I know this has probably be done to death and it's unlikely to happen but in the case of a WW1 where Italy fights against the Entente with the other Central Powers, does that actually makes them capable of winning or would Italy just end on the losing side anyways? My WW1 knowledge is a bit lacking so I was hoping someone could answer it in a complete way.
Italy stays with the Central Powers: Entente Victory Still Happens?
- Thread starter Kurd Gossemer
- Start date
If it enters the fight on the first day, along with A-H and Germany, it is possible the early rush to Paris ends up working. Otherwise, the answer is most likely same as OTL, just likely without A-H dismantled.
Depends on the date of entry. Regardless, a lot of Austrian troops are freed up for the East, and the French have to divert significant forces to the south, plus CP naval strength in the Med just more than doubled. Given how close-run WWI was prior to several things finally giving out for the CP around the US entry into the war, I wouldn’t be stunned if this swings it.
Depends on how they join:
Scenario A: Italy joins from the outset and provides divisions for the German left flank (as German planners hoped for but didn't expect)
Paris falls in 1914 GG no re.
Scenario B: Italy joins from the outset and (like AH) provides seige guns and crews for the German advance through Belgium and Northeastern France
Coin toss on if this wins the war in 1914/5, Germany really didn't have many super heavy siege guns in 1914 and extensively leaned on the Austrian crews iOTL. Even a single battery of Mortaio da 210/8 could greatly hasten the fall of the Belgian Fortresses. In combination with France not being able to use the Army of the Alps as a reserve pool for the armies facing Germany France could possibly be knocked out in 1914 or be put in an unwinnable position.
Scenario C: Italy joins from the outset and focuses on its own front
No chance of a 1914 knockout imo, but preventing the redeployment of the Army of the Alps, possibly forcing the Entente to upgrade that to an Army Group, and contesting the Central Mediterranean in combination with Austro-Hungarian and German naval forces could still translate into a CP victory later on.
Scenario D: Italy joins when the Ottomans did
I'd actually venture that this may be better for the CP than Scenario C, because the Anglo-French forces bottling up the Austro-Hungarian Navy would be badly out of position to respond to an Italian sortie against them, potentially seizing the initiative in the Med, especially if the Ottomans also join on schedule, completely upending the strategic environment in the Med.
Scenario E: Italy joins when it did iOTL
AH and Germany are already pretty bloodied by this point. However, the Entente forces trying to take Gallipoli are now mulch and the Italians can prevent the escape of the Serbian Army to Corfu. Coin toss who wins from here.
Scenario F: Italy joins when Bulgaria did iOTL
Same as Scenario E. Any later than this though and Italy is joining the losing side with very long odds of turning things around.
That said, the CP losing could look awfully different from OTL. Reducing AH's force commitments by one front could well be enough to avoid the total economic, military, and governmental implosion that created the power vacuum nationalists were able to occupy in OTL. So AH probably survives with some bits trimmed off for Serbia and Romania (in addition to whatever they'd agreed to give Italy in exchange for Italian participation). Italian concession to France are likely no more severe than what France took following WWII (which is to say not much). For Germany a lot depends on how the butterflies impacted the war in the east.
Scenario A: Italy joins from the outset and provides divisions for the German left flank (as German planners hoped for but didn't expect)
Paris falls in 1914 GG no re.
Scenario B: Italy joins from the outset and (like AH) provides seige guns and crews for the German advance through Belgium and Northeastern France
Coin toss on if this wins the war in 1914/5, Germany really didn't have many super heavy siege guns in 1914 and extensively leaned on the Austrian crews iOTL. Even a single battery of Mortaio da 210/8 could greatly hasten the fall of the Belgian Fortresses. In combination with France not being able to use the Army of the Alps as a reserve pool for the armies facing Germany France could possibly be knocked out in 1914 or be put in an unwinnable position.
Scenario C: Italy joins from the outset and focuses on its own front
No chance of a 1914 knockout imo, but preventing the redeployment of the Army of the Alps, possibly forcing the Entente to upgrade that to an Army Group, and contesting the Central Mediterranean in combination with Austro-Hungarian and German naval forces could still translate into a CP victory later on.
