Political Crossfire Forums

[antonio62]

How important an impact did Italy have in WW1? Would them sticking to the agreements with Austria and Germany have changed the outcome of the war?

I think it could have made an impact as it would have extended the French and British troops along the western front and meant Austrian troops were free to fight on either the Western or Eastern fronts. It also could have made an impact on the Scheifiln plan because had the French had to fight Italy in the south it may have meant the French did not have the power to repulse the German and Italian invasion. Having said that if the entente had survived the early stages of the war they would have eventually come out on top. Due to the German and Austrians being starved out and the Americans providing extra man power

[Angela]

antonio62 wrote: How important an impact did Italy have in WW1? Would them sticking to the agreements with Austria and Germany have changed the outcome of the war?

I think it could have made an impact as it would have extended the French and British troops along the western front and meant Austrian troops were free to fight on either the Western or Eastern fronts. It also could have made an impact on the Scheifiln plan because had the French had to fight Italy in the south it may have meant the French did not have the power to repulse the German and Italian invasion. Having said that if the entente had survived the early stages of the war they would have eventually come out on top. Due to the German and Austrians being starved out and the Americans providing extra man power
I think it was pretty much decisive: the original Schlieffen plan called for 6-12 Italian Corps to be transferred to Germany to join the initial attack. No large offensive were scheduled on the French/Italian border too many mountains there, and considering how close was the Marne Battle had Italy Joined Germany and A-H probably the war would have ended in 1914 (at least in the West), had it remained neutral it harder to tell, although I think the outcome would have been a central power victory, with 30-40 A-H divisions more free to fight in the East, Russia could have surrendered in 1916 instead of late 17 but who knows? :)

Anyway Italian involvement has always been downplayed especially in the Anglo-Saxon world (the Official British WWI history is really flawed about the Italian front) Italy, at its peak (in Summer 1917), mustered an army as large as the British one, both in men and guns(with a comparable population but with enormously inferior industrial base) suffered a number of deaths similar to that of the Brits (about 600,000, the Brits about 700,000 and other 300,000 from Dominions and Colonies), and tied on the Alps between the 30% and 60% of the A-H Army (and the whole army in 1918).

[MLBrandow]

Angela wrote: Anyway Italian involvement has always been downplayed especially in the Anglo-Saxon world (the Official British WWI history is really flawed about the Italian front) Italy, at its peak (in Summer 1917), mustered an army as large as the British one, both in men and guns(with a comparable population but with enormously inferior industrial base) suffered a number of deaths similar to that of the Brits (about 600,000, the Brits about 700,000 and other 300,000 from Dominions and Colonies), and tied on the Alps between the 30% and 60% of the A-H Army (and the whole army in 1918).

I'm currently taking a World War class and find this information pretty interesting :). I'll be sure to bring it up tomorrow.

I suppose one could argue that by the time Italy got involved the war was pretty much already past its climax and it was foreseen as an Allied victory. Of course, one could also argue that the war was really never going to be won by the Central Powers because of the selfishness of Germany toward France and Austria-Hungary toward Serbia... but that's getting off subject.

[mathurin]

i doubt it, not certain about WWI but italians in general were armed with very poor weaponry

in WWII they took a reasonably modern army into africa and got their asses handed to them by tribesmen who thought the plane dropping a bomb was actually a big bird dropping a big egg
this gives me little reason to think their forces would have been more than an annoyance in WWI, now perhaps stretching the line might make a bit of difference, but once the US joined one side it would be all over

[mr crunchy]

great topic
the italians didnt want to fight in ww1 but the king made a deal with the allies and hence they went
if they joined the central powers as the other poster suggested the austrians wouldnt have had to protect trieste with over a million men in the fray and couldve joined the germans on the western front or in the eastern theater against the serbs and ruskies...
in any case thats 2,000,000 more soldiers for the central powers and who knows how romania and greece wouldve gone then as bulgaria went with the germans
the bulgarian king proclaimed
""it is my life time goal to end serbia"""

in any case the italian and austro troops werent held in high regard by either side but as in the case of the western front,another million troops from italy and a million from austria wouldve changed the #s game in a big way

would france have lost??
the italians attacked france in 1940 after hitler did his thing 1st
they may have had an edge if they couldve gotten into nice or marseille with their armies in the south and the germans in the north coming at them

