Did Italy made a mistake by joining the Entente in 1915 during World War One?

Submitted by Top_Moment4144 t3_zyhkq3 in history

So, a little background: in 1882, the newly formed Kingdom of Italy joined the alliance between the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, thus making the Triple Alliance. However, this alliance was a defensive one. It stipulated that Germany and Austria-Hungary were to assist Italy if it was attacked by France without provocation. In return, Italy will support Germany, if attacked by France. In case of war between Austria-Hungary and The Russian Empire, Italy promised to remain neutral.

Although, interestingly enough, in 1902 Italy signed a secret treaty with France, in which both nation promised to not go to war against each other.

In 1914, when World War One began, Italy declared their neutrality. There were two main reasons: the first reason was that The Triple Alliance was a defensive pact and Italy saw Austria-Hungary as the aggressor that started World War One by declaring war on Serbia and launching an offensive war, thus Italy was not obligated to enter the war and the second was the discontent of Italy in 1908 when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia. This discontent resulted from the fact that Italy and Austria-Hungary promised to do not change the status quo in the Balkans without consulting each other (to which, Austria-Hungary did exactly the opposite in 1908).

In between 1914 and 1915, both the Central Powers and The Entente tried to pursue Italy: the Central Powers tried to keep Italy neutral and the Entente tried to make Italy joined the war on their side. In the end, the Entente won, due to Italy signing the Treaty of London and joining the war on May 23, 1915.

Unfortunately for the Italians, their campaign didn't go as planned. Fighting against Austria-Hungary, they suffered a great loss (in fact, they're greatest lost in the war) at the battle of Caporetto. However, Italy's luck was the fact that Austria-Hungary was their main opponent (an empire that, little to be said, did not performed as expected) and after the battle of Vittorio Veneto in the late 1918 the Austro-Hungarian army basically collapsed, ending Austria-Hungary participation in the war. 

In the end, Italy was on the winners side, but with a high cost: according to Wikipedia, the Italians suffered as many as 1,052,400 to 1,243,400 deaths (3% to 3.5% of total population). And, to add, Italian's economy was in total ruin. Sadly for the Italians, this is not the end: at the Peace Conference, some of the territories promised to Italy after the war and stipulated in the Treaty of London were given to the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Obviously, this angered and upsetted the Italian population and this deception will be known as the "Vittoria Mutilata" ("The Mutilated Victory"). The "Vittoria Mutilata" will mark the Postwar Italy and the rise of fascism marked by the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini (which will influence the rise of Hitler in Germany and will mark the first steps to World War Two).

Now, my question is: did Italy make a mistake by joining the Entente?

Well, given the circumstances in the year 1915, no. The Entente promised Italy much more territories than the Central Powers, who weren't so keen on Italy joining the war. Given the fact that, at the time, this was the biggest war of all times, the potential of territories that could be "acquired" was immense and Italy really couldn't say no if what they wanted was to be one of the most powerful nations, if not of the world, then maybe in Europe. Adding to the fact that maybe if they have refused to participate in the war now (in any of the sides they wanted), later the war situation may not have been so favorable, Italy seemed to do the right thing. I mean, they couldn't have known that their allies will not give the territories they promised.

And now, there are two options: Italy stays neutral or Italy joins the Central Powers. In my opinion:

  1. Italy stays neutral - For me, this is not really a possibility. Why? "Given the fact that, at the time, this was the biggest war of all times, the potential of territories that could be "acquired" was immense and Italy really couldn't say no if what they wanted was to be one of the most powerful nations, if not of the world, then maybe in Europe."

  2. Italy joins the Central Powers - Again, pretty improbable: let's not forget the fact that Italy was still upset after the annexation of Bosnia, the fact that the territories that were promised to Italy were "extremely wanted" by them, because of the number of Italians inside the borders of Austria-Hungary (in 1910, there were roughly 800,000 Italians in Austria-Hungary). Of course, let's not forget the secret treaty with France. So, I think, at the time for Italy it was a lot more easy and a lot more conveniently to join the Entente.

