raharris1973
Well-known member
What if, rather than bilaterally giving Austria-Hungary a "blank check" to pursue war against Serbia in 1914, Germany insisted on Triple Alliance unanimity, that is, Italian support, as a condition of its own support for Austria-Hungary and against countermoves by other great powers?
I imagine this would be less than fully satisfying for Vienna than Berlin's real-life, basically unconditional, bilateral commitment, because Italy and Austria-Hungary were in reality jealous rivals, even enemies, despite having signed treaties to formally ally with each other.
But a Germany worried about Triple Entente encirclement, and not completely blind to Italian double-dealing might nevertheless insist on this condition before backing Austria-Hungary in a course that risked wider great power war. A reason it might is that the Germans, particularly might calculate the weight of the Italian Army would be vital for the Austro-German struggle against the Russians and French (and little Serbs and Belgians). The weight of the Italian forces alone against France (in Lorraine, as per war plans, on the Alpine/Riviera border, in the Med, and North Africa), and the way their "swing" against France would remove all need for Austria-Hungary to worry about its own southwestern Alpine and Adriatic frontier could be seen as the crucial margin of victory or defeat in an anticipated short war, even if the Italian Army and Navy are not regarded as particularly proficient in combat. They may certainly seem "weightier" and thus more relevant, than the British Army in the expected brief war.
Poll Question:
What if Germany insisted Italy be on board for any war in 1914, and that is what it told the Austrians during the July Crisis? What would have happened next?
a) Vienna would say: "Forget about war then, and say nothing about it" – and there's 'peace in our time'
-Vienna might say this, knowing Italy would be demanding a steep price it does not want to pay, and worried about what Italy might do with knowledge of Austrian intentions.The July Crisis blows over as a diplomatic and police matter, with no ultimatums designed to lead to a war. No other crisis leads to a big coalition war in the decade or more ahead.
b) Vienna would say: "Forget about war then, and say nothing about it" – and an Entente power forces Vienna & Berlin into a fight later on a different way
-Vienna might say this, knowing Italy would be demanding a steep price it does not want to pay, and worried about what Italy might do with knowledge of Austrian intentions.The July Crisis blows over as a diplomatic and police matter, with no ultimatums designed to lead to a war. Bur some other crisis, more instigated by one of the Entente powers, like France, Russia or one of their proxies, ends up putting Vienna and Berlin in a position where they have to fight and it is "the Great War" because both coalitions end up fully engaged.
c) Vienna would let Germany try to get Italy onboard for 'crush Serbia'
-Vienna may feel the hate against Serbia so hard it may let Germany try to browbeat Italy into line and hope for the best (that this won't cost them anything they''ll actually have to pay).
d) Rome says 'hell no, no war 4 Austria', there ain't no 1914 war, Triple Alliance splits – it's peace in our time
-Italy gives its most natural emotional reaction, not liking to support Austria. With Italy definitely out, Germany tells Austria, "sorry, it's a no go". Germany walks away from the experience with a bitter taste about Italy - "these guys are unreliable jerks" and drops Italy as an ally. Austria walks away from the experience bitter about Italy and Germany. "Germany, I can't believe those guys treat us on the same level as Italy. That's unacceptable! I don't know what to say!" and they drop Germany as an ally, realizing the Dual Monarchy can't act outside its borders like a great power anymore but can only be a big, polyglot monarchical Switzerland, protecting itself at the border and internally. Germany, having shed two allies who couldn't work together, says, "Well no allies, but good riddance, they were weak, and could never agree, and required more protection than they gave. Face it, they sucked. Liabilities. No friends are better than these friends."
Instead of destabilizing the balance of power or causing war, things actually become *more* peaceful among Great Powers when it is Triple Entente versus the Triple Nothing. France hates Germany and wants revanche. But without German commitment to Austria, the Ottomans or their Balkan interests, there is nothing that Russia would want to fight Germany over. Neither Germany nor Russia want to steal Poles from each other. Germany has everything from France it wants and can handle. It's got an OK overseas empire, growing trade, and getting richer all the time.
Austria-Hungary, without allies, can follow a Magyar-ist style conservative foreign policy of just being neutral and inactive, so it just won't put itself in the way of any Russian moves in the straits, Bulgaria or wherever. The Russians don't really think getting Galician Ruthenians (or Poles or Jews!) is a war-worthy thing. Italy, or Serbia, or Romania want to up and invade the Dual Monarchy to steal land? Come and take it you MF'ers. AH should be able to handle them.