[Angela]

mathurin wrote: i doubt it, not certain about WWI but italians in general were armed with very poor weaponry

in WWII they took a reasonably modern army into africa and got their asses handed to them by tribesmen who thought the plane dropping a bomb was actually a big bird dropping a big egg
this gives me little reason to think their forces would have been more than an annoyance in WWI, now perhaps stretching the line might make a bit of difference, but once the US joined one side it would be all over

First in WWII Italian Army was everything but modern, actually it was in a much worse shape than it’d been in WWI (same weapons and same commanders only 20 years older) second it didn’t face tribes but the British Army, perhaps you were referring to the Adua Battle (Ethiopia, where about 10,000 Italians and 8,000 colonial troops were defeated by 120,000 Abyssinians) that had happened about half a century earlier (1894)

Then considering that the US entered WWI in 1917 and couldn’t contribute until summer 1918 I fear the war would have been over much earlier.

[Angela]

mr crunchy wrote: great topic
the italians didnt want to fight in ww1 but the king made a deal with the allies and hence they went


Absolutely it was a sort of coup: the king, the prime minister and the foreign minister did everything on their own and signed the London Treaty without informing the Parliament that was for the most part , as well as a large majority of the people, neutralist. Even worse they didn’t even inform the Army: on May 5 1915 the Chief of staff were still making plans to join the central powers and to send 30 divisions to Germany and according to the treaty Italy would have had to declare war on Austria by the end of May……

[mathurin]

Angela wrote: mathurin wrote: i doubt it, not certain about WWI but italians in general were armed with very poor weaponry

in WWII they took a reasonably modern army into africa and got their asses handed to them by tribesmen who thought the plane dropping a bomb was actually a big bird dropping a big egg
this gives me little reason to think their forces would have been more than an annoyance in WWI, now perhaps stretching the line might make a bit of difference, but once the US joined one side it would be all over

First in WWII Italian Army was everything but modern, actually it was in a much worse shape than it’d been in WWI (same weapons and same commanders only 20 years older) second it didn’t face tribes but the British Army, perhaps you were referring to the Adua Battle (Ethiopia, where about 10,000 Italians and 8,000 colonial troops were defeated by 120,000 Abyssinians) that had happened about half a century earlier (1894)

Then considering that the US entered WWI in 1917 and couldn’t contribute until summer 1918 I fear the war would have been over much earlier.

by modern i meant they were armed with firearms and mech forces, reasonably well armed
still, to my knowledge italians of the world wars eras were armed pretty poorly
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl21-e.htm
damn, i thought they had the italian machine gun in there
anyways, i read about this italian machine gun from WWII, the cartridges had to be oiled, it was the worst peice of crap ever, would never last in the trenches


i know when the US entered and that their role in WWI was reasonably minimal, you assume that the US wouldnt enter until that point, i assume that they would enter at an auspicious moment


do realize that some of what you might have learned in school might have been alittle self serving, sometimes its hard to badmouth a ones own country at times

[thundertaker]

mathurin wrote:
do realize that some of what you might have learned in school might have been alittle self serving, sometimes its hard to badmouth a ones own country at times

You say that, having forgotten this previous gem you espoused earlier:

Quote: but once the US joined one side it would be all over

[mathurin]

mostly because i feel the US joined at an auspicious moment, with the large amount of resources available the US joined at a time when both sides had more or less exhausted eachother

that wasnt about nationalistic pride, it was about the effect of bringing in tons of fresh troops and material into a war whos principal powers had all but exhausted eachother

its like the cop breaking up 2 guys who have been fighting for 3 hours non-stop, its not that the cop is a great fighter, its that the guys are so worn out that a feather would knock them over


but i can see how you would misunderstand that

[hobobahk]

yeah i like the cop analogy.

but didnt Italy join the war under the condition that it needed funding and equipment?
all they really had was manpower. they didn't even have a strong military leader.
I was under the impression that they joined in the war with hopes to grab some land in the aftermath, which they got stiffed in the end.