Scenario D: Italy joins when the Ottomans did
I'd actually venture that this may be better for the CP than Scenario C, because the Anglo-French forces bottling up the Austro-Hungarian Navy would be badly out of position to respond to an Italian sortie against them, potentially seizing the initiative in the Med, especially if the Ottomans also join on schedule, completely upending the strategic environment in the Med.
Scenario E: Italy joins when it did iOTL
AH and Germany are already pretty bloodied by this point. However, the Entente forces trying to take Gallipoli are now mulch and the Italians can prevent the escape of the Serbian Army to Corfu. Coin toss who wins from here.
Scenario F: Italy joins when Bulgaria did iOTL
Same as Scenario E. Any later than this though and Italy is joining the losing side with very long odds of turning things around.
That said, the CP losing could look awfully different from OTL. Reducing AH's force commitments by one front could well be enough to avoid the total economic, military, and governmental implosion that created the power vacuum nationalists were able to occupy in OTL. So AH probably survives with some bits trimmed off for Serbia and Romania (in addition to whatever they'd agreed to give Italy in exchange for Italian participation). Italian concession to France are likely no more severe than what France took following WWII (which is to say not much). For Germany a lot depends on how the butterflies impacted the war in the east.
Last edited:
NoMommsen
Kicked
By'n large ... nice analyzis of eventualities
... only the above might need some qulification:
on mobilisation
11 stationary 30,5cm "Beta-Geräte" in 'coastal mortar'-batteries (just named 'coastal' under the army's command and intheir depots)
4 stationary 42 cm "Gamma-Geräte" in 'coastal mortar'-batteries (see above for naming)
2 mobile 42 cm "M-Geräte" ... The Iconic Big-Bertha
1 stationary 28 cm L/12 mortar
('stationary' here means ready to be transorted to site and assembled there after the necessary earth works)
in October 1914
1 stationary 42 cm "Gamma-Geräte"
in January 1915
1 mobile 28 cm/L/14 mortar (brought out of reserce)
However, you do have a point, that the 'leased' 8 austrian 30,5 cm M.11 mortars were much more mobile with an easier local set up than the german siege guns.
Ouch, this is what the forerunner of Cadorna (General Pollio) hoped for in his war plans. The scenarios proposed by @SealTheRealDeal are completely in-line with historical realism and planning.
IMHO, if Italy throws its weight on the Western Front from 1914 or 1915, the war ends in the West before the East, with the Germans (and especially Austro-Hungarians) having more troops to spare without an Italian front and a solid 500,000+ Regio Esercito ante-mobilization figures. No way that France and Britain can match 700-800k more troops on the Western Front from the onset (Italians + Germans + spare Austro-Hungarians, let's say it's the equivalent of the Isonzo Armee).
Central Powers win in 1915 in the West with the French capitulation and in the East within 1917. Britain fights on the seas, starving the Central Powers, but the following domino of Russia allows the former to take advantage of the raw materials of Eastern Europe. Cold war between Commonwealth - Germany and second fiddle powers Italy, France (revanchist but still weak), and Austria-Hungary. It may start with the Italians re-approaching the French and the British if the rewards are not sufficient to stop Italian appetite. Russia is a complete wild card in this scenario IMHO.
IMHO, if Italy throws its weight on the Western Front from 1914 or 1915, the war ends in the West before the East, with the Germans (and especially Austro-Hungarians) having more troops to spare without an Italian front and a solid 500,000+ Regio Esercito ante-mobilization figures. No way that France and Britain can match 700-800k more troops on the Western Front from the onset (Italians + Germans + spare Austro-Hungarians, let's say it's the equivalent of the Isonzo Armee).
