|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 30, 2024 0:52:46 GMT
What if Italy, because of different, perhaps less cautious politicians, or a less cautious monarch, expresses its irritation with Austria-Hungary over the Bosnia crisis by working to sign on formally to alliance with France and Russia, while affirming to diplomatic interlocutors, German and Austrian, and its new Entente partners, that it is dropping/repudiating all former obligations under its former Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary?
There may have been OTL realpolitik reasons to *not* do this. Italy seemed able to formally retain the alliance, define its terms suitably to avoid being trapped in unwelcome situations, while also able to make side deals. But let's say it isn't disciplined enough to keep this up. Perhaps the circle of political figures knowledgeable of, advocating for, and influencing foreign policy decisions gets a little too large for this, and the right people make political capital from venting dissatisfaction at Austria-Hungary (and by extension Germany for supporting Austria-Hungary) by dropping the Triple Alliance, and making direct ties with Russia and France. They also make the logical, or logical sounding argument that aligning with the newly emerged Triple Entente is vital for Italian interests because it is the winning alliance of the future, not just the alliance that does not bind it with the Austro-Hungarian enemy/albatross/sick man. Given Italy's dependence on British coal and British patrolled sea-lanes, and now Britain's Ententes in colonial affairs with Russia, France, and Japan, any policy of aggression toward France would be too foolish to contemplate, and getting closer to the 'club' of powers who control the oceans can only be beneficial infacilitating cooperation with Russia on Austrian and Balkan affairs or with Britain and Russia on Ottoman affairs.
So it is done, and the Austrians and Germans receive their diplomatic equivalent of a gut punch.
How do European diplomacy and crises evolve from 1909 onward?
The specific ones I am counting are the Agadir 2nd Morocco Crisis of 1911
The Tripoli Italo-Ottoman War of 1911-12
The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913
The Liman Von Sanders affair of winter 1913-14 (for completists)
The Sarajevo Crisis of 1914
How might these develop differently?
How might Berlin and Vienna behave differently with their late ally repudiating them? Would they adjust their military/naval spending and operations plans to fit new diplomatic reality?
How might Paris, St. Petersburg and London change their calculations?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,424 
Likes: 12,036
|
Post by stevep on Jan 30, 2024 14:08:59 GMT
What if Italy, because of different, perhaps less cautious politicians, or a less cautious monarch, expresses its irritation with Austria-Hungary over the Bosnia crisis by working to sign on formally to alliance with France and Russia, while affirming to diplomatic interlocutors, German and Austrian, and its new Entente partners, that it is dropping/repudiating all former obligations under its former Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary? There may have been OTL realpolitik reasons to *not* do this. Italy seemed able to formally retain the alliance, define its terms suitably to avoid being trapped in unwelcome situations, while also able to make side deals. But let's say it isn't disciplined enough to keep this up. Perhaps the circle of political figures knowledgeable of, advocating for, and influencing foreign policy decisions gets a little too large for this, and the right people make political capital from venting dissatisfaction at Austria-Hungary (and by extension Germany for supporting Austria-Hungary) by dropping the Triple Alliance, and making direct ties with Russia and France. They also make the logical, or logical sounding argument that aligning with the newly emerged Triple Entente is vital for Italian interests because it is the winning alliance of the future, not just the alliance that does not bind it with the Austro-Hungarian enemy/albatross/sick man. Given Italy's dependence on British coal and British patrolled sea-lanes, and now Britain's Ententes in colonial affairs with Russia, France, and Japan, any policy of aggression toward France would be too foolish to contemplate, and getting closer to the 'club' of powers who control the oceans can only be beneficial infacilitating cooperation with Russia on Austrian and Balkan affairs or with Britain and Russia on Ottoman affairs. So it is done, and the Austrians and Germans receive their diplomatic equivalent of a gut punch. How do European diplomacy and crises evolve from 1909 onward? The specific ones I am counting are the Agadir 2nd Morocco Crisis of 1911 The Tripoli Italo-Ottoman War of 1911-12 The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 The Liman Von Sanders affair of winter 1913-14 (for completists) The Sarajevo Crisis of 1914 How might these develop differently? How might Berlin and Vienna behave differently with their late ally repudiating them? Would they adjust their military/naval spending and operations plans to fit new diplomatic reality? How might Paris, St. Petersburg and London change their calculations?