    For me, the story of Italy in the First World War is a very dramatic one. Motivated to enter a terrible war (in fact, the most terrible war at that moment when it comes to the victims and the impact it had on the world at the time and in the future) by the prospect of gaining more territories and the status of "one of the most powerful countries in the world", Italy ends up as the most unlucky of the winners. Cheated at the Peace Conference, with a general dissatisfaction among the population, a ruined economy, the weak government that tried to maintain the power was quickly changed with an authoritarian one led by the first European dictator of the XX century: Benito Mussolini. He will guide Italy to an even more terrible and devastating war.
    Maybe things would have looked different (in a better way) if Italy joined the Central Powers. It's difficult to say if the Central Powers would have won the war with Italy by their side. All we can do is to imagine scenarios that are just possibilities. Certainly, France would have had an even more difficult task to defend their country (as it happened in the Second World War). Maybe, if France was conquered, Italy would have gained more territories and the Second World War would have never happened. But this are just speculations and all we have is history and what really happened.

879

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

Kronzypantz t1_j26e11q wrote

Staying neutral would have benefited Italy the most, selling goods to both sides and avoiding a war it just wasn’t ready for.

Joining the Central Powers would just be entirely suicidal. Italy was dependent on French and British colonial possessions just to import enough food for Italy, let alone importing industrial resources to modernize their military.

A Franco-British blockade and bombardment of Italian port cities would have meant Italy starts 1915 in famine.

188

heihyo t1_j28wkxb wrote

But by chosing the winning side they received more territory which wouldn‘t have been the case by staying neutral

5

MC1065 t1_j28x8gw wrote

The Italians were very upset that they didn't get more and for years thought they were backstabbed.

15

Kronzypantz t1_j297c78 wrote

They were under the false assumption that such gains would benefit them the way such changes in territory reflected strength and success in past decades. But the cost was far too high, both in lives and political unrest.

If territory was so important, Austria actually offered more concessions than what Italy eventually got in the peace, and that was just for remaining neutral. Their leaders could have played a much smarter game, but got caught up in Napoleonic ideas of glory and assumed easy victory.

12

Medieval-Mind t1_j2abfw2 wrote

>got caught up in Napoleonic ideas of glory and assumed easy victory

Along with pretty much everyone else in Europe.

3

Kronzypantz t1_j2af2ml wrote

True, but they saw how every other power’s plans for quick and glorious victory fell apart and still deluded themselves into pulling that trigger

3

PopeHonkersVII t1_j26gsq8 wrote

They would have been worse off if they joined the Central Powers. The French would have been a much tougher opponent than Austria Hungary and they would have been very vulnerable to the British Royal Navy. With that said, joining the Allies was also a bad idea. The Italians had half a million casualties in WW1 for very little gain after the war. Their best option would have been to sit the war out.

64

KingsguardDoesntFlee t1_j26m581 wrote

I think Italy did the only possible thing in a situation that seemed very favourable.

NEUTRAL ARGUMENT: The neutrality was possible actually, see the Netherlands, and maybe it would have resulted in a better economical situation for Italy (being able to treat with both sides) and more political stability. Which in hindsight might have avoided the red years and Mussolini's ascension. There was a huge neutrality front in Italy, but the pro-war one prevailed even though not really in a trasparent way. The Treaty of London was in fact kept secret from the Parliament and known only to members of the Salandra cabinet. There was a fear that staying neutral would have doomed Italy's possibility of annexing the missing territories in case of a German/Austrian victory (and at the first it looked like Germany could get a decisive win on France's border with Von Moltke at the First Battle of the Marne).

PRO-WAR: The nationalism, the Risorgimento's sentiment was not completely gone. The foreign policy was still the same since the unity, so unifying all the Italian territories, and many were still lacking (Trento, Trieste, Istria, Dalmatia, Fiume). And Austria-Hungary wasn't surely giving them away, the only way to get them was joining the Entente or staying militarily neutral and pressing the claims during peace treaties, if France won.

AGAINST WAR: Joining the Central Empires wasn't possible. Italy's navy was nothing against France and UK's, and Italy needed their resources, in fact imported lots of goods from their colonies. And since Austria-Hungary didn't really have a navy, Italy would have put herself in a naval war against UK and France alone. That would have been way worse than Caporetto.