Central Powers win in 1915 in the West with the French capitulation and in the East within 1917. Britain fights on the seas, starving the Central Powers, but the following domino of Russia allows the former to take advantage of the raw materials of Eastern Europe. Cold war between Commonwealth - Germany and second fiddle powers Italy, France (revanchist but still weak), and Austria-Hungary. It may start with the Italians re-approaching the French and the British if the rewards are not sufficient to stop Italian appetite. Russia is a complete wild card in this scenario IMHO.
This will make some things difficult on the American domestic front. You already had me,bees of the German-American and Irish-American communities against the Entente. Throw in Italian-Americans? Depending how long the war goes, and how the Americans feel about a bunch of kingdoms fighting the French and others (and of course if the Germans are sinking American shipping or expand their terrorism and industrial sabotage in the US like with the Black Tom Explosion to involve Italians) I feel there may be a lot of street signs being changes, assuming there were many named after Italians who weren’t Christopher Columbus. And of course the names of pasta, if it is not seen as un-American after this, despite how much Italian-American cuisine was, like the name, both Italian and American. Come to think of it, they never changed the name of that capital in the Dakotas away from Bismarck, did they? So might just be minor stuff here.
Depending how the war turns, I can see Ethiopia gaining or losing disputed land with Italy and, if the Italians do not win, perhaps they lose their land their entirely. If the British do not annex much if any of the Somali areas, but instead let each former protectorate and sultanate down there run things on their own, might be trouble down the line with them wanting to unify with Somaliland or the Somalis in Ethiopia and Kenya. Likely would be nationalists though, so the local rulers would want to avoid too much of that if it risked their own power. Depends if we have communists show up in this world. The Senussi probably also go nuts in Libya.
Depending how the war turns, I can see Ethiopia gaining or losing disputed land with Italy and, if the Italians do not win, perhaps they lose their land their entirely. If the British do not annex much if any of the Somali areas, but instead let each former protectorate and sultanate down there run things on their own, might be trouble down the line with them wanting to unify with Somaliland or the Somalis in Ethiopia and Kenya. Likely would be nationalists though, so the local rulers would want to avoid too much of that if it risked their own power. Depends if we have communists show up in this world. The Senussi probably also go nuts in Libya.
If it had joined the CP it would probably be late 1915 like OTL, the additional pressure on the French and (more importantly) in the colonies could turn the war around as the Italian navy would certainly disturb British naval operations in the Med, the Entente would have to divert troops and as they can't really divert troops from the Western Front they would have to use the troops used for Thessaloniki, Gallipoli and the Ottoman front in general.
It would be interesting how fighting would be done in the desert of North Africa however I think that if the British manage to defeat the Italian navy then Libya would probably fall, the winner of the war is unpredictable.
Yes, the addition of Italy or a simple Italy that stays neutral greatly swings the balance of power in the Central Power direction. It has to be remembered the entry of Italy into the Great War was the greatest diplomatic coup of the Entente till the entry of the US.
Generally, every entry outside a direct involvement of Italy would've been incredibly unlikely to utterly impossible to accomplish. There was only one point when it was discussed if Italy would join Germany and A-H, and that was at the start of the war. Afterward, the discussion was always about neutrality or joining the Entente side. Therefore, without any great PoDs before WW1 and to keep things as realistic as possible, Italy has to join from the get-go.
First, I have to say I'm a strong proponent of the fact that an Italy actually standing with the Central Powers assures a victory for their side. To forego any questions of why I have this opinion, it is quite simple. Just Italy allows the redeployment of around 3 million troops that were engaged on CP side on the Italian front added to that are around 5 million Italians...that is a massive shift. Please don't misunderstand me, such a reduction towards a singular point is an extremely simplistic viewpoint, but I think such simplifications help to showcase the massive shift a CP Italy encompasses.
For a more detailed answer, you can look below.
Western Front:
The only difference is the possible involvement of Italy. Thankfully, we don't have to guess or talk about what would Italy do. We know, what the plan was.
According to the agreement made and the mobilization plans, the Italians would have sent 3 Italian corps to the Western Front. Such an act would free up a significantly number of German troops to be added to other parts of the Western Front like the right wing of the assault.