Well a lot will depend on the exact circumstances. However it does appear a boost for the entente powers. The Germans might not push the issue in 1911 given the new circumstances or if they do their likely to get slapped down more firmly.
The big issue is does Italy still attack Libya in 1911 and if so what does the other powers do? The entente is basically an agreement between Britain and France and Russia to resolve differences so they can present a united defensive front against the perceived German threat. This is most famously demonstrated by Britain's uncertainty on entering the OTL conflict even after war starts and Belgium is attacked. France and Russia will support each other because they desperately need to and Britain is likely to support its friends if their attacked by Germany. However an Italian attack on the Turks doesn't really fit this scenario.
Has Rome given the other entente powers any warning? Doubt Britain would be that favourable since they still desire good relations with the Ottomans and the Russians might also want to if there's not a general war given they want access to the straits for trade purposes. France could also be reluctant to see the Ottomans alienated.
If Italy hasn't asked for and been given support what happens if when they go to war a resentful Berlin and Vienna offer Constantinople aid? It would be difficult, especially with a Liberal government in control and bust with internal matters [tax and law reform, Irish Home Rule, the issue of the House of Lords etc] for Britain to commit to supporting Britain in supporting Italy in a war it clearly started. France and Russia might be unwilling to see Italy defeated and humiliated let alone weakened but they would also be less than happy with a general war starting in such a way.
As such you could see Italy persuaded not to take the risk, getting away with it as OTL, being stomped by its former allies or triggering a general European war, probably without Britain being involved, at least directly, for a while. If the 1st you could see the Balkan powers not thinking they can get away with war themselves, although if they do they could be even more successful as the Turks won't have learnt lessons from their defeat by Italy. If the 2nd then roughly OTL although the Ottomans are probably pushed towards the CPs faster as their seen their traditional protectors - Britain and France - not aiding them. If the 3rd then a lot depend on what happens to Italy and how much effort it is for Austria and Germany. If the 4th then there's a somewhat earlier great war which is probably a net bonus for the allies.
Assuming the Italo-Ottoman war goes ahead with no major butterflies then the First Balkan War is likely to follow although might the CPs intervene then, which might again trigger a general war depending on the circumstances. I could see Russia determined not to have its allies in the region stomped and France and probably Italy supporting them. In this case the Balkan powers will start off weaker but not divided with a bitter Bulgaria so the Ottomans are more isolated, Italy is in the allied camp from the start and a probable German invasion of Belgium bringing Britain in.
If this doesn't happen and the 2nd Balkan war follows, with Bulgaria crushed by its neighbours and isolated then a lot depends on whether you still get the Franz Ferdinand assassination? That was very much a chance occurrence so could easily be avoided.
If its not then we get WWI with triggers pretty much as OTL but with Italy and the Ottomans in from the start. That could raise questions for Austria as instead of two fronts [Serbian and Russian] its also facing conflict with Italy. Especially if Germany leaves it hanging as OTL, with virtually everything going west through Belgium and Austria fighting three opponents virtually on its own which could cause it some serious problems. Unless in response to the changing circumstances Germany decides on a defensive stance in the west so it can help its allies. However this seems unlikely given the general stance, not just in Germany, among most military opinion that you need to take the offensive to win quickly.
In terms of naval changes probably not a lot. Italy's position boosts the allies as they have markedly less concern about the Med so the RN can concentrate even more on the North Sea and related locations. Plus given resources limits and the time it takes to get major capital ships into service I doubt it would greatly change the main ships in service on any side, even with a 1909 PoD. Military plans might change but not greatly I suspect as ideas are already fairly rigid in most military top brass.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jan 31, 2024 3:11:48 GMT
This is such an excellent question that people are inclined to miss! I recall Churchill, during the early 1900s, thinking the idea of war with Germany would be a great tragedy. He didn't want to go to war as the two nations had trade and other mutual ties, one of them being the British monarchs, who were originally German. BY 1912, when Churchill became the first lord of the admiralty, his stance had changed as he saw the European powers become more militaristic, especially in terms of trying to compete with the British Royal Navy.