The war resulted in more than a million Italian deaths. The result were just a bunch of territories, not even all the promised ones. Speaking as an Italian, it was surely not worth it. Obviously I'm writing this with the results in hindsight, so nothing that really could help them decide.

The Great War has left more scars than goods to Italy, there are just a few "good things" that have survived this century coming from the war. One was the patriotism born as unity against the common enemy (Austria). I'm not obviously saying animosity is good and hating Austria is ok, just that it may have helped unity between people a bit (it was still a newborn country in many ways).

At least it was not all a big loss militarily speaking, Vittorio Veneto is well remembered today (as is Caporetto) and the "Canzone del Piave" was used as provisional national Anthem during WWII and after the Monarchy/Republic referendum held on the 2nd June 1946. But entering a war totally unprepared on a military/naval front is very stupid.

But to remark it, the "Vittoria Mutilata" sentiment was very real. All those efforts, those hard decisions, those fallen brothers and the victory is not even triumphant. No wonder some far-right sentiments became very popular after the war..

38

oztea t1_j26sywy wrote

An outcome that really isn't explored all that much would be Austria-Hungary bribing Italy with land concessions just to stay neutral. Or selling them Trieste for military supplies, and not having to burn all that blood and treasure on the pointless Italian front could have given Austria-Hungary a lifeline for a few more months so they could pick up slack for Germany on the Russian front, and Germany might have gotten to Paris.

Really, with the power of hindsight I bet the central powers would have rather just conceded the ground to Italy if they could have shut down one whole front.

37

Corn_Vendor t1_j28936n wrote

Negotiations between Rome the Central powers did continue even after the London Treaty was almost secured, but Vienna’s reluctance lead to their failure. Despite Germany supporting Italy’s demands, Austria initially completely refused any concession, going by the rule that any territorial grant on a national basis would lead to the collapse of the Empire. Demands included Trentino and an extension of the eastern Italian border on the Isonzo river, along with an autonomous status for Trieste. As time went on, Vienna gradually came to reluctantly accept these demands, but by then Italy had already signed the London Treaty.

So yeah, not really an absurd scenario if Austria had more hindsight.

13

warnie685 t1_j28fp0s wrote

The Austrians were opposed to territorial concessions the same way the Germans were when it was suggested Alsace-Lorraine could be given to the French.

7

TheCaspica t1_j27acvk wrote

Territory was very precious so I'm not sure it's a "real" alternative but it's obviously an interesting option in hindsight.

3

FolkPhilosopher t1_j26g4sp wrote

I think there are a number of issues with a lot of the statements.

The first one is the idea that Italy could have genuinely considered entering the war in the Central Powers' side. Reason being that the relationship between Italy and the Austro-Hungarian empire was anything but cordial. Remember, the Third War of Independence had ended barely 50 years before and ended with the Austro-Hungarian empire losing the last of it's major holdings in Italy. Although the spirit of the Risorgimento was no longer the guiding principle of Italian foreign policy, there were still elements of Italian society that believed that Italy had a natural right to Trieste, Dalmatia and Trentino. None of which the Austro-Hungarian empire was ready to cede.

Another element to consider is the Mediterranean. A lot if the theories are limited to what may have happened during a land-based war but ignores what would have happened at sea. The Austro-Hungarian empire didn't have a navy to speak of but both France and the UK had colonial holdings in North Africa and would have had the resources to wage a naval war Italy could have not won. Sure, naval warfare was nowhere near what it once was but it could still be effective. The British naval blockade of the North Sea contributed to starving Germany and was a contributing factor to its eventual surrender.

28

Nodeo-Franvier t1_j274h9l wrote

Austria-Hungary did have a formidable navy with several Dreadnought though.

9

FolkPhilosopher t1_j28ua48 wrote

Sure but it was largely a port navy, by that I mean that most of the Austro-Hungarian Navy spent most of its life in port. And those dreadnoughts were rendered completely useless by the Anglo-French Otranto Barrage.

There was simply no match for the combined Anglo-French naval force and it would have been extremely unadvisable for the Royal Italian Navy to try and go against this Anglo-French force.

