WWI scenario, taking place several decades later:

Fast-forwarding to 1951:

The US/American commanders of UN force in Korea surveyed the newly stabilized front-line on the peninsula.

Despite American reinforcements, and reconstitution of the ROK forces, there was reliance on third country forces supporting the UN effort in some sectors. Aside from the British Commonwealth forces, the ones with the best reputation for toughness (and later for retaining discipline in captivity) were the the soldiers of the Ottoman Turkish and Greek contingents deployed in support of the UN mission in Korea.

---The Constantinople government had embraced the US/western side with the outbreak of the fighting in Korea, since, especially after the second world war, Stalin's Soviet Union began to echo the old Tsarist threat.

It had been natural for the Ottoman Empire to steer clear of the Second World War. Every power, except Nazi Germany *tried* to, and Turkey had the geography to pull it off. But neutrality was diplomatically costly too. The Soviets exploited Turkish neutrality (and last minute entry by the time of the UN deadline) to press demands for the straits and northeast Anatolia. In a world divided between American and Soviet blocs, Turkey needed to stand and be counted.

Within the Ottoman Empire, different contending communities needed to stand and be counted and show the central authority their loyalty and service to the state, and gain the perks of military service, even while taking on the risks of getting sent to the other end of Asia to face down hordes of Chinese in Korea. Thus it was that the motley Ottoman expeditionary force - Korea, included scores of Turkish Anatolians, Greek speakers from Smyrna, and people like the Palestinian Jew Yitzhak Rabin and the Syrian Alawite Hafiz al-Asad, and the units salty old Somalian born NCO, Siad Barre.

 

[ATP]

In OTL Italy managed almost lost to A-H when it fought Russia and Serbia.So,i would not expect much from them.
But,if Turks support Allies,Russia get ammo and other stuff.No revolution.And no armenian genocide,too.

P.S there is joke about italian army - it exist only becouse austrian need somebody they could beat.
And another - in Versaile Germany must agree to have Italy on their side in next WW.

 

[Airedale260]

Given that the Royal Navy is going to immediately strangle Italy’s economy (even with the best ships having to stay at Scapa Flow) and the fact that the Italian army is led by Luigi Cadorna, who actually makes Conrad von Hotzendorff look capable, I don’t see much of a change, because Germany now has to deal with TWO incompetent allies, not just one.

The Italian economy is going to implode very quickly, and the massive losses they’re going to sustain while fighting on the same side as Austria (their biggest enemy) are honestly probably enough to spark a revolution.

Italy’s only contribution might be drawing some French forces down to the Alps, but at the same time, they aren’t going to be enough to really make any impact. This is the same crew that could barely hold their own against the Austrians.

 

[Buba]

Given that the Royal Navy is going to immediately strangle Italy’s economy

It'd be the French Navy. The pre-war agreement (which the British - and French too, I think - Parliament knew nothing about) was that "you can send all your fleet to the Med as we will cover your English Channel coast".

In OTL before Italy's stance became clear the French deployed some forces to the Alps but it was a pitannce versus what went to the German front.
These batallions are listed in the French wiki.
Reason - terrain.
Hence Italy was to send its c.24 Infantry Divisions to Lorraine. Even if poorly equipped - think of what would the impact of their presence there in August 1914?

 

[raharris1973]

ATP - you're quoting a joke. It is exactly that, a joke.

ATP and Airedale - You are relying dated and discredited national chauvinist cliches and stereotypes of the Italians in the world wars. Please educate yourselves. For WWII in particular, I recommend the works of James Sadkovich.

If hundreds of thousands of dead Austro-Hungarians and tens of thousands of dead Germans from WWI, and hundreds of thousands of dead Yugoslavs, Brits, French, and Greeks and Soviets and Germans, and tens of thousands of dead Americans were suddenly reanimated tomorrow and could talk, they wouldn't be laughing too hard at the Italian soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fired the shots putting them into their graves.

There was an odd northern European collusion between Austrian, German and British and possibly even the French alike to denigrate Italian arms after the world wars and credit Italy's allies (Britain and France in WWI, and glory-hound Rommel in WWII) for everything that went right in Italy's theaters of war and blame the Italians for everything that went wrong. It doesn't stand up to a close look.

The Italian Army had its problems in both world wars. All armies did. Its political and high military leadership made many strategic and operational mistakes. In terms of total strength, capability, it may have indeed ranked behind German, British, Russian, and Austrian. But it is way too big a leap to say that made it a net detractor from the alliance it was a part of. It's enemies still needed to fight through them at the expense of fighting their other primary enemies. It was still better to have their guns point at your enemies than at you.