Italy - nobody wants to steal from this relatively poor country with its relatively poor colonial empire. And without being able to bid between competing alliance blocks, it has lost its leverage for indulgence and support.
e) Rome says 'hell no, no war 4 Austria', there ain't no 1914 war, Triple Alliance splits – but the Entente later takes out Triple Alliance members in 1-by-1 fights
-Italy gives its most natural emotional reaction, not liking to support Austria. With Italy definitely out, Germany tells Austria, "sorry, it's a no go". Germany walks away from the experience with a bitter taste about Italy - "these guys are unreliable jerks" and drops Italy as an ally. Austria walks away from the experience bitter about Italy and Germany. "Germany, I can't believe those guys treat us on the same level as Italy. That's unacceptable! I don't know what to say!" and they drop Germany as an ally, realizing the Dual Monarchy can't act outside its borders like a great power anymore but can only be a big, polyglot monarchical Switzerland, protecting itself at the border and internally. Germany, having shed two allies who couldn't work together, says, "Well no allies, but good riddance, they were weak, and could never agree, and required more protection than they gave. Face it, they sucked. Liabilities. No friends are better than these friends."
Unfortunately, the Triple Entente powers, prioritizing dividing colonial spoils among themselves and peaceful relations among themselves, remain very indulgent of aggression and harassment of small and even large countries that are not members of their "big three" club or small pets they like to favor like the Serbs, Greeks, and sometimes Portuguese, Romanians, and Italians. This makes it too easy for some of them to drift into conflict with even great powers like Germany and Austria who have less global reach and who are less networked. Austria-Hungary is the most likely former Triple Alliance member to be accused by Russia or Italy of "defending itself too much" against Serbian or Romanian or Montenegrin or Italian invasion, and then attacked with intent to dismantle in turn. If Austria-Hungary were being partitioned by neighbors with various irredentist claims, Germany might feel an interest in salvaging the empire - thus getting at odds with those claimants, or salvaging the German-speaking parts of the empire. But France could make a casus belli about Germany's "excessive growth" through doing so, or demand compensation for herself - guess where, you guess it, in Alsace-Lorraine. And Russia in hoc to France may go along.
Italy could conceivably get picked on by a combination of any of the two of French, Austrians, Greeks, Ottomans, British, if any of them find their nearby presence in Africa or the Mediterranean or Aegean too annoying.
f) Rome says 'we are with Vienna if she gives us irredenta lands at the outbreak of any war'
This is among the things Italy was asking for as a real neutral in WWI. It was refusing to get into the war now in exchange for promises to get the territory only *later* after the war. Rome and Vienna were each trying to set things up so the other guy could not cheat on any deal and they could.
g) Rome says 'we are friendly neutral to Central Powers if Vienna gives us irredenta land'
This is among the things Italy was asking for as a real neutral in WWI. Since it is only for staying neutral, it looks a little like a shakedown, a veiled threat to join the other side and go to war against Austria.
h) Vienna eventually gives in to Rome & Berlin's conditions for support & starts war
Austrians come to feel crushing Serbia is a do or die thing, and German back up is essential, and cutting off their right ear for Italy is essential to get Germany's backing. So gotta do it or get eaten by3 or 4 vultures instead.
i) Vienna rejects Rome's (& thus Berlin's) conditions & gives up idea of fighting Serbia
Austrians come to feel, how will our country be motivated to fight through thick and thin if we cut off our own ear and give it away before any battle? Screw this. Better we sit tight and let fate take its course.
j) Rome wants a war, but wants Austria to lose, so it lies – says will side w/CP, but instead joins Entente
The Italians, when approached by the Germans think 'to hell with the Austrians, they have our rightful land.' They also think bargaining with them in good faith is stupid, "any promise they make to hand over land is not worth the paper it is printed on." But instead of saying 'screw off' they realize the only realistic war to shake the irredenta territories loose from Austria is for Austria to get wrecked in a war. For that to happen, there needs to *be* a war. But there won't be if Italy tells Germany and Austria honestly, 'screw off'. So,ge Italy needs to encourage Germany and Austria to engage in a war, but then take actions that help ensure they lose. So, promising to support, sooner or (just a little) later, but then coming in on the other side, matches with that.