4

DrLuny t1_j29pibf wrote

Was the Italian Navy so pathetic in WWI? If they teamed up with the Austrians the Royal Navy would have had to devote considerable resources to countering them. That might have given the Germans a chance at another North Sea engagement.

1

FolkPhilosopher t1_j29qik0 wrote

To give you an idea of the state of the Regia Marina, a number of times the combined Anglo-French forces pushed Italy to mount a joint attack on the Austro-Hungarian Navy but each time Italy refused to do so.

If Italy refused to engaged into open combat against the Austro-Hungarian Navy, there was no chance they would attempt anything against the combined Anglo-French force in the Mediterranean.

1

sin-and-love t1_j26f1o5 wrote

WWI was a pointless war, thus in and of itself a mistake.

19

varain1 t1_j26h11e wrote

Started by Austro-Hungary to gain more territory and it ended with the dissolution of Austro-Hungary ...

22

Archmagnance1 t1_j26jsah wrote

A very bad bluff that was made because extremists killed the heir that was also likely sympathetic to serbian interests. A giant victorian political mess with a dying empire at the center of the mess.

15

IRSunny t1_j26k8r7 wrote

I wouldn't say they did so to gain more territory, moreso to keep their relatively recent acquisitions. They had a Serbian nationalist problem in Bosnia which they'd acquired from the Ottomans 35 years prior and so their attack on Serbia was one part face saving punitive war to avenge the slain heir and another part stamp out the perceived ongoing threat to their integrity.

But yeah, it was very much a case of punching a brick and the wall falls down upon you.

9

Nodeo-Franvier t1_j274ynv wrote

I think the Austrian were justified against Serbian terrorist state though,It's like US response to 9/11. Although in hindsight this was stupid thing to do.

−3

varain1 t1_j27orxr wrote

Unlike USA, Austro-Hungary was a multinational empire, with a lot of internal issues and national liberation movements. Austria broke the Berlin treaty and fully annexed Bosnia, where the majority was not Austrian or Hungarian, but Serbian and Ottoman.

The Austrian heir was killed in Sarajevo, with the killers all being Austrian citizens, the capital of Bosnia, not in Viena.

And Austria, after getting the support of Germany, sent a 48 hours ultimatum to Serbia which would have practically made Serbia a territory of Austria - see bellow some "fun" requests:

  1. Remove from the Serbian military and civil administration all officers and functionaries whose names the Austro-Hungarian Government will provide.

  2. Accept in Serbia "representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government" for the "suppression of subversive movements".

Serbia, which had the Russian support, didn't accept the requests, England offered to mediate, but Austro-Hungary decided to declare war on Serbia - Russia started to mobilize, Germany declared war on Belgium, France and Russia, and England declared war on Germany ...

You can read all the fun in Wikipedia, here, but Austro-Hungary really was not like USA, but more like Russia's invasion in Ukraine...

7

Seienchin88 t1_j289kpo wrote

While I agree the parallels to 9/11 are quite striking. The assassins were citizens of the Austrian empire but they were radicalized and support by a Serbian institution and coordination with he assassination with the knowledge of some Serbian members of government.

2

varain1 t1_j298vvo wrote

9/11 was an attack in one of the most iconic USA cities on civilians, by foreign citizens. The Sarajevo incident was a targeted assassination on the heir of the empire, done in an occupied province, by Austrian citizens of Serbian nationality - it's a risk you get when you have a multinational empire which has a heavy boot on the occupied nationalities in "Europe 's Powder Keg".

The only parallel is that both are terrorist attacks, but you can list some of the "striking parallels" if you want, I would like to see them ...

4

PrimevalDuck t1_j29p3dw wrote

> annexed Bosnia, where the majority was not Austrian or Hungarian, but Serbian and Ottoman

Wrong, the majority was Bosniak

2

Crazyjackson13 t1_j26bbkv wrote

Honestly the Italians were just something the allies wanted to use to stall the front, as they themselves had been in a serious struggle against the Germans, and stalling the Austrians was about the one thing they could do.

15

Seienchin88 t1_j288t6d wrote

Yeah same for Romania.

But while it’s debatable if it wad a good choice for Italy, it was a terrible choice for Romania. What in earth were they thinking?

