Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dense-Farm t1_j26b9xu wrote

Neutral seems more likely than the central powers - it doesn't take a military genius to realize you're better off fighting the Austrians than the French, all else being equal.

(Edit: and political pressure was more on taking places like Trent/Trieste, not necessarily places like Savoy back from the French. I think that has more to do with Austria being weaker/perceived as easier to get those territories, but still)

Neutral would probably have been the better option in the long long term - does anyone for instance think the Netherlands made the wrong move not joining? But I agree that it would be very hard in the moment to argue for neutrality

271

Arisdoodlesaurus t1_j270fym wrote

I don’t think it would have been hard at all to argue for neutrality. Italy joining the entente did little to change the outcome of the war and, unlike Dutch neutrality in the second war, no power had the capacity let alone initiative to invade a country the size and strength of Italy merely to open up a southern front against France.

67

Jarms48 t1_j27x74a wrote

Well, I wouldn’t say it did nothing. It tied up a lot of manpower. Something like 4 million men died, half of which were from the Central Powers. If Italy remained neutral that frees up at least 2 million Austrian soldiers to be deployed elsewhere.

Again, that’s just the dead. Not the entire force that was deployed there.

59

Arisdoodlesaurus t1_j27ygzc wrote

I didn’t say it did nothing. I said it did very little to change the outcome of the war. Even if the Austrians had the extra men and resources, they lacked proper leadership and overall resources to change the entire course of the war

9

krieger82 t1_j28788z wrote

I disagree. While they may have had inadequte leadership, the strategic advantage of having an additional 3 million troops available. While perhaps inferior to the German army, what would have happened if the Austrians could have relieved the entire German force fighting in Russia? The Austrians were more than capable enough o handle the Russian empire, at least defensively in 1915. With the forces freed up from the Russian front, things on the Western front would have looked quite grim for the Entente in 1915-1916.

35

Usernametaken112 t1_j28ippq wrote

You're caught up on the number "3 million" as if quantity of bodies is the deciding difference in strength between combatants. That's not how war works at all.

−10

J_Bard t1_j28ve72 wrote

3 million soldiers isn't a number you can just brush off as irrelevant either, though.

28

Arisdoodlesaurus t1_j2ejnwa wrote

Its not irrelevant. Three million soldiers on a whole new front definitely did impact the war albeit lightly considering the fact that the CP were doomed at the onset. By 1916 any sign of CP victory was absent

1

Usernametaken112 t1_j291s32 wrote

I never said nor implied it's irrelevant. I said it's not the defining factor of a militaries strength. Not sure why you're assuming it's either everything, or nothing.

−14

Independent_Owl_8121 t1_j296lfm wrote

Their leadership, when their lines were not overstretched and resources split, could perform well enough. Certainly well enough to fight the Russians who were the worst combatant in a scenario where the Austrians have their full army.

8

Independent_Owl_8121 t1_j295glw wrote

Except no. Italy joining the war significantly altered the war. Austria was now doomed to gimp forever. The Austrian army, once it sorted it's kinks out, was performing as well as the other armies, however it had a severe lack of supplies and didn't cannibalize it's economy as much as Germany to make up for it. They were also overstretched on every single front due to the Italian entrance. Italys entrance meant 2 million Austrians be away from the eastern front. If Italy doesn't join Austria can actually perform well, throwing it's full weight against Russia. They'd be able to perform well. All their resources and manpower on one front. No longer overstretched, actually having the manpower to mount offensives alone. Something as devastating as the Brusilov offensive becomes impossible for the Russians in this TL, the eastern front is held by mostly Austria with minor German support. Germany is able to throw more divisions towards the western front, they win at Verdun, they push back the British at the Somme.

Summer of 1916 was a horrible time for the CP, they were this close to winning at Verdun, but the Brusilov offensive devastated the overstretched Austrians, to the point of collapse, forcing Germany to halt their near victory at Verdun and patch up the eastern front. Then the Somme happened. By January 1917 the CPs manpower situation was dire, all because every single attack they had made in 1916 had failed. And those failures can be linked to the collapsing eastern front.

If Italy stays neutral, then Austria with minor German support is able to take on the Russians on their own, who are incapable of mounting any meaningful offensives against the Austrians. In 1915 the CP pushed up to Minsk, the Austrians and eastern German leaders wanted to go further, but Falkenhayns plans for Verdun didn't allow that. Now they can push further, Petrograd likely falls by 1916, Russia pulls out of the war by late 1916 or early 1917. Germany this entire time has had a strengthed western front, as I said they win at Verdun and push the British back at the Somme. In OTL they had 2 million men in the eastern theater, they pulled 900,000 out for the western front offensives in 1918. In this TL they don't need 2 million men in the eastern front, they likely have the full 190-200 divisions on the western front, which is what they attacked with in spring 1918. Germany can now launch the massive offensives it launched in 1918 but significantly earlier, likely spring 1917. But this time their logistics are significantly better because German supplies haven't been wrecked by another year of war. Oh and Italy staying neutral means Austrian ports are open, making the British blockade of Germany worthless. That means no unrestricted warfare that brought America into the war. Anyway, Germany launches their offensive but with better logistics, likely breaks through the British lines as they did in 1918, but this time they have the logistics to take Amiens. Splitting the British and french armies, at which point the Entente sues for peace. A peace favorable to the Central Powers.

You don't just discredit the contribution of millions of men.

31

Arisdoodlesaurus t1_j2ejfli wrote

This is just shouldering the responsibility of victory onto the Italians. Tying up forces on the alps just hastened a CP defeat. It was not instrumental in any way shape or form

1

Dense-Farm t1_j27b8eq wrote

I'm sure at the time people had good arguments for staying neutral - they/the public support for them lost out to pro-war people, so what I mean is, hard relative to 'flipping' the precedent of the "losing side of the argument" to winning amongst decision makers

However, even though Italy got shafted at Versailles, better to be at the peace table at all rather than at the mercy of the committee...

15

robotical712 t1_j2a90p3 wrote

On the contrary, Italy staying neutral means Austria doesn’t transfer most of its best troops from the east to invade Italy. Thus either the Brusilov offensive doesn’t happen or is blunted. Without Brusilov, Austria isn’t effectively destroyed as a military power, Germany isn’t forced to cancel Verdun to bail them out and Romania doesn’t join the Entente.

6

Arisdoodlesaurus t1_j2ej9o7 wrote

These arguments are so disingenuous. Its akin to saying if Hitler never moved against the Soviet Union, he would have won World War Two because he had more men. The truth is, Austri Hungary never had the capacity to win any long term war against the entante because they lacked resources and capable commanders. Their empire was at the breaking point and all of Germany’s economic gains since the Prussian unification in 1871 had been totally lost by 1916. Another front just hastened an inevitable defeat

1

PrrrromotionGiven1 t1_j28d4s3 wrote

But all else wasn't equal. Germany had France on the ropes in 1914-16 as it was, Italy clearly played the role of a kingmaker in WW1 I would say.

6

VOCmentaliteit t1_j28mdxv wrote

I do we should have joined the central powers and taken Flanders an taken revenge on the French for 1672

2

CDfm t1_j28r17u wrote

It doesn't make sense for any smaller or weaker country to get involved unless attacked .

The history between Austria and Italy wasn't great .

The expectation of territory led it down the path both then and with Mussolini.

2

Seth_Imperator t1_j282r2z wrote

As a person from savoy, I can tell it leaves a stain even to this day when you know which countries sided with the entente or the 3rd Reich. glares at turkey. It wasn't a success with the economics fallout for decades (even today perhaps)

1