Was Italy justified in claiming ww1 to be a "Mutilated victory" or were they just chimping out over land they didn't deserve?
Was Italy justified in claiming ww1 to be a "Mutilated victory"
Was Italy justified in claiming ww1 to be a "Mutilated victory" or were they just chimping out over land they didn't deserve?
They weren't. They got btfo'd by fricking Austria-Hungary, they didn't evden deserved Südtirol
they were promised territories by the Entente and didn't get them
should've joined the Central Powers instead, the war would've been over sooner and they could've got more territory
Digits of truth, Italy joining central powers would have been much more advantageous for them. It's very larpy but I generally think a Central Powers victory would have been a good thing for Europe
Italy probably isn't enough to save the central powers. But anything that potentially prevents WW2 is a good outcome.
Italy joining them would definitely be enough for the Central Powers to win. Imo it's even possible they'd win if Italy just stayed neutral. Mind you, Italy joined the war in 1915.
Why? Does Italy being involved save the German offensive? It's still WW1, the problems of trying to end the war quickly are still going to exist. And I don't think Italy joining the war for the entente made that much of a difference for that reason. It's very easy for a small force to hold off a larger one.
Your thoughts are very superficial and simple.
I agree, but you missed some important changes. Russia would implode even faster. Germany advances further in France, possibly reaching Paris. North African front opens up which will require further resources from France and UK. Ottomans are able to push into Egypt and further into Russia.
Who knows, a semi-competent push into France might have redirected enough attention away from the Western Front to make the Ludendorff offensive effective. It really depends on when they enter + British strategy to deal with them. The Regia Marina would have found the British Mediterranean Fleet a much more formidable enemy
Oh I was thinking an early attack that saves Moltke and the Schlieffen plan would be Italy's best chance to make a difference in the outcome of the war. I think by the time of the Ludendorff offensive there is no hope for the central powers, mainly given the arrival of the American forces and the allied material superiority provided by the convoys and blockades.
I always considered Moltke a lost cause but you're probably right. Was just giving one example of a direct 1:1 example of how Italy would have made Germany's job easier
Oh yeah, funny that we both have the same opinion about either of the two famous German offensives. That either was doomed for different reasons. It certainly makes the job of the Germans easier to have less pressure on them, but all those victories Germany did have throughout the war still didn't solve the main problems.
they're often overlooked but the Austro-Hungarian navy wasn't small, neither was the Italian. Combined, they would've posed a considerable threat, which would've required a redeployment of forces to the Mediterranean. That, in turn, might've given the German navy the opportunity to strike in the North Sea.
Expecting the Austro Hungarians to use their navy effectively is a bit of a tall order tbhdesu, but an emboldened combined Central Powers navy could definitely be a thorn in Britain's side. They might even prevent a Gallipoli if they could suitably dominate the eastern Mediterranean.
... Though realistically, if the Italians had any sort of domination on land or sea they would immediately squander it trying to invade Malta or something instead of something useful like increasing tension on the French border
>Italy probably isn't enough to save the central powers
Germany lost by the skin of its teeth. A new front in France could have had dire ramifications for the western front. Also the combined navies of Italy, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans would have given the Brit-Franco med navy a run for it's money. But then again, we are talking about Italy here and those guys always frick shit up so who knows?
>Germany lost by the skin of its teeth.
I have to disagree with this here, the German military machine was basically operational until the very end of the war, but the country was very swiftly collapsing largely to the material shortages brought about by the allied blockade. And the problem with the central power's navies has always been the same. Its very easy for the British to basically divide and conquer and coordinate with the French and almost impossible for the central powers to get their navies together to strike back at the British. Also I'm not sure how up to date the Italian navy is and the Ottoman and Austrian navies are really outdated by this point.
the Austro-Hungarian and Italian navies were comparable, smaller than the French but both decently modern and great power tier (small great power, but still, several battleships, submarines, etc.)
they could very much coordinate with Germany: more Austro-Hungarian and Italian pressure in the Mediterranean means the Brits and French have to draw attention there and the German navy has more free room in the North Sea
not that I believe naval warfare would've been decisive, if Italy joined the Central Powers, the war would've been decided on land within a year or so
What I mean is that the British can out maneuver the navies of the central powers. A combined fleet is basically the only hope of the central powers, and the British can bring their navy up and down from the Mediterranean to the north sea as needed and the central powers cannot. I remember having this conversation a while back but its conceivable that the British navy is able to defeat every single other navy in the world, as long as they fight these navies one on one.