Romanias army was quite large but not really modern and poorly led. And worst - almost all their borders were with the central powers and they relied on Russia to somehow help them. And while they joined after the Brussilov offensive decimated the Austrian army, it also Meant the Russian army was tired and had heavy casualties as well and the Central powers had just defeated Serbia meaning the balkan was quite secure in their hands Imo the biggest blunder of WW1.

8

Spyrith t1_j297vn6 wrote

As a Romanian we don't see our entry into WW1 as a mistake. It's considered a very wise move, since it garnered us a LOT of good will among the Entente and directly led to the unification of almost every single Romanian majority territory that existed outside the borders of the Old Kingdom of Romania. Post WW1 Romania was basically 2x the size and population of pre-WW1 Romania.

What really fucked us up was the collapse of the Russian Empire, since our war plans massively relied on them as the main force on the Eastern Front.

7

Crazyjackson13 t1_j297t85 wrote

Yeah, the Romanians definitely joined thanks to the allies managing to convince them to help join the war effort, as by this time nothing was going well for the entente.

2

Evil_Crusader t1_j26df56 wrote

The main problem is that not only the Entente easily is capable of outbidding the CP, in 1914-15 they have all the motivation to do It and a better reputation due to their support in 1912. They even would begrudgingly maintain their promises - but nobody could predict Wilson's Fourteen Points back then.

15

Scat_fiend t1_j26plmf wrote

What is the point of having a secret peace treaty? Isn’t the benefit of a peace treaty that other nation states know about it and thus influence their decision to invade?

9

After-District8811 t1_j274uzu wrote

They had like half a million war deaths. Of course it was a mistake to join the war.

8

TarienCole t1_j26nlwx wrote

Their navy barely held up to Austria's. If they would've had to fight the French and British? No chance. And they weren't going to make ground against the French army either.

6

Kronzypantz t1_j26tfko wrote

A bigger issue for their navy would have been why it would bother to leave port against the French and British. Those 2 were their biggest trade partners, and effective close off the Mediterranean to the Italians.

The only potential trade partner to protect a trade route to would be the Ottomans, and they had little to offer.

The Italian navy would thus be stuck in port, or maybe blocking off the Adriatic for what little benefit it would give.

3

imgrandojjo t1_j26v4hq wrote

All Italy joining the central Powers would have done is give the Franco-British fleet something to actually attack. Italy is extremely vulnerable to an enemy who can gain naval superiority, as she found out in WWII, and a joint Italian-Austrian naval axis would be no match for the Franco-British one. With Germany mostly hiding its surface fleet from Britain, Franco-British assets could have easily been transferred to the mediterranean, perhaps overcoming an Austro-Italian flotilla trying to check access through the Strait of Gibraltar, and have no shortage of targets to easily bombard and docked fleets to destroy piecemeal.

One of the only things stopping that from happening in WWII is that the Regio Aeronautica was actually pretty good early in the war. Easily Italy's best fighting branch with good planes and great pilots in reasonable numbers that could stand up to the British on their own at first. That combined with the neutralization of the French fleet, delayed the Franco-British ability to pummel Italia for a few years.

Italy would have had no similar protection, however, in 1915, and nearly the whole coastline was vulnerable to coastal raiding,bombardment, and eventually invasion, as the US-British naval coalition eventually proved. Minus the US but plus France, which at the time was a major naval player in its own right, Britain would have easily achieved the same success even with the small, technologically backward Austro-Hungarian fleet muddying the waters a bit.

So with that being siad it was impossible to imagine aligning with the Central Powers ending well for Italy. They simply had no ability to properly aid them in the one theater that mattered -- the Mediterranean naval theater. Thus Italy had a choice between staying out of the war or picking the side that was astronomically more likely to rule the Mediterranean during and after the war, which was the Entente.

Sacroegoismo was simply a reasonable argument that if they sided with the Entente they might get some desired territory out of it, and that self interest aligned them with the security of the seas offered by the Entente, which was essential to Italian survival. Since they only had 2 options they chose the one that gave them the best chance to gain. Simple enough.