I imagine this would be less than fully satisfying for Vienna than Berlin's real-life, basically unconditional, bilateral commitment, because Italy and Austria-Hungary were in reality jealous rivals, even enemies, despite having signed treaties to formally ally with each other.
But a Germany worried about Triple Entente encirclement, and not completely blind to Italian double-dealing might nevertheless insist on this condition before backing Austria-Hungary in a course that risked wider great power war. A reason it might is that the Germans, particularly might calculate the weight of the Italian Army would be vital for the Austro-German struggle against the Russians and French (and little Serbs and Belgians). The weight of the Italian forces alone against France (in Lorraine, as per war plans, on the Alpine/Riviera border, in the Med, and North Africa), and the way their "swing" against France would remove all need for Austria-Hungary to worry about its own southwestern Alpine and Adriatic frontier could be seen as the crucial margin of victory or defeat in an anticipated short war, even if the Italian Army and Navy are not regarded as particularly proficient in combat. They may certainly seem "weightier" and thus more relevant, than the British Army in the expected brief war.
Poll Question:
What if Germany insisted Italy be on board for any war in 1914, and that is what it told the Austrians during the July Crisis? What would have happened next?
a) Vienna would say: "Forget about war then, and say nothing about it" – and there's 'peace in our time'
-Vienna might say this, knowing Italy would be demanding a steep price it does not want to pay, and worried about what Italy might do with knowledge of Austrian intentions.The July Crisis blows over as a diplomatic and police matter, with no ultimatums designed to lead to a war. No other crisis leads to a big coalition war in the decade or more ahead.
b) Vienna would say: "Forget about war then, and say nothing about it" – and an Entente power forces Vienna & Berlin into a fight later on a different way
-Vienna might say this, knowing Italy would be demanding a steep price it does not want to pay, and worried about what Italy might do with knowledge of Austrian intentions.The July Crisis blows over as a diplomatic and police matter, with no ultimatums designed to lead to a war. Bur some other crisis, more instigated by one of the Entente powers, like France, Russia or one of their proxies, ends up putting Vienna and Berlin in a position where they have to fight and it is "the Great War" because both coalitions end up fully engaged.
c) Vienna would let Germany try to get Italy onboard for 'crush Serbia'
-Vienna may feel the hate against Serbia so hard it may let Germany try to browbeat Italy into line and hope for the best (that this won't cost them anything they''ll actually have to pay).
d) Rome says 'hell no, no war 4 Austria', there ain't no 1914 war, Triple Alliance splits – it's peace in our time
-Italy gives its most natural emotional reaction, not liking to support Austria. With Italy definitely out, Germany tells Austria, "sorry, it's a no go". Germany walks away from the experience with a bitter taste about Italy - "these guys are unreliable jerks" and drops Italy as an ally. Austria walks away from the experience bitter about Italy and Germany. "Germany, I can't believe those guys treat us on the same level as Italy. That's unacceptable! I don't know what to say!" and they drop Germany as an ally, realizing the Dual Monarchy can't act outside its borders like a great power anymore but can only be a big, polyglot monarchical Switzerland, protecting itself at the border and internally. Germany, having shed two allies who couldn't work together, says, "Well no allies, but good riddance, they were weak, and could never agree, and required more protection than they gave. Face it, they sucked. Liabilities. No friends are better than these friends."
Instead of destabilizing the balance of power or causing war, things actually become *more* peaceful among Great Powers when it is Triple Entente versus the Triple Nothing. France hates Germany and wants revanche. But without German commitment to Austria, the Ottomans or their Balkan interests, there is nothing that Russia would want to fight Germany over. Neither Germany nor Russia want to steal Poles from each other. Germany has everything from France it wants and can handle. It's got an OK overseas empire, growing trade, and getting richer all the time.
Austria-Hungary, without allies, can follow a Magyar-ist style conservative foreign policy of just being neutral and inactive, so it just won't put itself in the way of any Russian moves in the straits, Bulgaria or wherever. The Russians don't really think getting Galician Ruthenians (or Poles or Jews!) is a war-worthy thing. Italy, or Serbia, or Romania want to up and invade the Dual Monarchy to steal land? Come and take it you MF'ers. AH should be able to handle them.
