Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Italy was loyal in 1914?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if Italy was loyal in 1914?

    Historically Italy turned its back on the Central Powers in 1914. This thread supposes that they honored their obligations with the French invasion of the Alsace Lorraine in August 1914. How big an impact did Italy's refusal to join with its allies in war affect the outcome of WWI?

    It can be argued that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have had a far easier time of it without the endless battles of the Izonso River eating up men an material. This makes Russian problems worse. It would also have placed a burden on the French would would have had a second hostile frontier. It also put the Rn and French navy in a spot if they try and Balkans adventure like Gallipolli with the Adriatic a Central Powers lake.

    Did Italy's decision to sit out change the course of history?

  • #2
    For a start I'd think it depends on whether Italy can have an impact on the battle of Marne.My bet is that the French Army of the Alpes would have mopped the mountains with them,so the answer is largely no.Their entry would have also forced Joffre to a defensive stance much earlier,so many French losses would have been prevented.
    The KuK army lost it's core during the Russian 1914 offensive.Prevent that and the CP 1915 offensive knocks Russia out.In this matter Romania's neutrality was more important than any impact Italy had on A-H operations.
    As for the Anglo-French,they would have landed near Rome in 1915.No minefields,no Mustafa Kemal.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

    Comment


    • #3
      The naval effects would have been interesting.

      Instead of cancelling the Austro-Hungarian fleet as they did historically, both powers together would have combined their ten dreadnoughts and therefore would have considerably complicated things for the Entente in the Mediterranean.



      Likely consequences:

      1. An Anglo-French landing in Latium would have been very problematic. Unlike the Turks, the Italians had a navy of significant strength, and due to the German fleet-in-being, the Entente may not have been able to concentrate their forces to crush the Italo-Austro-Hungarian fleet.

      2. The Italians could have forced a lot of shipping in the Mediterranean to be convoyed, with subsequent virtual loss of tonnage due to bottleneck and turnaround inefficiencies. They could also have interfered with the transfer of French troops from North Africa.

      3. The Dardanelles and Salonica campaigns would have been non-starters, just because of a Central Powers fleet-in-being.

      Land:

      While I agree that Italian prospects of success in an Alpine offensive against France would be dismal, Mihais underestimates the effects of Italy's repeated offensives against Austria-Hungary. They tied down a lot of A-H troops and inflicted significant losses. Not, mind you, in a proportion that was favourable to Italy. But as a contribution to the Entente war effort, a quite welcome attrition nevertheless.

      On the other hand, I don't think that the Central Powers would have been able to spare sufficient war material to equip the Italians, as the Entente were increasingly able to do as the war went on.

      The Central Powers certainly could not afford to float the large loans that made it possible for Italy to maintain her trade with neutral countries and sustain her civilian economy.

      An Entente blockade of the Mediterranean exits would have hurt Italy both badly and quickly--a near total loss of critical raw material imports, export earnings, and remittances from the millions of recent Italian migrants living abroad.

      So one glance at the economic balance sheet tells you why Italy hesitated to fulfill her commitment to the Triple Alliance. For Italy, that alliance had been purely defensive, in two ways: for one thing it was to reduce the likelihood of French or British aggression. But second, and more importantly, membership in the Triple Alliance neutralized the longstanding Austro-Hungarian hostility through the bonds of an alliance.

      It's remains a good question, though, why Italy decided to join the Entente. Besides the blandishments they were offered, of Illyria and large parts of Anatolia, and the mistaken belief, not just held by Italians, that the war would be fairly short, there was also fear.

      This big alliance war looked likely to result in one coalition of powers becoming dominant. As a weaker power, Italy was happiest in the tense balance situation up to 1914. No matter what the outcome of the big war, Italy's options were going to shrink. They felt it likely that they were going to get pushed around by whoever came out on top.

      So the economics of the situation made it much too costly for Italy to join in an aggressive German war against France (n.b. do bear in mind that the Germans never paid their Italian allies the courtesy of letting them know that their plan of warring on Russia meant first invading Belgium and France--if the Italians had known that, they may have withdrawn from the Triple Alliance before they did). But the prospect of having no friends among any of the Great Powers was likewise almost unthinkable--whoever won in the end was going to have no warm feelings towards Italy. It was a process of elimination--if not one side, then the other--and hope for the best.

      A classic case of the power-political dilemmas facing weaker powers.
      Last edited by cape_royds; 29 Sep 09,, 05:06.

      Comment


      • #4
        While I fully agree wiith cape royds on why Italy didn't join CP(there's also the secret treaty with France that nullified in practice the Triple Alliance),my points were strictly operational.
        So-
        1.The Austro-Italian fleet were separated by the ''boot'' itself.To join them means passing near British fleet based at Malta.The Italian squadron at Taranto would be able join the A_H fleet(or them moving and being based at Taranto)but this would be the end of their maneuvers.Getting out means death at the hands of the French and RN.They were inferior in every aspect.Also their bases can be blockaded easily.So an Anglo-French landing is possible in 1915.Combined with the probable loss of the fleet,the economic effects and Il Francesi near Rome....
        2.To repel the landings,German and A-H troops are needed.Fighting in the Alpes is one easy thing for the CP,moving South is another.More troops are needed to prop Italy than to defend against Italy.Mainly for political reasons,but military as well the CP must be commited.So no 1915 offensive,no Russian defeat,maybe no revolution.While I do recognize that Italy tied CP troops,Russian 1914 and Brusilov offensives were the doom of A-H.With the troops from the Italian front or without them it's almost the same for A-H.If Russia is able to last one more year,the Germans are lost anyway.