The battle of the Marne is generally considered a close thing. If we follow historians like John Keegan and Showalter, there are multiple events detrimental to the German side of the Marne battle. Be it the order to pursue the France in direction of Epinal, the one that send two corps and a cavalry division to the Eastern theatre or the capture of the German plans, there are many PoDs that could affect the outcome. In this case, the Italian participation adds to the German side while it withdraws from French.
Regardless of how much of an effect or what course the events would take, the fact is that in this scenario the German side was strengthened and the French side weakened. Therefore, a better result for Germany than OTL is the likely outcome of the Battle of the Marne or the following events.
Overall, the Germans should have an additional 100.000 troops, which they could have used to strenghten their front in the decisive areas thanks to the addition of the Italian corps. If this numbers sounds too little to make an impact, it's best to keep in mind that this is roughly 80% of the initial BEF (British Expeditionary Force).
Furthermore, the Italian involvement would bind troops in the South. In OTL, the Armee des Alpes or more correctly the „Inspection du Sud-Est” was disbanded on the 17th August and most of it incorporated into the Armée d’Alsace. Additionally, the first transfer of troops happened around the 14th of August wit the 44th divion d'infanterie being send to Grandvillars.
Italy planned to attack the French alongside their border with 5-8 corps. It is highly unlikely that this area would be capable to transfer troops if they came under attack or were threatened by one. Therefore, the reinforcements that were needed would have to come from somewhere else. Furthermore, the casualties and threat such an attack would inflict upon France would require further reinforcements in this place.
Quite frankly, the Austro-Hungarian border was near identical from a topographical perspective and there is little there to make me believe that France is somehow able to do more with less compared to A-H. Consequently, they would have to reinforce these positions and spend resources there.
It should be noted that Italy also planned a landing in Southern France, but such a scenario is too far out there and is on the level of the Mecklenburg landing “planned” by the British. I would ignore it.
The last contribution would be the hindrance the Italian entry would pose towards the transfer of the Armée d’Afrique to France. With the inclusion of Italy, the Mediterranean Sea would be a contested one(s.b.) and it is questionable that the troops would actually make it across the sea.
Altogether, it is clear that the addition of Italy would have a significant impact on the initial events of the war on the Western Front. There is no doubt that their participation has a positive effect for their side and a negative on the opposing side.
With the powers at play here, it isn't hard to see that an early end to the war would be in the cards. France would likely fall either in 1915 or 1916.
Balkan Front
Serbia alone never stood a chance against A-H. The only reason they prevailed for as long as they did in OTL was that A-H was distracted by the other theatres. Additionally, they were the Great Power which butchered their mobilization the most, by far. Including a general, who literally disobeyed his orders to achieve personal glory. It is hard to find a similar case of gross disobedience harming their own country in such a manner.
The Italian entry would free up A-H troops in the range of 800k -1 million in the first year of the war. For the Balkan front this means that the 5th Army is never withdrawn and remains there. I don't see any change on the strategic level, which means that the Serbian side of the conflict would be the first A-H would try to resolve. Compared to OTL, the front would be resolved a little bit earlier and under Austro-Hungarian leadership instead of German. While Mackensen and Seeckt can be counted among the best commanders of WW1 and not having them in command is a detriment, every other advantage was with A-H. Therefore, I can't see them not winning that one.
Furthermore, the addition of the Italian fleet would ensure that no convoys could as easily be transported to Bar(Antivari), further weakening the precarious supply situation of Serbia and Montenegro. Therefore, lowering the fighting potential these foes had.
Lastly, there was some oral agreement in regard to Italian troops being send to this or the Russian front. I sincerely doubt that promise would be kept in the initial month or year of the war. Depending on the circumstances, a minor force could fight in the same theater (Balkan) but not more.
I don't see Bulgaria acting differently. Meaning, they join up when Serbia seems to fall.
The OTL end of French and British troops landing in Saloniki is out in this scenario. As an end result, I see two possibilities. One, the Serbian army after an exhausting and strenuous retreat surrenders near dead on their feet. Two, the Serbian army withdraws into Greece and their actions kickstart the Greek civil war between Venizelos and the king.