Italy - nobody wants to steal from this relatively poor country with its relatively poor colonial empire. And without being able to bid between competing alliance blocks, it has lost its leverage for indulgence and support.
e) Rome says 'hell no, no war 4 Austria', there ain't no 1914 war, Triple Alliance splits – but the Entente later takes out Triple Alliance members in 1-by-1 fights
-Italy gives its most natural emotional reaction, not liking to support Austria. With Italy definitely out, Germany tells Austria, "sorry, it's a no go". Germany walks away from the experience with a bitter taste about Italy - "these guys are unreliable jerks" and drops Italy as an ally. Austria walks away from the experience bitter about Italy and Germany. "Germany, I can't believe those guys treat us on the same level as Italy. That's unacceptable! I don't know what to say!" and they drop Germany as an ally, realizing the Dual Monarchy can't act outside its borders like a great power anymore but can only be a big, polyglot monarchical Switzerland, protecting itself at the border and internally. Germany, having shed two allies who couldn't work together, says, "Well no allies, but good riddance, they were weak, and could never agree, and required more protection than they gave. Face it, they sucked. Liabilities. No friends are better than these friends."
Unfortunately, the Triple Entente powers, prioritizing dividing colonial spoils among themselves and peaceful relations among themselves, remain very indulgent of aggression and harassment of small and even large countries that are not members of their "big three" club or small pets they like to favor like the Serbs, Greeks, and sometimes Portuguese, Romanians, and Italians. This makes it too easy for some of them to drift into conflict with even great powers like Germany and Austria who have less global reach and who are less networked. Austria-Hungary is the most likely former Triple Alliance member to be accused by Russia or Italy of "defending itself too much" against Serbian or Romanian or Montenegrin or Italian invasion, and then attacked with intent to dismantle in turn. If Austria-Hungary were being partitioned by neighbors with various irredentist claims, Germany might feel an interest in salvaging the empire - thus getting at odds with those claimants, or salvaging the German-speaking parts of the empire. But France could make a casus belli about Germany's "excessive growth" through doing so, or demand compensation for herself - guess where, you guess it, in Alsace-Lorraine. And Russia in hoc to France may go along.
Italy could conceivably get picked on by a combination of any of the two of French, Austrians, Greeks, Ottomans, British, if any of them find their nearby presence in Africa or the Mediterranean or Aegean too annoying.
f) Rome says 'we are with Vienna if she gives us irredenta lands at the outbreak of any war'
This is among the things Italy was asking for as a real neutral in WWI. It was refusing to get into the war now in exchange for promises to get the territory only *later* after the war. Rome and Vienna were each trying to set things up so the other guy could not cheat on any deal and they could.
g) Rome says 'we are friendly neutral to Central Powers if Vienna gives us irredenta land'
This is among the things Italy was asking for as a real neutral in WWI. Since it is only for staying neutral, it looks a little like a shakedown, a veiled threat to join the other side and go to war against Austria.
h) Vienna eventually gives in to Rome & Berlin's conditions for support & starts war
Austrians come to feel crushing Serbia is a do or die thing, and German back up is essential, and cutting off their right ear for Italy is essential to get Germany's backing. So gotta do it or get eaten by3 or 4 vultures instead.
i) Vienna rejects Rome's (& thus Berlin's) conditions & gives up idea of fighting Serbia
Austrians come to feel, how will our country be motivated to fight through thick and thin if we cut off our own ear and give it away before any battle? Screw this. Better we sit tight and let fate take its course.
j) Rome wants a war, but wants Austria to lose, so it lies – says will side w/CP, but instead joins Entente
The Italians, when approached by the Germans think 'to hell with the Austrians, they have our rightful land.' They also think bargaining with them in good faith is stupid, "any promise they make to hand over land is not worth the paper it is printed on." But instead of saying 'screw off' they realize the only realistic war to shake the irredenta territories loose from Austria is for Austria to get wrecked in a war. For that to happen, there needs to *be* a war. But there won't be if Italy tells Germany and Austria honestly, 'screw off'. So,ge Italy needs to encourage Germany and Austria to engage in a war, but then take actions that help ensure they lose. So, promising to support, sooner or (just a little) later, but then coming in on the other side, matches with that.
