Hogy alakulhat az 1. világháború, ha az olaszok maradnak a Központi Hatalmak oldalán?

Amit erről olvastam, az nagyjából közelít ahhoz, amit tételesen felsoroltatok.

Counterfactual

Could Italy have remained loyal to the Triple Alliance? This may have come about in a number of ways. Italy may have been unable to give the French if they had been more antagonistic, for advancing from Algeria and Tunisia into Libya in the late 1880s or in the 1890s, so closing off Italian access to another region of North Africa that it was interested in. An attempt by the British to support Austria-Hungary, indeed, to try to divide it from Germany, might have also antagonised the Italians.

In turn, Austria-Hungary could have adopted a much more conciliatory approach. By 1908, even the country’s leaders recognised that it was a ‘saturated country’. It had enough challenges with all the different nationalities within its borders that there was no realistic expectation of further expansion. To have offered Italy Montenegro and Albania, which was held by the Ottomans until 1913, in exchange for collaboration would have cost Austria-Hungary nothing. Austro-Hungarian leaders failed to understand that Italy could assist it in its tensions with Serbia such as the ‘pig war’ of 1906-9. Greater Italian involvement on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea may have seemed to reduce Austro-Hungarian strength in the region, but in fact it would have brought more pressure to bear on Austria-Hungary’s prime rival in the region Serbia. Furthermore, now Italy too would have an interest in suppressing southern Slav nationalism for fear that Serbia would seek expansion to the sea through Montenegro and Albania. By adopting a realistic approach to the Balkans rather than a bombastic one, Austria-Hungary could easily have reduced its tensions with Italy and indeed in fact strengthened its own position in the region. Further afield, Austria-Hungary could have vigorously backed Italy’s war against the Ottoman Empire recognising that more Italian naval bases in the Eastern Mediterranean would indirectly put pressure on its other rival Russia.

Thus, in 1902, having gained or anticipating gaining a foothold in the Balkans and territory in the Ottoman Empire with Austria-Hungary’s support and with France appearing to be its prime imperial rival, Italy would have seen no incentive to make any deal with France. This position would have strengthened in the following decade as Montenegro, Albania and the Dodecanese Islands came under its control. In August 1914, Italy would have invaded southern France with the desire to annex Savoy and Nice. It may have also attacked Corsica and Tunisia.

Given how little distance the Italians were able to penetrate into southern France even in 1940 it seems highly likely that the conflict on the Alpine front would have soon resembled the fight against Austria-Hungary of our history. It would have become stagnated over the mountains with neither side able to advance far. What is important is that this front would have tied down numerous French troops. Fighting Italy, Austria-Hungary committed 8 million troops and over 400,000 were killed; 1.2 million were wounded. This can be compared to 1.5 million French and French colonial infantry on the Western Front in 1915. Thus, this additional front, even if it stagnated, is likely to have had a big impact on France’s war effort. France may have been compelled to give up Corsica and leave Tunisia to whatever colonial troops could be sent from across North and West Africa. Italy may have benefited from not having to have fought in Libya in 1911, but it seems that it would have been counter-balanced by the war starting for Italy nine months earlier than in our world. Italy may have made some small gains and significantly have seized Corsica. Its greatest impact would have been to drain French soldiers from farther North and this would certainly have been welcomed by Germany.

The Italians would have also fought in the Balkans. It is envisaged that with Austro-Hungarian backing, by the start of the war, Montenegro and Albania would be under Italian control, though Italian penetration of these regions may have already have triggered a war with Serbia. Serbia was conquered in 1915 and Montenegro in 1916. With Italians committing a similar figure, the speed of Serbia’s defeat would have been accelerated. In this scenario with Montenegro under Italian control it would have been a de facto part of the Central Powers anyway. Austria-Hungary is likely to have left the occupation of Serbia to Italy and Bulgaria so relieving its troops to fight against Russia. Bulgaria remained neutral until September 1915 and considered offers from the Entente to fight alongside them. It seems an Italian invasion of Serbia would have prompted the Bulgarians to join the Central Powers soon for fear of missing out in taking the Macedonian region of Serbia it had coveted in 1913. This may have encouraged Romania to stay out of the war entirely. Its entry on the Entente side in 1916 led to large areas of its territory being occupied by the Central Powers and it bowing out of the fighting by the end of the 1917.

The Italian Navy was larger than that of Austria-Hungary. At the outbreak of war Italy had 17 battleships of which 6 were dreadnoughts; 20 cruisers and 37 destroyers; it had a handful of submarines. The Italians were, however, innovative developing torpedo boats and manned torpedoes during the course of the war. Austria-Hungary had 18 battleships including 4 dreadnoughts, 8 modern cruisers, and by the end of the war around 30 destroyers. It would have 27 submarines by the end of the war; the German Navy operated a further 24 in the Mediterranean. The main rival for the Italians and Austro-Hungarian navies in the Mediterranean were the French who had been given responsibility for naval operations here by the British. In 1914 the French Navy had 25 battleships, of which 4 were dreadnoughts; 31 cruisers, 83 destroyers and 55 submarines; a portion of these were deployed in the Mediterranean. The British Mediterranean Fleet had 8 battleships and 3 cruisers.