There is simply no way that the OTL evacuation happens. Ignoring how most of the transport vessels were Italian and the supply lines now unsecured, the great powers would face enough problems on their own to risk their assets on a lost front.
Mediterranean Sea
*The text was written as an answer to another scenario and the numbers I call into question were from Naval History Net. I thought it fit as an explanation to the effect an Italian participation could have. Therefore, I posted it here. Tomorrow, I will look over it again and amend things if it has too many issues.*
The discussion for the Mediterranean Sea does something, I never quite like for a detailed discussion. It relies upon tables and statistics, ignoring the adage only to trust the statistics that you yourself manipulated. Furthermore, on principle, fleets should be compared and not all ships everywhere. Fleets or squadrons do battle, they are not all put in one stack and then pushed against one another.
I will go over the French fleet, because they are the most egregious examples among the ones in the Mediterranean Sea.
The quotes are universally from the work of Paul G. Hapern, 'The Naval War in the Mediterranean'.
Here we have the first discrepancy between the actual events and tables. France had only two dreadnoughts at the start of the war. Secondly, the quote mentions an important point, pre-dreadnought is not equal pre-dreadnought. Lastly, it is uncertain how many pre-dreadnoughts one side would use.
Following such a line of reasoning, we cannot simply compare table numbers with each other and declare one side automatically better.
Because I can already see someone raising the point about a few weeks not mattering, it was an expectation that battle would happen in the early days. Most statements went with 3 days for a major engagement between the two sides to happen or has happened. Therefore, the early numbers matter immensely and cannot be simply glossed over.
Ignoring the limited fighting capabilities, I find it important to note that only part of them were allotted to the battle fleet.
Also, once more you have an important distinction ignored. The roles they should fulfill were similar, but the development circle is protected cruiser, armoured cruiser and then battle cruiser. A protected cruiser has no belt armour and would not be used in a similar fashion as an armoured cruiser. To simply categorize them into one group ignores their inherent differences.
Once more we have a slight discrepancy between these numbers and the provided table. Important to note are that only a fraction of these numbers were attached to the fleet and even less were 'useful'. Later on the problems with machinery and designs led to a number of them living under the constant threat of fire in the boiler and engine room. Lapeyrère went so far to call the new 850-ton destroyers perhaps suitable for parade, but not as warships. According to him, only ten among them
were suitable for their designated duties.
Overall the actual French fleet provides are far worse picture than numbers would suggest. Ignoring the factual mistakes, likely happened through counting the ships at a later date instead of the start of the war, there is much speaking against the French fleet.
After we have established the lackluster state of the French fleet, we can turn towards the possibilities and likely turn of events for the early days of the conflict.
First, we need to establish the early goals and actions of the two sides. Thankfully, we know their plans.
The French and the British had a vaguely formulated agreement about acting together and granting the French nominal command. In reality this was worth little. There was no effective communication between the two fleets in the Mediterranean, no pre-arranged meeting place, no established understanding between the two commanders, declared strategic objective, clear orders or anything actually substantial.
With the initial set of orders for the British being, to not engage superior foes which by itself led to a misunderstanding in OTL and the French orders completely ignoring the British, it seems ridiculous and based on wishful thinking to say these two sides would cooperate perfectly or even attempt to in the early days.
For the French side the orders were far clearer. Lapeyrère was ordered to ensure the transport of troops from Africa according to the mobilization plans of the general staff. His own plans, ideas and contributions were disregarded and he had to follow strict orders to do things in the manner the non-naval experts proclaimed. A last attempt made to change the plan to make it more strategically sound as well as provide more protection for the transports was rejected on July 28 by the ministry. At the start of the war, in a somewhat typcial way this was changed once more and the clauses forbidding Lapeyrère from building convoys were lifted.
The French fleet departed Toulon on August 4 in three groups towards Algeria. The transports were to sail at pre-arranged times from Africa and head towards Cette at full speed. Lapeyrère intended to form convoys and protect them as best as he could.
