|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 27, 2022 23:42:02 GMT
A question - If Italy is only at war with the CPs for a very brief time period, does that mean there is less time for the CPs and Ottomans to stir up Senussi uprisings and insurgency, and this could leave Libya under more consistent Italian control throughout the 1920s rather than being the scene of high-effort counter-insurgency campaigns through that decade?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 28, 2022 21:21:09 GMT
A question - If Italy is only at war with the CPs for a very brief time period, does that mean there is less time for the CPs and Ottomans to stir up Senussi uprisings and insurgency, and this could leave Libya under more consistent Italian control throughout the 1920s rather than being the scene of high-effort counter-insurgency campaigns through that decade?
While I think most of the Senussi were in Italian occupied territory some at least were in Egypt so the Ottomans might well seek to stir them up. Which given their nature and the nearby border could mean such a revolt drifts over into Italian Libya. Possibly a persistent but relatively low level conflict for Italy here might be another factor in them eventually joining the conflict and also even giving some of their army a bit more battlefield experienced at least at low levels. [Although if the latter entry into the war meant that Cadorna was no longer Italian chief of staff that could help them as well although how much better any of the alternatives would be I don't know.] |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Oct 25, 2022 2:12:37 GMT
In 1918 through reading John Jay Pershing’s book my experiences of the Great War The Italians certainly wanted American troops so it to me sounds idiotic perhaps biopoular why they rejected the request. Italy was a drain on the allies but before the entry and very early on the allied staff would have laughed at your face over such a suggestion. In the beginning Italy kept on making offenses losing horrific casualties and barely gaining any land if any and had they not out ran there supplies and Artillery the Italians would’ve broken the back of the Austrian Hungarian army in the Eleventh Battle of the Isonz.
Afterwords the Austrian Hungarian army along with some German troops would take their revenge in the 1917–1918 offensive At that time the Americans were very focused on the western front and John Jay Pershing couldn’t spare any troops to help the Italians and in fact the allied army was asking Italy for additional reinforcement for the western Front in 1918.
Italy probably would have been in better shape had they entered late in the war and possibly would have had better staff and reinforcements since they were spending their time building up the army by the time the great war would’ve started and accelerated after the offer. Luigi Cadorna, Is ranked the worst World War I general which he was dismissed in 1917 this makes me wonder if he could’ve been dismissed earlier in a alternative history.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 26, 2022 13:46:03 GMT
In 1918 through reading John Jay Pershing’s book my experiences of the Great War The Italians certainly wanted American troops so it to me sounds idiotic perhaps biopoular why they rejected the request. Italy was a drain on the allies but before the entry and very early on the allied staff would have laughed at your face over such a suggestion. In the beginning Italy kept on making offenses losing horrific casualties and barely gaining any land if any and had they not out ran there supplies and Artillery the Italians would’ve broken the back of the Austrian Hungarian army in the Eleventh Battle of the Isonz. Afterwords the Austrian Hungarian army along with some German troops would take their revenge in the 1917–1918 offensive At that time the Americans were very focused on the western front and John Jay Pershing couldn’t spare any troops to help the Italians and in fact the allied army was asking Italy for additional reinforcement for the western Front in 1918. Italy probably would have been in better shape had they entered late in the war and possibly would have had better staff and reinforcements since they were spending their time building up the army by the time the great war would’ve started and accelerated after the offer. Luigi Cadorna, Is ranked the worst World War I general which he was dismissed in 1917 this makes me wonder if he could’ve been dismissed earlier in a alternative history.
I would say that the allies were better with Italy engaged rather than neutral but Cadorna was a good claimant for worst military leader in WWI - albeit there was a hell of a lot of competition for that title. They did tie down a lot of Austria resources and ultimately drew in German forces as well and with a more capable leader could have been markedly more successful in their offensives.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Oct 28, 2022 5:13:18 GMT
While im trying my best to contribute it remains a fact had Russia not launched the Brusilov 1916 offensive Italy would have already been defeated by the central powers as the Russian offensive upset the Trentino offensive that same year contend historian John Mosier in his book Myths of the Great war In the rest of his book he correctly points out how the Germans were winning the war at anything until America's entry. This same offensive how old down 13German divisions that were needed in the western front which arguably have made a difference in the outcome of the battle of the Somme‘s or perhaps verdan. Well that number is in the seemingly small The Jerry’s didn’t deploy sufficient amount of soldiers to verdan. One example only 13 divisions fought at the left bank offensive operation and only three or four of these were in line at one time.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Oct 28, 2022 16:14:54 GMT
The Austrian Hungarian empire holding many ethnic minorities such as Slavs would have been in a more challenging position had the Italians not opened up another front to fight in 1915 known as the Italian front. Had this move not been performed a predicate would have occurred if not mutiny has the slaves considered the Russians their fellow brothers of the same race.
While someone could point out The Australians Sent some divisions to fight on the western front it was more difficult to transport soldiers compared to Germany transportation as the Austrian Hungarian empire was much less organized and efficient The Germans industrial capacity was superior including the use of railways.
Another factor Austria Hungary had shown to be at times more of a hinderance then a blessing especially in the early stages of the war. However the later the word progressed Austria-Hungary became more of a pop it to Germany and its militaries closer resembling to the German army. By 1917 and 1918 the Austrian Hungarian army had steel helm helmets and their tactics and training resembling more of that of Germany is one example.
Italy in 1909 had agreed to stay in neutral in the event of a great war occurring. I would argue hadItaly stayed later this would have add anything improved the Italian publics reception to the war. However the Italians all had already traditionally distrusted Austrians.