4

DuckofSparta_ t1_j26h3pq wrote

Hard to say. It was my understanding that Italy wanted Trieste and some other land from Austria-Hungary, so I think from that perspective they may not have wanted to be neutral. If the Entante won, and Italy stayed neutral, there would be little incentive for the Entante to give that land. Now I also don't think Italy (or anyone) had the foresight to see how the war would have ended and Italy never got everything it wanted. So they got a little bit at a huge cost. It's a gain in land, but loss in life. Was the loss of that life worth it? Probably not. Was the military leadership also very poor? Yes. Could other smaller events impact this? Absolutely. This answer may depend on what you're measuring and a much more complicated answer than something figured out on a reddit post.

3

lawyerjsd t1_j26t2b5 wrote

Strategically, it made sense to join the Entente. But considering Italy’s military was headed up by an incompetent buffoon who murdered hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, joining any war was irresponsible.

3

Thaldoras t1_j27dvuk wrote

Luigi Cadorna after the 1115th battle of the Isonzo River. Be like one more frontal assault and we will break the Austrians.

2

Seienchin88 t1_j28903d wrote

It wasnt just cardona though, the army of Italy was ill equipped and poorly led and had to attacked in bad terrain.

Even without Cadorna being an imbecile there certainly were no better places to attack anyhow.

1

Nodeo-Franvier t1_j274cjc wrote

The things is they were already offered one of their coveted Austrian province by staying neutral . To bad this is not enough for the King and the hardline nationalist,Just look at Spain and the US who profited so immensely for the war. By staying neutral Italy could get a free province and fill up their treasury with Gold and could have build up their industry with foreign money.

3

Signore_Jay t1_j27phm1 wrote

Italy has always been a big “ what if?” in history. By all accounts the Entente did screw Italy over. I’m sure had Wilson not intervened perhaps Italy would’ve gotten more but Italy also underperformed especially against Austria which by all accounts was woefully lacking in military capability which probably didn’t help lend Italy credit considering that Serbia, a nation far smaller by all metrics than Italy, was holding its own against AH and Turkey before finally falling apart against the Bulgarians. Italy probably would’ve been better off staying neutral since they can still trade with both sides and grow.

3

zspasztori t1_j285wlx wrote

Turkey and Bulgaria was on the same side :D

−2

Cookie-Senpai t1_j288bh0 wrote

I'll reference Alessandro Barbero, his episode on the italian retreat at the end of WWI.

Basically he said that the Italian govt didn't want to enter the war because they knew how fucked up the army was. They saw how poorly it performed in Ethiopia and didn't fancy their chance against European Nations.

However the people didn't know that, it was all covered up. And there was sens of connection between the italian people and France. That was particularly the case with educated italians, Barbero noted, which are influential in journals and the "good" society. The liberal democracies, France and UK, embodied well their values and ideals for which they wished Italy to fight. They wouldn't let liberal values fall. So the pressure mounted little by little, journals after journals, discussion in posh café after discussion until the govt had to ceide to the pressure.

It didn't make a mistake joining as much as it pretended to be stronger than what it was to its people.

3

ghigoli t1_j29f6mt wrote

Italy should of stayed neutral.

Why? So that way it can spend the time to invest in its military while watching and learning what each side is doing.

Once the war ends in the same way and Austria Hungary collapses while everyone is war-fatigue. Italy would be ready to invade the new lands that broke off of Austria-Hungary and take whatever they wanted. No one would've been in the position to stop them other than maybe the US which wasn't ready to enter a new war.

3

HeadMembership t1_j26vh6u wrote

Neutrality is a totally legit option for italy. They should have just not participated.

Especially when nobody could say for certain what the war was about.

2

latflickr t1_j283oi9 wrote

No. I can’t see any other scenario where Italy could gain Italian areas under Austrian control, namely Trentino, Friuli and Trieste. Italy had nothing to gain by going against France (the nation who made reunification possible).

2

groucho74 t1_j28f9kt wrote

Early on in the war, Italy sent its soldiers equipped with uniforms and weapons designed for the Libyan desert to fight in the alps in winter. Many soldiers froze to death. A substantial proportion of the weapons like guns wouldn’t even work in the freezing weather. Generals sent tens of thousands of soldiers to die in hopeless attacks. After the war, Italy had profound social unrest and a deeply scarred country.