[mathurin]

dammit, did i make another easily misunderstood analogy

man
i never tried to imply that america was the "world police" in WWI, breaking up 2 unruly drunks or whatnot, not true and not what i was trying to get across

this is getting annoying, so many things have many interpretations

[Angela]

hobobahk wrote:

but didnt Italy join the war under the condition that it needed funding and equipment?

more founding and raw materials (especially coal and grain) than equipment, since 1916, the national industry was more than able (unlike during WWII) to provide the army with everything it needed.

Quote:
all they really had was manpower. they didn't even have a strong military leader.

That was true in 1915 when there was shortage of guns and machineguns and shells (actually every Entente nation faced the same problem in the first years of the war: France lacked of big guns and howitzers until 1916, the British army lacked of guns and reliable shells well after the Somme, US troops had to be equipped by the French army and so on) but not later. As for military leaders… They were awful not that British or French ones were much better
Quote:
I was under the impression that they joined in the war with hopes to grab some land in the aftermath, which they got stiffed in the end.

Absolutely Italy wanted to complete the unification process acquiring the Italian provinces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Trento and Trieste) , the Dalmatian coast and enlarge its oversea empire. The sad part is that remaining neutral Italy could have acquired much of that by negotiation, A-H was willing to cede Trento, much of the Friuli and to grant a free city status to Trieste, something that would have saved 600,000 dead and probably 20 years of fascism but of course the allies offered much more (that eventually Italy wouldn’t have getten), much easier to be generous with somebody else’s land :)

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Why Italy didnt want Greece to have North Epirus after WWI?

[Angela]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Why Italy didnt want Greece to have North Epirus after WWI?

Can't remember, I know Italy was promised some part of the Turkish Empire with the London treaty signed in 1915 (along with South Tyrol, Trieste, Istria, large part of the Dalmatian coast, a protectorate over Albania, Dodecanese , part of the German Colonies) I think they wanted Northern Epirus to become part of Albania but I’m guessing

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Angela wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Why Italy didnt want Greece to have North Epirus after WWI?

Can't remember, I know Italy was promised some part of the Turkish Empire with the London treaty signed in 1915 (along with South Tyrol, Trieste, Istria, large part of the Dalmatian coast, a protectorate over Albania, Dodecanese , part of the German Colonies) I think they wanted Northern Epirus to become part of Albania but I’m guessing You are right.They wanted Norhern Epirus to be a part of Albania and not be given to Greece as it was promised.Why?We were your allies in WWI.Or Italians were planning about WWII soon after WWI was finished?

[Angela]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: You are right.They wanted Norhern Epirus to be a part of Albania and not be given to Greece as it was promised.Why?We were your allies in WWI.Or Italians were planning about WWII soon after WWI was finished?

I guess cos' Albania was supposed to become an Italian Protectorate

[DD7]

Well it's no secret that Italians are poor fighers. Their impact in WW1 was almost zero. The front was in favour of the Austrians almost till the very end, which is pathetic since even the lousy russians could beat them easily.

Heck, they couldn't even beat some poorly trained Greeks in WWII!

[Bobicito]

DD7 speaks the truth! :lol:

Italy has had a very small effect in the World Wars it was in.

[thundertaker]

Bobicito wrote: DD7 speaks the truth! :lol:

Italy has had a very small effect in the World Wars it was in.

That's not true, when the Italians f****d up the invasion of Greece and the Balkans, the Germans had to divert resources set aside for Operation Barbarossa and delay the invasion of the USSR until June 1941, to late to allow the Germans to take Moscow before the onset of winter. Mussolini did a lot for the allied war effort....