Now, the question is if these orders or arrangements would have changed through the scenario the OP stated. The unsurprising answer is no. It is no secret that the cooperation in the Mediterranean was a story of conflict instead of harmony. There was conflict of interest, personalities, strategic goals, national pride and procedural issues. The final decisions made for war happened in a couple of days. It's utterly ludicrous to believe that the two great powers and navies would accomplish a close cooperation in this timeframe when they struggled to achieve the same in a matter of years. And even the steps below an actual close cooperation would be in the realm of fantasy. They wanted different objectives and the British were extremely unwilling to sign anything binding before they needed to.
On the other side you have the two rivals A-H and Italy. They had established a groundset of rules. The commanders had established a rapport, meeting place, logistical issues, strategic objective, chain of command, communication and information exchanges.
As an example of how much they planned and prepared for this, even in OTL coal supplies for the combined fleets were ready at Augusta along with colliers and lighters, prepared by the Italians(!!). Of course, there would issues and problems for such a combined fleet, but certainly less than for any hastly combined French-British one and far less than you would normally expect.
As for their strategic objectives, one chief objective would be to stop the transport of the 100.000 troops from Africa to France. This goal was established during the early talks for the convention and been stated on multiple occassions by Haus himself. Archduke Friedrich gave his express permission for Haus to act according to the convention as long as Italy doesn't shirk its alliance obligations. Therefore, no orders would stop the combined fleet from acting.
Haus expected the French fleet to do the strategically sound move and try to fix their fleet in the central mediterranean sea, instead of focusing completely on convoy duty. Lapeyrère wanted to do that, but his political leadership outright forbid him from doing that. This left them with the aforementioned three groups and convoys.
Between them stood the British fleet. There are three reasonable choices left to them in the face of a clearly superior force. First, they run with their tail between their legs, hide or in an attempt at a glorious death try to buy the French some time by throwing their lives away. I think we can discard the last option, in OTL just the Austrian fleet was enough for the Admirality to order the fleet to withdraw at the first sight of it. This leaves two valid option.
The British can either withdraw towards the Suez canal or try join the French. For the latter the obvious options are Bizerte and Toulon. Without an established way of communication they couldn't know the exact position of the French fleet and we know from the Russian example that open communication is a concept leading to disaster.
Of course, there is also the option to go to Gibraltar.
For the option to be valid to combine with the French, there is a need for the decision to have been made, the order has to be sent, the location has to be found and Britain has to have declared war on Italy and A-H. All of these points represents obstacles that need to be near instantly overcome for there to be a chance of the two fleets combining. The so-called human factor, which is so often ignored, cannot be ignored. In OTL, both France and Britain hesitated with a declaration of war towards A-H. The overall procedures were not designed for speed and in the early days uncertainty and fog of war did attribute for much. Under these circumstances I don't consider it reasonable to ascribe near supernatural capabilities to the British side to give the French fleet a fighting chance by having the British sail out en masse to find and join them.
This leaves the options for them to hide in their own harbor or go to a French one. I would say in the early days the official orders were more cautious and focused on safety than later on. Additionally, in OTL the British when faced with only the Austrian fleet commanded their squadron to not engage a superior foe...and that's it. They didn't order their ships to direclty go to French harbors and combine with them to stand against the superior Austro-Hungarian fleet. There is much that can be said about the British navy, but that they easily panicked is not something they are actually known for. Therefore, I find it that them following the course of OTL the most likely.
After we have established the circumstances, the only thing left is to describe the hypothetical outcome of this situation.
On the one hand we have the combined Austro-Hungarian-Italian fleet, with the likely addition of the German ships as either auxilaries or actual factors, and on the other hand we have a French fleet that is separated into multiple elements.
It is plain to see that the Central Power fleet is superior in nearly each measurable way. They have more dreadnoughts, better light elements and the overall quantitative edge. If there would be a battle between the two sides, there is little doubt in me that the Central Power side would come out victorious. Therefore, the only question remaining is, if there would be a battle.