Have the Italians have gone to war in 1917 they would’ve had many more soldiers at their disposal as the Italian government was fortifying Italian army for mobilization before their declarants of war in 1915. The Central powers maybe could have been somewhat surprised or at least relatively unprepared for opening of another front with mini Italians ready to be five more than actual history. Where historically Italian had more soldiers did the Austrians did in 1917 and I think the events prior
( I will edit it after work)
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Nov 10, 2022 15:53:37 GMT
That is an interesting question but also a logical problem. As narrow the results in ww1 were, with italy NOT fighting a significant part of the austrian army, the war changes fundamentally.
a.) With no italians in the mediteran, the serbs cannot "escape" to greece. This alone change a lot of things fundamentally. No serbs in greece = greece stay neutral, this frontline to wither down the bulgarians and bind forces here will not happen. Benefit for the Entente: No malaria ridden camps and no need for tons of ships (that will be sunk by german subs in the mediteran), but plus for the central powers (CP), they can partly turn their military into peasants again (bulgaria) and there is no pressure on the osmans. Poltically the CP will punish serbia for "starting the war".
b.) Austria is spared hundred thousends of casulties, tons of needed troop movements (one big problem for the CP was the massive wear and tear on their rolling stock. Because AH lost most of it in galicia, so the thin stretched german rail supply system also had to move stuff around for AH. With no thracien frontline, with no war against italy millions of shells do not need to be moved to these locations, do not be used/get lost against italy. So the rebuild of the AH-army will be easier, the quality of that army will raise more (as OTL), less german support is needed. With Conrad removed things will dramatically improve and lots of people in AH will not look for some "liberty". So overall AH is much more stable, will have a much better army AND much more supplies and its infrastructure will not be stretched as bad as it had been OTL.
This is a MASSIVE plus for AH
c.) with a much stronger and more powerfull army, AH is not seen as "falling appart", that mean Romania will not stop sending food. This is one of the most important things, because the blocade will not play its best card or it starts a year LATER. Also, the Chance that romania will side with russia will not happen because of d.)
d.) Russia will suffer terrible by this. There will be no Brusillow operation, because the CP will be advancing and destroying the russian army way better. Did i mention b.? That alone will remove 2-3 russian armies MORE as OTL (casulty-wise), germany could either send less forces east (so french & british casulties will raise) or they have more succsess and break the russian lines and destroy the capability of the russian army way earlier. At last one year earlier is realistic.
We could speculate if the romanovs fall earlier, but the russian army will be removed way earlier in their ability to mount huge operations. That alone will bring the CP victory. Either a republican government will be established in say early 1916 (without Lenin waiting for it in finland, brought by germans to it), but this will also fall because they will want to fight on. But the troops and the peasants wouldn´t. So Russia is done latest in autum 1916.
e.) with italy neutral, germany could still trade through it. For sure italy would benefit, but italy is to large to get bullied by UK, so the blockade is even less effective. This mean lots of war relevant stuff that didn´t reach germany OTL will reach it. Bad news for the Entente.
And so i ask: why would italy, with russia falling apart join the Entente? Knowing they do not attack a struggeling austria to "end it" but to face the full austrian army, with no second front next to them in albania and greece? Really? Why?
THe same is true for romania. In opposition to OTL, romania would think about getting areas from russia, if this fell appart, so you could see romania joining the central powers.
Germany could further send some heavy stuff and some german army to the south, to palestine to cut of the british from the chanel (not possible because of logistics, but for sure the osmans could and would end all arabian revolts...)
So i guess this will happen:
1915 - the german and austrian operation in russia end late 1915 around 100-150km to the east of OTL and they remove 300-700k russians from the list (Dead/prisoners), loosing around 200k less.
First half of 1916: Another operation with germany will push the frontline another 300km to the east of the lines as Brussilov striked, with no such operation possible. Think about "half way to the demarcation line in 1918", but in june 1916. WIth Romania fighting WITH the Central powers.
The russian casulties for 1916 would be reached BEFORE OTL brussilov, but the same as they had in march 17 (OTL), so the russian army fall apart, with basically zero combat value anymore in large areas. The most slowing point would be the logistic, because if they march to far ahead of their railheads, they have to wait.
THe casulties for the russians will skyrock (most by deserters, captured and "missing" soldiers), the CP (esp. Austria) will have their casulties halved or reduced to 1/3.
Any sane government would ask for terms in that moment
As we know, the germans wanted some bufferstate, would love to take some baltic area and the austrians also wanted some buffer. With romania on board you see them gaining areas around odessa. The osmans get stuff in the caucasus, germany cut of russian poland, enlarged by some white russian areas, with some austrian king, the baltic dutchy would be created. But overall a "mild" peace compared to Brest-Litovsk. So by Autum 16 the war in the east would be done.
again, why would italy join the entente? Because italians are dumb? I doubt it.
For sure you could move things around a bit, but just as the germans need more troops in the west, they also could kill more entente forces in the west. On the other side, many forces the entente wasted in malaria ridden greece could be wasted in flanders or in the champagne, too.
But we know, defeating the germans in the west is not possible in 1915 and 1916 and russia WILL fall apart way earlier.
Oh, with germany WINNING (and getting stuff in the east, say they get ukraine wheat as part of the reparations, fuel, coal, critical ressources) they will not risk war with the US of A.
They also will not ruin their economy with Hindenburg and Ludendorf trying to "fix" things. They have a better rail infrastructure (they even could demand rail cars from russia, even if they had to modify them, or they demand that stuff for germany build, you could think a ton of stuff about it. Also important, with no war in the east, the german and austrian rail road engineers are free to fix or improve the german system, so distribution of ressources works BETTER. Again a plus for the central powers.
So, no russia in, romania on the CP-side, 1-2 Million casulties less for the Central Powers... what do you think the other Entente-states could do? Also, why would italy join? Had they drunken lead espresso?
|
|