But as far as the land battles go, considering the Italians were unable to break the Austrians, I'm not sure how much luck they are going to have against the French.
what? The Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Italians would just have to coordinate a simultaneous attack, that's not exactly that far stretched...
and the Italians wouldn't have to break the French lines, requiring them to put considerable troops down south would likely weaken the French front in the north to such an extent that the German army could conduct a decisive offensive
Oh what I'm describing is the British have their main fleet, they can defeat all the navies of the Mediterranean, and then they can move that fleet up and defeat the German navy. The central powers aren't going to be able to set up a long term blockade for this reason, they might get a short term blockade but its not a long term formula for success. And as far as the north goes, the French aren't the only ones there, the Belgians and the British are also there causing the major problems for the German offensive. And it seems to me that something like what happened at the Marne was probably going to happen anyway, since the Germans forces were so exhausted already after all those days of endless march. I see the problem as fundamental to the nature of warfare at that time, its so difficult to earn a decisive victory at all, since you cannot destroy or capture an enemy in front of you. You can only pursue with infantry since the retreating army can obliterate any of the traditional high-mobility elements like cavalry.
But the British Grand Fleet wouldn't be sent to the Mediterranean as they would need to leave a large enough main force to in theory counter the German High Seas Fleet. The point is that the amount of ships pulled to the Med. Might given the High Seas Fleet a better shot at fighting a battle on their terms, or at least the ability to periodically sortie and break the blackade to allow cruisers out on commerce raiding and merchant convoys in.
Right, it gives the Germans more opportunities to try and break out of the blockade and resume normal shipping, but it seems to me all this gives Germany is slightly longer until the first turnip winter.
>A combined fleet is basically the only hope of the central powers, and the British can bring their navy up and down from the Mediterranean to the north sea as needed
I think what he's trying to say is that relieving the German fleet in the North Sea is the value of the Italian navy, not whether the Italians would be strictly successful or not in their naval engagements.
>Italians were unable to break the Austrians
Provided, the terrain was much different. The French Riviera has a more hospitable coastal area
the Franco-Italian border is mostly mountainous too
ah yes, the British are moving their fleet to the Med and the German navy will just kindly wait until they're done and do nothing
regarding what you said about the land warfare, the war wasn't over after the Battle of the Marne, you know. A ton of fighting was happening, and in the end, the war was decided because one side had the bigger resources, more troops, more equipment. If Italy joined the CP in 1915, that advantage would've been clearly on their side, Russia would've collapsed sooner, A-H would've done much better and required less German assistance, and France would've collapsed sooner or later as well
Well what is the German navy going to do? Pursue? Blockade? If they pursue then the British can turn around and strike at them before the other central powers navies arrive, if they blockade it is the same as waiting for the British navy to return. And I see what you are saying about material superiority I agree. However what I don't agree with is that the inclusion of the Italians would provide the central powers with that material advantage. They are still outnumbered, out-supplied and out equipped. Largely due to the sheer size of the British empire. The only thing about the British is that it takes some time to mobilize all those Canadians and Australians and other conscripts into an effective military force, so as long as the war doesn't end instantly, this material superiority will continue to build for as long as the war continues.
>its conceivable that the British navy is able to defeat every single other navy in the world, as long as they fight these navies one on one.
