Italy in world war 1

magick · 28-09-2003 6:09pm #1

Lets say Italy decides to stay with the Central Powers in WW1, would it have much of an effect/impact on the outcome of things? With Italy on the side of the Central Powers, the Allies would have to deploy more troops to the southern French Border, also Italy would have been bolstered with Austro Hungry behind it.

28-09-2003 6:36pm

well considering that italy would have to fight over the french side of the Alps instead of the Tyrol side probably not much difference....

Even if they did make inroads into French territory supply chains would be next to impossible, French supierior numbers and infrastructure ment such inroads would be pushed back to stalemate at the alps...

The Hasburgs were puppets in WWI and i dont think would have sent Italy any remarkable help....

imho i dont think that it would have made much difference in WWI but for more massacred French and Llyod George having another country to screw over at Versailles

Mark · 28-09-2003 9:01pm

Now imagine trying to cross a World War sized army over it. Artillery would orgasm instantly over the vantage points, but otherwise you're looking at A Right Bastard of a Situation.*

I don't consider it likely that the Italian Army in 1914 (to whom the words 'Fumbling' and 'Incompetant' could readily find a loving home) could have turned the tide of WWI. Have a gander here tbh.

[Cadorna] became chief of staff of the Italian Army. Although the Italian government declared its intentions to be neutral on the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, Cadorna expected war and began building up his army. He decided to concentrate his forces on the borders with Austria-Hungary.

At a secret meeting held in England on 26th April 1915, representatives of the Italian government agreed to enter the war in return for financial help and the granting of land currently under the control of Austria-Hungary. The Treaty of London resulted in Britain granting an immediate loan of £50 million and a promise to support Italian territorial demands after the war.

By the spring of 1915 General Luigi Cadorna had 25 infantry and 4 cavalry divisions. Grouped into four armies, Cadorna only had 120 heavy or medium artillery pieces and some 700 machine guns. Despite the shortage of artillery Cadorna launched mass attacks on Austria-Hungary in May 1915. The defending army quickly built trenches and the Italians suffered heavy casualties. In the first two weeks of the Isonzo Offensive, the Italian Army lost 60,000 men. By the time the attacks were called off that winter, Italian casualties had reached 300,000. Cadorna had also lost 3,000 field guns.

Cadorna made seven attempts to break through enemy lines but his only substantial victory was at Gorizia in August 1916. The Austro-German Caporetto Offensive in October 1917 was disastrous for the Italian Army. Over 300,000 men and most of its trench artillery was lost and the following month General Luigi Cadorna was replaced by General Armando Diaz.

Now at the time, the French Foreign Legion was superior the to Austro-Hungarian army. So if they couldn't defeat their northern neighbours without major difficulty, and to whom they didn't have to cross a major mountain range to get to, I don't think they could have dented the French severly.

Now assume again they DID attack France anyway. For the craic like.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/bkeevil/COBWFA/cobpics/ww1_map.gif
The red line denotes trench warfare. France already had trenches stretching from Belgium to Switzerland. If Italy attacked, the trenches would have been extended down to Frances southern coast. They would have lost more men, granted, but I don't think they would have capitulated.

To paraphrase for the lazy bastards out there : Italy couldn't easily defeat a weaker-than-France- Austria Hungary and were forced into trench warfare with THEM. If they had attacked, likely the same situation with France would have occured except with the Italians losing.

Of course the Italian Army could always have left Europe to the German and Austro-Hungarian
Empires and fought in Russia (Who lost without their help anyway) or the Middle East (Where I doubt they would have had sufficent strength to made a powerful opposition.)

imho i dont think that it would have made much difference in WWI but for more massacred French and Llyod George having another country to screw over at Versailles

Concurage of the me-ness. Though they wouldn't have be near as hard on them as they were on Germany. And Italy didn't have a biggish empire to dissect like Austria-Hungary....likely would have faced reparations and/or a limited army.

Be interesting to consider the consequences of their punishment actually... /me wanders off mumbing to self

*Oh I grant you Hannibal managed it, but he had a far smaller and more manuverable force. Plus he was Hannibal. Come ON like

shock · 30-09-2003 11:46am

If i remember correctly they got screwed over anyway. If I remember my history properly Italy didnt get most of the land they were promised for joining the allies and this helped Musolini to gain power thereby partially contributing to the Italians joining the axis in World War II.

30-09-2003 1:11pm

Italy's contribution to Germany could have been in the Navy aspect, since they did have a very decent navy at that time.. It could have swung the balance in the area of harassing the supplies that helped the allies win. Also Germany could have received supplies through Italy from Turkey & other nations. The lack of resources was a major reason for germany's defeat in WW1 after all.

The Corinthian · 30-09-2003 1:44pm

Originally posted by Mark
To paraphrase for the lazy bastards out there : Italy couldn't easily defeat a weaker-than-France- Austria Hungary and were forced into trench warfare with THEM. If they had attacked, likely the same situation with France would have occured except with the Italians losing

It’s difficult to say, after all the Allied lines on the Western front were stretched and demoralized and Italy’s navy would have caused serious issues to the allied supply lines in the Mediterranean.

Additionally, the Italian front largely held it’s own with the exception of the disastrous battle of Caporetto - which was largely as a result of the nine Austrian divisions attacking having been reinforced by six German divisions, recently freed up from the eastern front after the early armistice with Russia. Had Italy remained a Central Power, those German divisions may well have been sent to bolster an Italian offensive against France.

As I said, it’s difficult to say.

Originally posted by shock
If i remember correctly they got screwed over anyway. If I remember my history properly Italy didnt get most of the land they were promised for joining the allies and this helped Musolini to gain power thereby partially contributing to the Italians joining the axis in World War II.

On a territorial level Italy was screwed over on two fronts, imperial and irredentist. Of the former, Albania and much of the Ottoman Empire were promised to Italy, in the end Italy was simply given a few islands off the cost of Asia Minor, while Britain and France took the rest. Ironically, this was one of the reasons for the formation of the Central Powers - as a counterbalance to Britain and France’s attempts to keep the new nations, Italy and Germany, out of the colonialism game.

With regard to Italian irredentism Italy faired somewhat better, gaining the Aldo Adage / Sud Tyrol region as well as Trieste and Istria. Nonetheless, numerous other ethnically Italian Dalmatian enclaves, such as Ragusa (Dubrovnik) were never ceded to Italy. Most notable of these was Fiume, whiuch was in fact famously occupied in protest by the Italian fascist poet Gabriele D'Annunzio in 1919.

Italy in world war 1

Comments