Britain already had pro-allied sentiment among the allies before they officially started the war; however, if Germany had left Belgium unmolested and instead let France violate neutrality, the Kaiser could have pointed out the British hypocrisy for not entering war against France.
BY the 1900s, France and Britain became good friends with the French admiring British sports and the British admiring world renown French cuisine.The itallians had a long history of of misgivings to the austrians which britian wasn't alien to this knowledge.After all, it was France who made Italian independence possible. Napolean's ethnicity was Italian,but nationalism came decades later as Corsica was a kingdom before the French took over.
It really isn't a shock that Italy didn't fulfill the alliance, and it should be much of a surprise to most people. Also, the Italians were dependent on British economic trade, and the central powers couldn't spare coal for them. In fact, Italian sailors were in the British navy and were allowed to transfer. I remember reading an article online.
the central powers
The Germans might have more hastily tried to recruit Romania in their camp, which almost did happen. Greece also had a pro-German monarch whose government could have sided with the Germans. I can't remember, but one of the nations I mentioned didn't want to fight the other, which could have been arranged by going to a different theater.I think you could have had a successful galopli if Greece agreed to it.
positive results for the allies
Given the hatred, I wonder if Italy could invite Greece into the war, which could increase the chance for a victory in Galoppli, I wonder if Italy could be interested in fighting in the Balkans war against Turkey in exchange for their assistance. BUlarigia is a tricky situation.
The Russians should have gone to war with greater Balikan support and headed to Istanbul to try to prolong the war to distract the Balikan coalition. In the meantime, the great powers can attempt to keep the coalition together. Even when the turks were defeated the allies should have said you cant have anything!
the short answer, there would be unique effects if not possible hatched to your idea.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,424
Likes: 12,036
|
Post by stevep on Jan 31, 2024 12:32:27 GMT
This is such an excellent question that people are inclined to miss! I recall Churchill, during the early 1900s, thinking the idea of war with Germany was a great tragedy. He didn't want to go to war as the two nations had trade and other mutual ties, one of them being the British monarchs, who were originally German. BY 1912, when Churchill became the first lord of the admiralty, his stance had changed as he saw the European powers become more militaristic, especially in terms of trying to compete with the British Royal Navy. Britain already had pro-allied sentiment among the allies before they officially started the war; however, if Germany had left Belgium unmolested and instead let France violate neutrality, the Kaiser could have pointed out the British hypocrisy for not entering war against France. BY the 1900s, France and Britain became good friends with the French admiring British sports and the British admiring world renown French cuisine.The itallians had a long history of of misgivings to the austrians which britian wasn't alien to this knowledge.After all, it was France who made Italian independence possible. Napolean's ethnicity was Italian,but nationalism came decades later as Corsica was a kingdom before the French took over. It really isn't a shock that Italy didn't fulfill the alliance, and it should be much of a surprise to most people. Also, the Italians were dependent on British economic trade, and the central powers couldn't spare coal for them. In fact, Italian sailors were in the British navy and were allowed to transfer. I remember reading an article online. the central powersThe Germans might have more hastily tried to recruit Romania in their camp, which almost did happen. Greece also had a pro-German monarch whose government could have sided with the Germans. I can't remember, but one of the nations I mentioned didn't want to fight the other, which could have been arranged by going to a different theater.I think you could have had a successful galopli if Greece agreed to it. positive results for the allies Given the hatred, I wonder if Italy could invite Greece into the war, which could increase the chance for a victory in Galoppli, I wonder if Italy could be interested in fighting in the Balkans war against Turkey in exchange for their assistance. BUlarigia is a tricky situation. The Russians should have gone to war with greater Balikan support and headed to Istanbul to try to prolong the war to distract the Balikan coalition. In the meantime, the great powers can attempt to keep the coalition together. Even when the turks were defeated the allies should have said you cant have anything! the short answer, there would be unique effects if not possible hatched to your idea.