 

[stevep]

It'd be the French Navy. The pre-war agreement (which the British - and French too, I think - Parliament knew nothing about) was that "you can send all your fleet to the Med as we will cover your English Channel coast".

In OTL before Italy's stance became clear the French deployed some forces to the Alps but it was a pitannce versus what went to the German front.
These batallions are listed in the French wiki.
Reason - terrain.
Hence Italy was to send its c.24 Infantry Divisions to Lorraine. Even if poorly equipped - think of what would the impact of their presence there in August 1914?

If they came in August 1914 probably not a lot as they don't have a lot of firepower and hopefully [for their sake] they won't be used on the offensive as they would run directly into the main French forces.

Later on it might cause some issues, especially if their upgraded in heavy equipment and Cadorna's influence could be reduced.

However agree with most of what Airedale260 says. The Italian economy is very vulnerable to both war and economic pressure, especially by sea power. I think Britain would have to help France more in the Med simply because the latter faces both Italian and Austrian fleets along with the Goben, albeit that the 1st two as traditional enemies are going to be very cautious allies. Italy could find itself bearing the brunt of the fighting however as its its supply lines that have to be protected and the Imperial Austrian navy might find excuses for 'guarding' the Adriatic. One nasty point however is that the German U boats are going to have a lot more bases to operate from and a lot closer to France among other locations.

I wonder if the TTL equivalent of Galipoli could be some operation against Sicily or Sardinia?

 

[stevep]

ATP - you're quoting a joke. It is exactly that, a joke.

ATP and Airedale - You are relying dated and discredited national chauvinist cliches and stereotypes of the Italians in the world wars. Please educate yourselves. For WWII in particular, I recommend the works of James Sadkovich.

If hundreds of thousands of dead Austro-Hungarians and tens of thousands of dead Germans from WWI, and hundreds of thousands of dead Yugoslavs, Brits, French, and Greeks and Soviets and Germans, and tens of thousands of dead Americans were suddenly reanimated tomorrow and could talk, they wouldn't be laughing too hard at the Italian soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fired the shots putting them into their graves.

There was an odd northern European collusion between Austrian, German and British and possibly even the French alike to denigrate Italian arms after the world wars and credit Italy's allies (Britain and France in WWI, and glory-hound Rommel in WWII) for everything that went right in Italy's theaters of war and blame the Italians for everything that went wrong. It doesn't stand up to a close look.

The Italian Army had its problems in both world wars. All armies did. Its political and high military leadership made many strategic and operational mistakes. In terms of total strength, capability, it may have indeed ranked behind German, British, Russian, and Austrian. But it is way too big a leap to say that made it a net detractor from the alliance it was a part of. It's enemies still needed to fight through them at the expense of fighting their other primary enemies. It was still better to have their guns point at your enemies than at you.

I would agree. It had serious problems in leadership and equipment, especially in WWI and faced a very hard situation in the attacks on Austrian positions in the Alps but the Italian army fought ferociously despite that. I'm more concern about their economic problems and the impact that both lack of imports and attacks on coastal trade are going to have on their military capacity. Also OTL in WWI I think Italy relied on the allies for a lot of heavy equipment as well as munitions, coal and food and their now going to have to look at their CP allies for those supplies, which are going to be a drain on them. Germany has a lot of coal but shipping it across the Alps could be an issue given that it would take up railway capacity that might be needed for other things.

 

[Airedale260]

Snip

Nice strawman, but you're wrong. My point was that the LEADERSHIP was severely lacking and incompetent. Unless you are trying to argue that Cadorna and von Hotzendorff were actually capable military commanders, in which case, please do so as I enjoy a good laugh.

And that's the real problem: Individual skill in a soldier doesn't mean shit without effective leadership. It took the Italians THREE YEARS before they figured out just HOW incompetent (and utterly insane) Cadorna actually was. Hotzendorff wasn't insane, just a man who was even more behind the times than his peers and who obsessed over grandiose plans that might have made sense fifty years earlier, and who neglected to provide any sort of standardization within the military or focus on boring but critical things like logistics.

So, no, I feel very confident in saying that unless Cadorna is magically replaced early in the war (and given Italian history that would be COMPLETELY out of character for them), then the Italian impact is going to be much the same as OTL unless and until the Germans take over (which they were not shy about doing).