In our world, whilst Central Powers submarines were able to sink 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 5 destroyers and 2 submarines in the Mediterranean, the Entente were largely able to contain the surface fleets in the Adriatic Sea. A relative free hand allowed the landings at Gallipoli in Anatolia in 1915 and the more successful landing at Thessaloniki in Greece in 1916. The landing in Greece allowed the Entente to open up a new front and attack the Central Powers in the Balkans.

Most of the conflict between Italy and Austria-Hungary at sea involved shelling ports, because, as on land, the naval theatre was pretty stagnant. With Italy fighting alongside the Triple Alliance this would have meant the Central Powers had local naval superiority. In addition the long coast and islands of Italy opened up many more harbours to operate from compared to the restricted options for Austria-Hungary. The Entente would certainly have been challenged in the Mediterranean and it is likely that there would have been more battles between surface warships, for example, ahead of the Italian invasions of Corsica and Tunisia. The power of Austro-Hungarian and German submarines operating in the region would have been accentuated with Italian support. In addition, by the end of the war, the Italian naval innovations would have added to the Entente toll.

The impact of the Italian Navy and the freeing of the Austro-Hungarian Navy to fight against the French would certainly have shifted the balance of power in the Mediterranean. It would have prevented even the attempted landing at Gallipoli and that at Thessaloniki, so keeping the Entente out of involvement in southern Europe. The French would have had to fight hard at sea to keep open the links to their North African territories and so there is a good chance that Tunisia and Corsica would have fallen to the Italians. It is possible that pressure would have been brought to bear on Spain to enter the war. Given that Portugal joined the Entente when Germany declared war on the country in March 1916, this may have led to complex developments. As it was, the British are likely to have become alarmed at this shift in the region, especially the potential threat to the Suez Canal and their hold on Egypt. Thus, warships may have been diverted from the Home Fleet to fight in the Mediterranean and in turn this may have increased the effectiveness of German submarine warfare.

Italy would have briefly enjoyed its expansion into the Balkans and the taking of long sought for prizes of Tunisia and Corsica. However, as a member of the Central Powers it is likely that eventually war fatigue and shortages would have undermined Italy as they did Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire and it would have begged for an armistice in the summer of 1918. Given the inability of the Entente to intervene directly in the Balkans and with the withdrawal of Russia and then Romania, the region may have dissolved into even greater conflict than was the case in 1918-19 in our world. It seems that with the collapse of the Italian Alpine front, French colonial troops would have eventually broken through into northern Italy and headed across towards the remains of Austria-Hungary. As a defeated state, Italy would have been compelled to yield all its Balkans gains and the border of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would have been pushing into the Venetia region. Trentino and South Tyrol would have remained part of the rump Austria that was created by the Treaty of St Germain. Italy’s colonies in East Africa would have been taken by Britain then rather than in 1941 and similarly the Dodecanese Islands would have gone to Greece in 1919 rather than 1945. Italy’s army would have been restricted, perhaps to 80,000 troops and it certainly would have had its navy curtailed, with ships being taken by the French and even the British, to replace some of their losses.

The outcomes for Italy of it remaining loyal to the Triple Alliance are not hugely different to those it experienced by fighting alongside Britain, France and Russia. Its casualties are likely to have been similar just located at the western rather than eastern end of the Alps. It would have had some brief glory in taking Tunisia and Corsica, but these would be ephemeral gains. Loss of its colonies twenty-six years earlier may have indeed aided its economy a little, despite the perceived damage to its prestige. Given that the country fell to Fascism even when it had won, this seems to have been a very likely course when defeated. However, its power and so its subsequent role being reduced, would have meant an earlier invasion of mainland Europe by the Allies in the Second World War and so a shorter war to the benefit of millions.

The key difference stemming from Italy fighting as part of the Central Powers would be at sea. The Italian Navy would have caused problems for the French in particular through its own actions and through Italy’s choice freeing up the Austro-Hungarian Navy. The French would have had to battle hard to hold control of the sea and prevent successful Italian amphibious landings. The British would have faced a difficult choice over whether to put more warships into the Mediterranean or risk losing control of Malta even Egypt and Cyprus. Certainly they could not have even considered landing in Anatolia or Greece in the way they did in our world. Thus, the focus would have been on a different theatre to what happened in our history leading to different strategies being developed away from the Western Front and most likely greater chaos in the Balkans following the end of the war.

Elég terjedelmes idézet, de jóformán majdnem minden tényezőre kitér.

Ha valamit ezek közül kétségesnek tartotok, jelezzétek..