Switzerland, on the other hand, remained neutral, equipped its soldiers for winter climates (even if it didn’t adequately pay them;) after the war was quite prosperous.

The United States remained neutral and made huge profits from the war until the war reached a stalemate, then it joined the war, ended it and dictated terms heavily in its favor to both sides, picking up territories.

Italy, on the other hand, didn’t even get the territories it was promised.

I think it’s very far fetched to describe at least choice as a wise decision

2

lostress t1_j28pwbs wrote

Maybe if they would have joined Entente only in 1918,and building meanwhile a strong army , suffering much less from the war would have left a powerful Italy post war, getting much more also from the peace, and fascism would have been avoided.Or maybe not

2

ThatGIRLkimT t1_j26p0r3 wrote

Is it because of the territory? I was fascinated with their armor.

1

MIGHTYKIRK1 t1_j27073v wrote

Thank goodness my grand family left Sicily in the late 1800s, early 1900s. I didnt know all this. Fascinating. I thought they left cuz uncle married niece and my grandma's grandma became her mil. No maiden name

1

Sir_roger_rabbit t1_j271cym wrote

I think what a lot of people are forgetting or ignoring is the Italian people's strong sentiment to fight Austria its long term enemy at the time.

And the political factions in the country.

Even if they stayed neutral I don't think it would have lasted as government would have collapsed or had a coup (what I bet the allied powers would have backed)

Neutrality was just not a option.

1

Nodeo-Franvier t1_j2756pf wrote

The majority of the population didn't want war though, It just some nationalist group that were really loud.

1

Sir_roger_rabbit t1_j27hpyq wrote

Annexing territory along the two countries’ frontier stretching from the Trentino region in the Alps eastward to Trieste at the northern end of the Adriatic Sea was a primary goal and would “liberate” Italian speaking populations from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, while uniting them with their cultural homeland.

You got to also remember that the Austrians occupied/had a great deal of influence in northern Italy since the end of the napoleon wars.

The anti Austrian feelings war strong and the chance to "librate Italians" as they put it is the other factor.

Throw in competing claims on the alpine border with both country's.

As I said before.. Even if they did have government who said we aren't taking part... That said government would have not enough support to survive.

Hey the fact Italy did actually go to war with the central powers and not stay neutral backs this case even more.

2

Nodeo-Franvier t1_j27o1zy wrote

You forgot the fact that Italy was offered one of the irredenta provice for neutrality,The government have any number of ways to spin it as diplomatic victory(Which it is). The economic rich that flow in would satisfy the population too.

1

Sir_roger_rabbit t1_j27pkso wrote

And yet they whent to war with the public support.

History tells us if the people do not support a devastating war you won't be in power long.

Just look east at the time.

1

Nodeo-Franvier t1_j27syi2 wrote

Believe it or not the war was immensely popular in Russia(at least in 1914),So much so that a commentator said that the Tsar is once again master of his people body and soul or something. The Italian government have additional causes to be fear too,The Libyan war of 1912 despite only token Ottoman resistance undo 50 years! of fiscal prudence and badly deplete their manpower and equipment!.In truth the public got little to do with the decision to enter the war anyway it was the King and his foreign minister sidelining the parliament.

2

metfan1964nyc t1_j27fw8o wrote

They made a mistake by joining the war in the first place. They were horribly unprepared for war. They had no modern artillery, the army was poorly trained and equipped, and the country's economy was weak at best. They took enormous casualties and were humiliated at Caporetto.

1

TPMJB t1_j27gz2w wrote

A little aside, but my great grandpa is a war orphan from WW1. The education in American schools regarding WW1 left...a lot to be desired. We hardly even glossed over Italy's participation in the war. Now I guess I know why my great grandpa was a war orphan, so thanks for that OP!

NY school for those wondering.

I've been mulling about getting my Italian citizenship, since I'm eligible, but the whole "orphan" thing makes this needlessly complicated.

1

old_antedecent t1_j27qupp wrote

Can anyone recommend some good sources for reading about Italy during WWI, alpine warfare, that sort of thing?

1

lllaesponjagrande t1_j28g8s8 wrote

No idea if it ever got translated into english, but Soška fronta by Janez Mesesnel went into quite a detail on fighting in the area.