Some interesting points here although being pedantic it wasn't Italian independence that French intervention made possibly but Italian unity under the house of Savoy. Albeit that the final section, the absorption of the Papal States 1st required the withdrawal of French troops during the war with Germany before it could be completed.
Romania might be an option for the CPs as it had a king at the start of the war who was a member of the house of Hohenzollern but he died in late 1914. Furthermore the bulk of Romanian feeling was pro-allies because their main desire for expansion was to gain Transylvania from Austria-Hungary. This was a major factor for them joining the war in 1916. Unless your talking of a general war resulting from the 1st Balkan war. Then Romania could be offered land from Bulgaria and Russia but it would leave Romania in a pretty exposed position.
I doubt Italy would have influenced Greece much, at least in a pro-allied stance as they were bitter rivals over a number of territories, not helped by the Italian annexation of the predominantly Greek populated Dodecanese islands from the Ottomans after their war in 1911-12. Plus as you say the new Greek king George II favoured Germany - while the more republican interests favoured the allies. However again a war resulting from the 1st Balkan would would have changed that as Greece, along with Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro were already allied in fighting the Ottomans so that would have brought them in. Also then Greece was then ruled by George I who was more pro-allied. [There are reports of plans for a pre-emptive strike by Greece in 1914 against Turkey being planned for the period before the two dreadnoughts being manufactured in Britain arrived in Turkey -as that would end Greek naval superiority and they feared a a Turkish attack to regain some of the territories lost to Greece in the Balkan Wars].
Bulgaria is always going to be likely to end up joining the CPs after its losses in the 2nd Balkan War as its main aims were against Serbia and to a lesser degree Greece, Romania and Turkey. The only real way to have they stay neutral after that or join the allies is to have an allied position so strong that the CPs even with Turkey looks a lost cause. From an August 1914 start the best chance for that is a more successful Gallipoli campaign which preferably takes the peninsula at least and possibly then prompts the Greeks and Bulgarians to join the allies.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Feb 5, 2024 10:13:47 GMT
The Germans might not push the issue in 1911 given the new circumstances or if they do their likely to get slapped down more firmly. I think the Germans would approach the matter with more circumspection. Has Rome given the other entente powers any warning? Doubt Britain would be that favourable since they still desire good relations with the Ottomans and the Russians might also want to if there's not a general war given they want access to the straits for trade purposes. France could also be reluctant to see the Ottomans alienated.
If Italy hasn't asked for and been given support what happens if when they go to war a resentful Berlin and Vienna offer Constantinople aid? It would be difficult, especially with a Liberal government in control and bust with internal matters [tax and law reform, Irish Home Rule, the issue of the House of Lords etc] for Britain to commit to supporting Britain in supporting Italy in a war it clearly started. France and Russia might be unwilling to see Italy defeated and humiliated let alone weakened but they would also be less than happy with a general war starting in such a way. Before we even get to this, we have to consider if the Ottoman Empire is out there, diplomatically isolated and twisting in the wind, looking like a vulnerable target, with the Italians having confirmed in various European capitals, from London and Paris to Vienna and Berlin, that everyone "understands" Rome's right to "satisfaction" in Tripoli. May not be the case at all. Germany and Austria, both scrambling to recover their diplomatic position, and pissed at Italy, may well have reached an alliance with the Ottomans between 1909 and 1911, and would smile as they say "hell no" when their erstwhile Italian ally asks for "understanding" of its need to secure a fourth shore in Libya. The Triple Entente powers in 1911 may not want to disappoint the Italians, nor particularly like the Ottomans. But at the same time, it could be difficult to get all three on board with the idea that starting the Great War at that time, 1911, for that reason, Italy wants to grab Libya, is compelling or appropriate. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,424
Likes: 12,036
|
Post by stevep on Feb 5, 2024 15:27:02 GMT
The Germans might not push the issue in 1911 given the new circumstances or if they do their likely to get slapped down more firmly. I think the Germans would approach the matter with more circumspection. Has Rome given the other entente powers any warning? Doubt Britain would be that favourable since they still desire good relations with the Ottomans and the Russians might also want to if there's not a general war given they want access to the straits for trade purposes. France could also be reluctant to see the Ottomans alienated.