And I have to say most certainly. The most likely starting harbors are known, their destination is known, ships using coal are easily spotted from a distance, the convoys were more concerned with speed than staying hidden and the convoys were split into multiple ones instead of one big one. Considering all these elements it stretches the realms of possibility for one such convoy to pass by without being sighted, but it could happen. Now, the same thing happening multiple times in an extremely short time frame needs ASB involvement.
One part will be found and engaged. The question follows, what would the French Fleet do? They could abandon the part of their fleet, try to combine and fight or change their plan. Considering the kind of man the admiral was, there is no reckless charge. The order would be for the fleet to disengage and withdraw, while the other elements of the fleet combine. Meanwhile older elements would be tasked with running protection for the last convoys as they battle fleet tries to buy them the time. With the convoys so close by they can't stop and their orders are clear, the transport has to be secured and there can be no delay. Such orders leave him no other option than to ensure it happens and the best way is to stop the hostile fleet from getting near them, which is best done through a game of cat and mouse. Even in the best case such an operation would endanger their ships to get the convoys through, which means losses.
As I see it, the realistic worst case would be for the CP fleet to hit the French when they were split in two and get the part with the commander. Best case is the French discover the hostile fleet early on and combine their main assets into one group and leave older vessels for the transport protection. In that case the CP fleet only gets some older elements including a convoy.
Personally, I lean towards a great blow to France. There are so many ways for things to go badly for them and far fewer for things to turn out well.
After any battle, there could be little doubt that this sea is a contested area and that France is in dire need of help. Britain doesn't send inferior elements to deal with an enemy. A simple look at how they dealt with Spee's suqadron reveals such an attitude. They send two battlecruisers, three armoured cruisers and two light cruisers against two armoured cruisers and three light cruisers. To suggest they would send pre-dreadnoughts into this area without equalizing the amount of dreadnoughts is ludicrous.
Economy:
This is one of the points that you would see raised again and again. It's about the dependcy of Italy on British coal. It's always used in only one direction as a direct example for why Italy would never ever join the CP. Such arguments are most often brought forward by amrchair generals or even worse, armchair economists.
There are a multitude of arguments that can be brought forward against such a simplistic view of reality, but I will simply point out that it took till the middle of 1915 for German firms to no longer be able to order goods from Great Britain. In their minds such things can be done by pushing a hidden button somewhere and then it's done. Reality is far more complex and WW1 has been overlooked far too often for the utterly amazing work the people at the time did to handle new circumstances.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
I'm not sure how active the Italian dreadnoughts would be given OTL failure to risk them out of harbour. Even when allied to the Britsh & French against the Austo-Hungarians. Can't see them risking much when allied to the Austro-Hungarians against the RN and MN.
I think this is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I can't say i know much about the land battles of WW1, but imo one of the consequences of Italy honouring it's alliance likely means Romania joins the Central Powers as well to take back Moldova. And the romanian oil remains intact and contributing to the CP war effort. So the french will face more pressure fighting the italians in the Alps or the colonies etc., while the russians will face same from more A-H troops plus Romania. So what could happen is the french would collapse under the aditional strain while the russian front colapses earlier.
Navally, as others pointed the french will be completely outnumbered by the combined italian and A-H fleet, so they will need to be propped up by RN detachments, which in turn might mean things like fewer RN ships at Jutland, with all kinds of effects that might have.
And imo no, the americans will not turn things around if they enter the war, my understanding is their troops hardly fought until the second half of 1918. At most, what they would secure is a draw or at least not a complete defeat of the Entente. What the world will look like after that, with a Germany and Austro-Hungary (and Italy) that have not lost and at least retained their pre-war empires, but more likely having made gains, not to mention retaining their military and navies etc., that would be interesting to speculate.
Navally, as others pointed the french will be completely outnumbered by the combined italian and A-H fleet, so they will need to be propped up by RN detachments, which in turn might mean things like fewer RN ships at Jutland, with all kinds of effects that might have.