In 1914 the Royal Navy could conceivably defeat every single other navy in the world *combined*. That was how crushing their numerical and technological superiority was in WW1. Only a Franco-German alliance could have posed a serious threat, and 1. hell would freeze over before that ever happened, and 2. even the French, German and Austro-Hungarian fleets combined were still slightly outweighed by the Royal Navy (using total tonnage as a metric).
Given that the Royal Navy's equipment and training was significantly better than everyone with the exception of the Imperial German Navy, it's conceivable that the Royal Navy could have fought every other navy on Earth at the time and, albeit at unfavorable odds, still had a decent chance at victory.
Britain gets treated as a much weaker power than it actually was in WW1 because almost all significant battles were land battles. It's kind of stunning when you realize that the British army performed as well as it did when Britain was primarily a naval power and had invested virtually all of it's resources prior to the war into maintaining an unchallengeable fleet. The most significant part of their armed forces hardly had anything to do. Why the frick they decided it would be a good idea to commit so heavily to a land war in Europe is another question, but it's like they had their arms and legs tied and still managed to headbutt their opponent to death.
If Italy joins the Central Powers and wins on the Western Front, how does that change the situation in the Mediterranean? Even if France were knocked out, the British were more than capable of fighting Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary at sea.
>In 1914 the Royal Navy could conceivably defeat every single other navy in the world *combined*
doubt it, germany alone fought them to a standstill at jutland
The Zimmerman telegram was the only thing that could have and did ensure German defeat. Without that France would have been overrun in the Kaiserschlacht. Germany lost the war (and the peace) because of the incompetence of the foreign office. Nothing else
t. ignorant and self-centered American
the US was very important in the second half of the war (mostly through its industry and money, tho, not direct military intervention, which only arrived very late and not in that big numbers)
until 1917 the US barely played a role
If America didn't enter the war the entire French army would have mutinied. War is more than just the # of soldiers
whatever, this thread isn't about America, and the French mutinies (which were only refusals to attack, not desertion, and no refusal to defend) happened in 1917
Italy joined the war in 1915, and that phase is what we're talking about
go to another thread if you're so self-centered that you always need to talk about America
>im 17 and i love battlefield 1
That's debatable, it seems obvious to me in hindsight that the final offensive was never going to achieve the objectives that the Germans wanted and like all WW1 offensives struggled once the coordination and plan starts to break down. And surely the submarines are equally to blame as the foreign office, the Americans started to view the central powers as pirates and eventually the propaganda of the hun or the enemy of civilized society began to work.
Germany's condition in 1917-18 wasn't destiny though, Italy could have helped the situation.
>I'm not sure how up to date the Italian navy is
The Regia Marina had 5 or 6 dreadnaughts I'm sure of, but that doesn't compare to Britain's 18. That being said, Britain having to compete with a semi-modern naval force in the Mediterranean on top of their engagements in the North Sea would be very influential. Like
said, a combined AH-Italian naval force could be very disruptive to Britain's blockade. Imagine the shitstorm it would cause in Britain if their Mediterranean possessions were in actual danger, there's no chance they wouldn't divert significant effort to dealing with it
So I think I said this a few times already, but I don't see this naval conflict as being decisive to the overall naval situation. The Mediterranean fleets sail out and the British are able to defeat them, meanwhile the Germans sail out and start blockading the north sea, well the British main fleet simply sails back to the North sea to shut down the blockade. I don't see how the central powers get out of this dynamic, where they aren't going to be able to achieve permeant naval dominance the way the British were able to.
I feel like you aren't taking the time of all this into account. I'm not saying that the Central Powers could defeat the British Navy 1:1 and blockade the British, but that a greater Central Powers navy could diminish the efficacy of the Royal Navy to the point that things like the Gallipoli invasion or the German Blockade would be less effective or thwarted altogether
>the Germans sail out and start blockading the north sea
I never said Germany would ever do something like this, but that a diminished British blockade would allow the Germans more supplies and therefore more time. The Central Powers were in a race against time since the beginning of the war and an Italian presence in the Mediterranean + Savoy could have been the tipping point.