If Italy hasn't asked for and been given support what happens if when they go to war a resentful Berlin and Vienna offer Constantinople aid? It would be difficult, especially with a Liberal government in control and bust with internal matters [tax and law reform, Irish Home Rule, the issue of the House of Lords etc] for Britain to commit to supporting Britain in supporting Italy in a war it clearly started. France and Russia might be unwilling to see Italy defeated and humiliated let alone weakened but they would also be less than happy with a general war starting in such a way. Before we even get to this, we have to consider if the Ottoman Empire is out there, diplomatically isolated and twisting in the wind, looking like a vulnerable target, with the Italians having confirmed in various European capitals, from London and Paris to Vienna and Berlin, that everyone "understands" Rome's right to "satisfaction" in Tripoli. May not be the case at all. Germany and Austria, both scrambling to recover their diplomatic position, and pissed at Italy, may well have reached an alliance with the Ottomans between 1909 and 1911, and would smile as they say "hell no" when their erstwhile Italian ally asks for "understanding" of its need to secure a fourth shore in Libya. The Triple Entente powers in 1911 may not want to disappoint the Italians, nor particularly like the Ottomans. But at the same time, it could be difficult to get all three on board with the idea that starting the Great War at that time, 1911, for that reason, Italy wants to grab Libya, is compelling or appropriate.
Part of the issue is when does Italy make clear to its neighbours that it intends to attack Libya, if it does, how they react to this and whether Germany has managed to get an agreement between Turkey and Austria to overcome rivalry between the two. There are numerous possibilities here.
Britain at least still desires friendship with the Ottomans and it would depend on relations between Italy and Britain, remembering that Britain isn't in any alliance other than with Japan. As such it could well oppose any such operation if it hears about Italian plans and doubly so if the CPs have already made a commitment to the Ottomans. That assumes that Italy is willing to risk such a confrontation with Germany and Austria. France and Russia may also be less that willing to commit to supporting Italy if it means a general war. Especially since it will be before then desired railway improvements in Russia are completed.
I would suspect that if the CPs become a triple alliance including the Ottomans then Italy won't risk it. Which may just butterfly the Balkan wars as well or if they still occur possibly prompt a general war two years earlier. Which would affect a lot of things including both the date and that FF is still going to be the Austria heir and is likely to not be assassinated so would succeed Frans Joseph when he dies. Although the war may not last that long in this scenario.
Alternatively if no such alliance in place Italy may make a move and win as OTL but, especially if its traditional allies [Britain and France] have failed to aid it and are seen as implicated in the Italian action then its very likely that the CP's will then become a triple alliance. Which again could well negate the Balkan wars but is likely to mean that if/when a general war breaks out all 4 Balkan powers [Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Montenegro] are likely to be very favourable to the allies, especially if Germany goes west and Russia is pounding Austria as OTL.
One other complication with any Ottoman-CP alliance is that Russia will know from the start that it will lose access through the straits and will either be more cautious as a result or make alternative plans, whether that be seeking alternative routes or plan for a quick occupation of the straits, possibly in alliance with a still friendly Bulgaria.
An awful lot of permutations here.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Feb 7, 2024 1:53:02 GMT
An awful lot of permutations here. Certainly whether Germany has managed to get an agreement between Turkey and Austria to overcome rivalry between the two. I don't think there is really much of any rivalry between Austria and Turkey after Austria has delivered its payout of hush money to the Ottomans to close the Bosnia affair in spring 1909. The Ottomans knew others were more threatening, the Austrians knew the Hungarians would foot drag and veto on further annexation. The two had multiple common enemies, at least four [Italy, Montenegro, Serbia, Russia], so were perfect allies for each other. They just took too long to realize it. |
|