2

articice01 t1_j27xy2s wrote

I just watched a WW2 documentary on Italy. Italy is full of mistakes

1

Seth_Imperator t1_j282j9o wrote

It seems they did the mistake twice with nazis...

1

manebushin t1_j28sxxz wrote

In hindsight, it would probably be better for Italy to be neutral. But considering the public sentiment and imperial ambitions, if they must have entered the conflict, Italy would have done better entering the war later. Maybe alongside the US of a bit earlier. It is difficult to pinpoint a better time, since the war could have changed a lot without italian participation for a few years.

That would mean that the entente would be in a more unfavorable position, therefore making it easier to get what they wanted in the peace deals, for rescuing them.

Italy could have used those years to study the war and make an actual plan to attack, not to mention better equipping and training their military in the meanwhile and gearing their industry to war (think like Roosevelt did in WW2, where he spend his time between the start of the war and the US entry actually preparing the country and military to enter the conflict, which made the US a formidable force from the get go, especially when you compare to their entry in WW1). That would allow them to actually have sucess in occupying the areas they wanted to own. The Entente would not be easily able to deny territories occupied by the italians, especially if they fought on their own there.

The third point is that they would have faced a weaker Austria-Hungary, more affected by war exaustion. Which makes it all the easier to defeat them. The only disavantage is that the Central powers would have more experience, but preparing adequatelly for the conflict could compensate for that.

1

BrittaniaBricks t1_j295ygs wrote

I mean we got a Farewell to Arms from it so make of that what you will.

1

Romaenjoyer t1_j29ohja wrote

The central powers promised Italy a lot of lands and more colonies than the Entente, maybe if looked at from a more rational point of view their offer was actually better, but when you read about the encounters that the Italian foreign minister made with ambassadors from both factions it is clear that Italy only really cared about Trento (a city in Tyrol) and Trieste (a city in Istria).

Those cities and the nearby regions were considered what separated Italy from completing national unification, it was taught in the schools and engraved in the minds of the citizens: Italy one day shall go to war against the Austrian oppressor and unify once and for all.

It was just too important, nothing that the central powers could have offered would have changed Italy's mind and the shared hatred between Italy and Austria-Hungary didn't make talks easier.

1

7thusaria t1_j29si2b wrote

Italy should have pulled a Spain and stayed neutral.

Arguably the only true winners of WWI were Japan, which easily took a bunch of German Pacific colonies and concessions in China, and the US, which supplanted the UK (one of the titular winners of WWI) as the world’s dominant economic power.

1

el_chuse t1_j29wdsg wrote

I think they made a strategic mistake.

The Treaty of London was secret (and possibly illegal). Italy could have negotiated an equivalent secret treaty with Austria, where Friuli would be exchanged for neutrality, and wait to the last moment to enter the war.

Italy got Friuli and Süd Tirol, but I think the human cost was too high to get two territories that were not Italian for centuries. Also, what would be Italian even mean? And, consider that ww1 was not a moral war, in the sense ww2 is, i.e. you are fighting countries that are almost democratic if not fully so (except Russia surely).

1

GyantSpyder t1_j2ahv9f wrote

Italy had just invaded the Ottoman Empire in 1911. It seems unlikely they would have joined the Ottomans in a defensive alliance in 1914.

1

Yeetin_Boomer_Actual t1_j27zzyw wrote

World war one was a mistake.

How's that?

It was just a sad comedy of errors that cost the lives of hundreds of millions. BILLIONS, really. Probably hundreds of billions.

Because "my dad is bigger than yours!"

"Oh yeah!? My dad can kick your dad any day!"

And not one "leader" used an ounce of common sense.

0

PoloGrounder t1_j26tffz wrote

wouldn't Lenin have been the first European dictator of the 20th century, not Mussolini?

−2

Sir_roger_rabbit t1_j26zwsq wrote

Lenin as a dictator is still a bit messy as being clear cut dictator. . As in 1917 it could be argued his word was quite law yet and needed the collective to agree with him. His power did get stronger with the passage of time

Now my moneys on sidonio pais as the first true European dictator.

Who was in office in December 1917

A lot of people don't remember him as he was killed only a year later in December 1918

2