What if Italy remained Neutral or even joined the Central Powers in the Great War?

[Bartley]

In 1914, Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary had been members of the Triple Alliance. The Triple Entente- the rival alliance- had the United Kingdom, Russian Empire, and France. When war broke out Italy- due to its hatred of Austria and vice versa- left the Triple Alliance. There had been much tension between Austria and Italy over Venice, Tyrolia, and parts of Croatia they had only entered into an alliance thanks to Germany- who maintained good relations with both of them. In the Spring of 1915 Italy allied itself with the Triple Entente and the Ottoman Empire with the Triple Alliance. What if Italy had never left the alliance and remained a member, providing a sourthern front against France and a Western front against British Egypt? Would the Central Powers have won? Or was the war's fate sealed by the United States?
http://tacourdes.forumer.com/topic/14#.VzvPxberRpg

[TheQuietColt]

From a military standpoint the main difference would be a stronger navy in the Mediterranean and a threat of invasion for the British held Suez canal. France may have been caught out at first but eventually it would recover as well with Italy having control over the south_east French coast leading to more trenches warfare and more lives being lost. Beyond surprise Italy honestly would have had little effect on the overall outcome as it would still be the triple alliance vs the world. Certain conflicts may have been different but key events like Russia's surrender, USA entering the war and Germany being defeated would remain the same.

[Bartley]

Originally posted by Dark Lord Chin Chin:

From a military standpoint the main difference would be a stronger navy in the Mediterranean and a threat of invasion for the British held Suez canal. France may have been caught out at first but eventually it would recover as well with Italy having control over the south_east French coast leading to more trenches warfare and more lives being lost. Beyond surprise Italy honestly would have had little effect on the overall outcome as it would still be the triple alliance vs the world. Certain conflicts may have been different but key events like Russia's surrender, USA entering the war and Germany being defeated would remain the same.

I disagee. I believe Italy could have served two major roles. Number one is the southern front with France. Germany very nearly defeated the French and if France had to position so many forces in the south they would have lost Paris- resulting in a German Victory. Italy would also thin British Egypt's forces to the degree that the Ottomans could have captured the suez canal- a major defeat for the United Kingdom. Had both of these events happened the United Kingdom would have had to come to terms with Germany, and thusly Russia would too.

[TheQuietColt]

As i said surprise is Italy's biggest advantage, yes france would have been in a lot more ♥♥♥♥ but ultimately Italy did not have the navy or army to greatly effect the conflict. One of the main reasons Ottomans would not join is because relations between them and Italy was very poor, since only a few years before they were at war. It still would have taken years for any major advances by either side which would have still led to USA joining the war. As i said before it would still be the triple alliance against the whole world. The allies would have total control of almost all shipping lanes and the triple alliance just did not have the resources or manpower to compete, even if france was fully taken over look at world war 2. That was an even worse situation for the british but they kept fighting. Germany would not be able to threaten Britain with a sea invasion as they just did not have enough ships.

[Bartley]

Originally posted by Dark Lord Chin Chin:

As i said surprise is Italy's biggest advantage, yes france would have been in a lot more ♥♥♥♥ but ultimately Italy did not have the navy or army to greatly effect the conflict. One of the main reasons Ottomans would not join is because relations between them and Italy was very poor, since only a few years before they were at war. It still would have taken years for any major advances by either side which would have still led to USA joining the war. As i said before it would still be the triple alliance against the whole world. The allies would have total control of almost all shipping lanes and the triple alliance just did not have the resources or manpower to compete, even if france was fully taken over look at world war 2. That was an even worse situation for the british but they kept fighting. Germany would not be able to threaten Britain with a sea invasion as they just did not have enough ships.

They don't need a sea invasion. All they need is Paris- which as I said before- could be taken much easier. And again taly isn't going to launch any major attacks. They are only in to spread out the allies so Germany can burst though already thin allied lines.

[TheQuietColt]

Even if they take paris doesn't mean that france is defeated, the majority of french military power was spread over the globe so in history they were not ready for the german attack through belgium. Britain would still be ready and willing to fight and their empire was at the height of it's power, so though they couldn't defeat the germans they could hold them off long enough for france to recall all of their overseas forces and for it's allies to mobilise.

[Bartley]

Originally posted by Dark Lord Chin Chin:

Even if they take paris doesn't mean that france is defeated, the majority of french military power was spread over the globe so in history they were not ready for the german attack through belgium. Britain would still be ready and willing to fight and their empire was at the height of it's power, so though they couldn't defeat the germans they could hold them off long enough for france to recall all of their overseas forces and for it's allies to mobilise.

Paris is defeat for France. After Paris is a cruise thrugh France if there is any resistance. That is why the German General Staff planned to take Paris quickly and swing back to Russia. The United Kingdom would be demoralized and combined with any kind of a loss at Egypt would have forced them to come to terms with the Germans.

[Stigandr]

Originally posted by Dark Lord Chin Chin:

Even if they take paris doesn't mean that france is defeated, the majority of french military power was spread over the globe so in history they were not ready for the german attack through belgium. Britain would still be ready and willing to fight and their empire was at the height of it's power, so though they couldn't defeat the germans they could hold them off long enough for france to recall all of their overseas forces and for it's allies to mobilise.

Keep in mind though that most of France's industry was in the Northeastern part of the country, not to mention coal and other raw materials. At the point they have lost paris they no longer have an industrial base to support their military, Britain also had to borrow artillery and ammunition from the French quite a bit to make up for their own shortages so without that industry they could only get replacement equipment from overseas which would stretch their navies even thinner.

[ProphetInReverse]

And I would like to point out that historically, the Allies only had control of the seas because the UK could deploy the whole of its battlefleet against the Germans in the North Sea, while the French and Italians kept the Austro-Hungarians pinned up in the Adriatic. Had Italy and Austria-Hungary, both of which possessed several modern dreadnoughts, been on the same side, France wouldn't have been able to fight them by itself, so the British would have had to strengthen its Mediterranean fleet at a cost of being more likely to lose a Jutland-style engagement against Germany.