Right I agree that maybe this gives the central powers more time before the supplies run out, and of course we have a new land warfare front I agree. But I don't see how this makes a decisive difference in the overall outcome of the war. Incidentally it seems to me that if the Germans are able to push the war a few more years, it results in a much worse outcome. The chemical weapons being prepared were truly devastating, the domestic issues probably even more exaggerated after the war, etc.
>should've joined the Central Powers instead, the war would've been over sooner
yeah but the central powers still would've lost, except just faster since italy was on their side
What does Italy get if they go with the central powers and somehow turn the tide, some stuff off France? Some colonies in Africa? They still don't get the Italian Dalmatians.
Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Malta, Tunisia, maybe Djibouti, British Somaliland
Austria-Hungary might've even be willing to cede some territory in Trentino, not Trieste though, because that was its most important harbor
Italy could've taken all of French North Africa if they had won the war.
nah, that would've been too much, Germany and A-H would've probably told them to back down too, but they didn't even want that afaik
Tunisia was very realistic though, since that's what they joined the Triple Alliance over in the first place (France annexed Tunisia, that angered Italy)
overall tipping the balance.
A-H and Bulgaria had just defeated Serbia when Italy joined against them
if Italy stays neutral or joins the CP, they now have free hands on the Balkan and much more forces available elsewhere
much fewer losses on the Russian front, fewer German reinforcements needed, Germans do better in the west
imo, if Italy opened another front against France, the balance of power would've clearly shifted in favor of Germany on the western front
Well its a misconception that the Balkans are now secure if the Italians aren't involved, the Salonika Front is probably still going to cause problems down the line for the central powers. I doubt the British would abandon Greece to deal with Italy. And I'm not sure how a few extra divisions being available really solve the problems for the central powers. The Austrians are still going to struggle on the fronts they have to deal with.
>a few extra divisions
the Italian front consisted of hundreds of thousands of men on each side and tons of equipment
There was no Greek front against the "Austrians" to begin with as Greece did not enter WW1 until mid-1917. With the Italians on the Central Powers the chances of Greece joining in is essentially impossible. Not that waiting until 1917 for some suicidal Greek entrance would even matter when the war would be finished by then.
Oh man I always thought the Greeks joined the war due to their status as being essentially clients of the British empire for most of the 20th century. But after reading about Greece joining the war it seems like one of the countries with the most complex reasons for joining the war. There is one thing that stand out though which is the Bulgarian mobilization and invasions. So it seems pretty likely that Greece is going to get involved one war or another, and so is Romania for that matter. But I seriously doubt the war can be ended quickly by the central powers unless something really drastic changes like Italy joins them and the British don't defend the French or something like that.
Right that's what I was thinking, I believe the Italians made this same assumption and decided the potential gain from Austria-Hungary's Italians was greater than the gain from the French and British.
>Italian Corsica Crete and Malta
MARE NOSTRUM
If the Triple Alliance had held and the Ottomans still join them, then the Central Powers would've won within 2 years.
no
>Deserve
What they deserve or not doesn't matter, they were made a promise.
I'll be completely fair, and fully admit Italy had a relatively shit performance in ww1 (Luigi Cadorna is to thank for that).
But yeah, Italy was promised land in exchange of going to war against the central powers. Which it did, and bled a lot for it, the almighty morons in chief of UK and France decided to fall short on said promise, hence, they came up with mutilated victory.
I am more annoyed than I should be that Istria is not Italian.
Italians are homosexuals
Regardless of Italy's performance in WW1 a shit tonne of Italians died on the assumption that these lands would become a part of Italy. Instead they were given to the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes later Yugoslavia, a moronic project that would eventually bite Serbs in the ass big time.
So yeah I definitely think they should've been given the lands they were promised and not giving Italy these tiny strips of lands was just an asinine decision.
Honestly they should have been happy that they only lost thousands of people and gained a small amount of territory. Considering the fate of their pre-war allies.
Italy should've been partitioned by the allies after they saved their ass after Caporetto.
sum up nordic and med relations in a single image