        So,a very different history.A different outcome-not think so.
        Those who know don't speak
        He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mihais View Post
          The Austro-Italian fleet were separated by the ''boot'' itself.To join them means passing near British fleet based at Malta.The Italian squadron at Taranto would be able join the A_H fleet(or them moving and being based at Taranto)but this would be the end of their maneuvers.Getting out means death at the hands of the French and RN.They were inferior in every aspect.Also their bases can be blockaded easily.So an Anglo-French landing is possible in 1915.Combined with the probable loss of the fleet,the economic effects and Il Francesi near Rome....
          The Entente did not maintain any close blockade of the Austro-Hungarian fleet in 1914.

          a. The British Mediterranean forces were too small (a trio of battlecruisers that at war's outbreak were busy chasing the Goeben). Fisher had concentrated the British fleet in home waters, to counter the German fleet-in-being.

          b. The British were also preoccupied in seeing the initial BEF transferred safely to the continent.

          c. The French were inferior in strength to the Italians, and only had bare parity with Austria-Hungary in dreadnoughts (albeit superior in other types). Their priority at war's outbreak was drawing their colonial army from North Africa to the main front at home. In fact, the British Mediterranean force, before pursuing the Goeben, was tasked with assisting the French escort their North African troops.

          d. The Adriatic was regarded by the British as a dangerous zone for a foray because of the many possible bases from which torpedo boats and minelayers could make night-time sorties against a battle fleet. British admirals at many points of the war took especial care to avoid such situations, which had been widely discussed and modelled in the pre-war years.


          Therefore, in the event of Italian belligerency, I don't see how the British or French could have prevented a concentration of the Austrian and Italian capital ships, say at Brindisi. Once together, the Entente would certainly not have the strength to prevent the combined fleet's progress to Taranto, Naples, or Leghorn--unless the British attempted a major redeployment of strength from the North Sea to the Mediterranean.

          The combined Italian/Austro-Hungarian would have had little offensive potential. Indeed it would probably try to avoid battle as much as possible, due to its qualitative inferiority. But as a fleet-in-being, it would negate the offensive potential of the Entente in Mediterranean waters. Forget about amphibious expeditions.


          But there are a lot of imponderables. For example, such a combined CP naval threat in the Mediterranean may have galvanized the British naval command to take more risks than they did historically--and damn the torpedo boats. You can be sure that the First Lord (Churchill) would have been urging them on!


          There would have been the prospect of a major fleet action in which both sides were multi-national forces, i.e. Anglo-French versus Italian/Austro-Hungarian.


          ETA: I wonder whether, when facing a hostile Italy, the British may have requested that their Japanese allies reinforce the Entente in the Mediterranean. By 1914 Japan had two dreadnought battleships and two powerful 14-in. battlecruisers of the Kongo class.

          Of course, I imagine the price of this additional Japanese help would have meant more bad news for China--what a odd train of causality that would have been, stemming from an Italian adherence to the Triple Alliance.
          Last edited by cape_royds; 01 Oct 09,, 05:11.

          Comment


          • #6
            A-H oob


            Type August 1914 Strength
            Wartime additions
            1914-18 losses

            Dreadnoughts 3
            1
            2
            Semi-dreadnoughts 3
            -
            -
            Battlecruisers -
            -
            -
            Pre-dreadnought battleships 6
            -
            -
            Coast defence ships 4
            -
            1
            Armoured cruisers 3
            -
            -
            Protected cruisers 2
            -
            1
            Light/scout cruisers 4
            3
            1
            Destroyers 25
            5
            4
            Submarines 6
            21
            8
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • #7
              French oob

              Type August 1914 Strength
              Wartime additions
              1914-18 losses

              Dreadnoughts 4
              3
              -
              Semi-dreadnoughts 6
              -
              1
              Battlecruisers -
              -
              -
              Pre-dreadnought battleships 15
              -
              3
              Coast defence ships 2
              -
              -
              Armoured cruisers 22
              -
              4
              Protected cruisers 9
              -
              1
              Light/scout cruisers -
              -
              -
              ex-Torpedo cruisers 5
              -
              2
              Seaplane carriers 1
              4
              -
              Destroyers 83
              30*
              12*

              Submarines 55
              c19
              14

              TOTALS 202
              56
              37
              Those who know don't speak
              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

              Comment


              • #8
                Italian Fleet in August 1914, based at Taranto , includes most of the major warships -

                all three completed dreadnoughts (again with three more to follow),
                eight pre-dreadnoughts,
                eight out of ten armoured cruisers

                So 6 Dread's vs 4.I guess in order for the French to land,RN must send reinforcements.However Italy would have been the soft underbelly(as usual) so it would have justified the risk.
                Last edited by Mihais; 01 Oct 09,, 18:25.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment

                Working...
                X