And imo no, the americans will not turn things around if they enter the war, my understanding is their troops hardly fought until the second half of 1918. At most, what they would secure is a draw or at least not a complete defeat of the Entente. What the world will look like after that, with a Germany and Austro-Hungary (and Italy) that have not lost and at least retained their pre-war empires, but more likely having made gains, not to mention retaining their military and navies etc., that would be interesting to speculate.
This is a classic false equivalence. The Austro-Hungarian fleet was bottled in and posed no direct threat to any strategic points of value, it simply functioned as a fleet in being. Italy was not threatened in any substnatial way by their actions. Sinking that fleet would have been a prestigious victory, but be of little value for the great risk imposed upon them. Why risk the ships when the goal, rule over the sea, is accomplished without the risk? The argument can also be expanded towards the British and French, because they also didn't risk their dreadnaughts against A-H.
In this scenario, the French and British ships are not bottled in and pose a direct threat to Italy. The massive coastline of Italy is under threat. To battle this threat they have do to something and we know they planned to do something. We have their actual signed agreements to a certain plan of actions, we have their historical preparations and declarations of clear intent.
You cannot compare a scenario where Italy was under no risk and risked nothing, with a scenario where they are at great risk. The premise of these scenarios differs greatly, therefore the conclusion is in dire need of a defense if you say it can stay the same.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Very true - but even at the last moment, when the Italian fleet needed a victory (for future budget considerations) they sent out the oldest dreadnought and made sure she was kept well away from any potential danger.
The RN did not deploy any dreadnought BB's to the Med until 1918 - they were hiding safe in the North Sea until then.
Well because of two reason:
- why risk the most modern and expensive ships for a prestige victory
- by that stage we want the Hapsburg fleet more or less intact as a war prize
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Not sure about "intact" given the sinking of Viribus Unitis.
The point was to prove that nice, shiny and very expensive dreadnoughts were actually of any use, as they hadn't stopped the Habsburg fleet from shelling the Adriatic coast. A more sensible equivalent of the HSF "death-ride" that sparked off a small mutiny. Swinging at anchor isn't going to encourage the building of newer designed, better and vastly more expensive super dreadnoughts which is what the Regia Marina admirals wanted, but OTL didn't get.
The Viribus Unitis was the equivalente of a precision strike done for morale and prestige...THAT was the action lionizated in propaganda.
The shelling by the Hapsburg fleet happened at the very beginning of the war and was basically a one time event that while wounded our national pride was not really important from the war for the rest of the war, the A-H fleet remained under the protection of the defense of the forts and do a series limited sortie towards Albania and the Otranto blockade navigating near the Dalmatian coast for protection. The only time they really tried a pitched battle in the Adriatic at the end of the war, basically for honor sake they turned back almost immediately after being discovered.
The Admirals will never get what they wanted, the economic situation stopped any thought about it, eveyone knows it even before the end of the war, prestige or not prestige Regia Marina will have never got the money necessary as there weren't available funds.
For this reason the real big battle between admirals was what kind of Navy have after the war, if one downsized but similar to the actual or something more centered on more light units and this new things the aircraft carrier with fewer heavy units as support
Scenario B ends the war sooner, saving lives on all sides. Romania joins in earlier along with Bulgaria.
What if an early Italian entry cause the Ottomans to join the Entente?
The entente can now offer them Rhodes and Libya, maybe border corrections in the Caucasus and Arabia. Thus the straits stay open.
The ottomans choosing the Entente means that Bulgaria also join the Entente, and so does Romania. Serbia might never fall in this scenario, and the romanians will do much much better with no southern front.
The entente can now offer them Rhodes and Libya, maybe border corrections in the Caucasus and Arabia. Thus the straits stay open.
The ottomans choosing the Entente means that Bulgaria also join the Entente, and so does Romania. Serbia might never fall in this scenario, and the romanians will do much much better with no southern front.
Churchill stole their two battleships, so it's not happening. Also they later promised Russia the Straits in writing.
The High Cost of Two Battleships: Churchill, Turkey and a Decision that Still Effects us Today