What were the expectations when Italy entered the war? Did the Entente powers believe that now all would soon be over? What do historians nowadays say - should Italy have won quickly with good belligerence? Does anybody know sources in the web about this topic?
The British and the French, but particularly the British, relentlessly pursued Italy to relinquish their neutral position to enter the war on the side of the Allies. Before the war, similar pressure had been applied by Germany and Austro-Hungary to ‘preclude’ Italy from ‘the enemy’s camp’ in the event of European hostilities. What Italy agreed to was to come to the aid of these partners, if, they were attacked – not that they would help them if they went on the attack. Italy also claused that they would not fight against Britain, and, also made a treaty with France that in the event of a Franco-German war, Italy would remain neutral. For herself, Italy was only some 50 years young at the outbreak of war, and very financially impoverished and militarily depleted after the unexpected length and expense of war with Turkey to secure Tripolitania-Cyrenaica (Libya), finally seeded to them in 1912. The Italian politicians, perhaps typically, ignored their military advisors and agreed to open a southern front after the Treaty of London agreement made with the British. In this Italy was pledged ‘restoration’ of territory in the Tyrol, Dalmatia and Istria – claims here are highly controversial and stretch back centuries, unlike Nice and Savoy which were clearly Italian but which Italy seeded to France (Napoleon III) in return for essential military aid to depose the Austro-Huns from their north and north-eastern provinces circa 1859. The pledges made in the Treaty of London were never honoured after the war. The Italian southern front was supposed to split and divert the Axis, allowing the British and French to break through on the western front. Italy’s initial assault was very successful, to the extent they pushed so far forward they outstripped supply, and in particular, transport of heavy artillery from the south. It should be stressed Italy was by no means a modern equipped army by WWI standards, and items such as old Naval guns were being stripped from virtual historic emplacements to be sent to the front. In such state the Army was halted and told to dig-in and stay where they were. Here they were literally left in situe to endure the winter without relief and lose morale. The Anglo-French breakthrough didn’t happen in the west, and at a time of their choosing, the Axis massed forces and broke the demoralised line comprehensively with several very well planned and executed manoeuvres. I suggest loading the google toolbar from google.com and doing some searching as there are numerous sites, though many in Italian. No.9 [ 18. August 2006, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: No.9 ]
Can’t quite see where you might get that idea from . No doubt propaganda probably made such claims, but the senior commanders and informed politicians would surely have appreciated the realities. As said, the British felt a southern front would tie-up Austria resources and hopefully draw Germans away from the western front. I have never read of any idea or intent to ‘absorb’ Austria, and would be interested to learn of any. In their previous conflict with Austria, 1866 with Prussia, Italy arrived at that odd and opportunist alliance after failed talks with Austria over Austrian sale of some former Italian territory. However, Italian ambitions stopped there and did not extend to any conquest of Austria. Much the same case in WWI. Also on both occasions, Italy lacked the forces, finances and industry to achieve this. Other than logistics, there’s the question ‘what for’? No.9
Well, at least Austria had performed very poorly in the war so far, her troops were tied up on the Russian and Serbian front. Now Italy as the only left major power in Europe was going to attack the unprotected south-western flank of Austria - for me, this seems to be occasion for a quick victory. Some historians claim that Italy could have progressed far in Tyrol, not attacking the Col di Lana, but quickly progressing through the valleys.
I appreciate at the time, and prior to that, among the ‘must do’ for Europe was setting up alliances and contingencies. It remains a favourite debate as to what Austro-Hungary envisage would happen when they declared war on Serbia. Thereafter, the ‘what ifs’ become legion. For example, ‘if’ everyone refrained from war, I’m sure Austria would have sorted Serbia quickly – end of story. Regarding Italy, when she entered in 1915, her disposition was in the order of 1m modestly equipped men, 2000 antiquated artillery pieces (mostly small-calibre), 600 heavy machineguns and some 30 air craft. Compared to Serbia perhaps a major power, but compared to say the British Empire? Also, Italy was bogged down in southern Tripolitania-Cyrenaica as while they had reached a settlement with Turkey, once away from the coast there, the natives remained very hostile. Go forward two years to 1917, when I presume the comment about the advance is targeted, and Italy is unquestionably in much better shape for European war than 1915. However, the hopes for the Allied western front 1915 breakthrough didn’t materialise, Russia was in revolution and Austria herself had serious internal problems. Perhaps with different senior Italian commanders, which let’s face it tended to range from poor to awful for the war being fought, a different and more fluid advance could and perhaps should have been made? No.9
The reason for my interest: I have used the imminent entry of Italy to WW1 as refutation of the Lusitania conspiracy theory. With Italy joining, the Entente powers would not have had a reason to pull in the USA desperately. But with Italy being weak and all sides aware of this, my refutation seems not to be too valid.
Ah, understood. Afraid I can’t offer any worthwhile opinion on this conspiracy theory as I’ve never looked into it in any depth. Whatever part the Lusitania played, it was some time before America was fighting in Europe? A couple of observations, Italy finally committed the day after the Turkish Peninsula campaign (Gallipoli) began, and, Romania who was allied with the Central Powers, initially remained neutral like Italy, to later enter on the side of the Allies, like Italy. 25 Apr 1915 – Gallipoli initiated 26 Apr 1915 – Treaty of London signed 26 Apr 1915 – Italy declares war 07 May 1915 – Lucitania sunk 27 Aug 1916 – Romania declares war 06 April 1917 – US declares war 23 Oct 1917 – US troops in first European action 11 Nov 1918 – Formal end of war No.9
Well you could say ‘committed to war’, but from the point of the Conspiracy theory and the British securing Italy as a war participating partner, it was achieved by the signing of the Treaty of London on 26 April: ARTICLE 2. On her part, Italy undertakes to use her entire resources for the purpose of waging war jointly with France, Great Britain, and Russia against all their enemies. Technically, and observing protocol, Italy formally declared war in advance of offensives or anticipated active involvement/support, i.e. never made a general declaration against all Central Powers at the same time: 26 Apr 1915 Italy signs Treaty of London 04 May 1915 Italy renounces Triple Alliance 23 May 1915 Italy declares war against Austro-Hungary 20 Aug 1915 Italy declares war against Turkey 19 Oct 1915 Italy declares war against Bulgaria 28 Aug 1916 Italy declares war against Germany (following Germany’s declaration against Romania following Romania’s declaration against Austro-Hungary). No.9
I don’t believe to any great degree of say a major offensive? During the war Italy did send men to the Western Front, but essentially was involved north east of her boarder on land and in the Adriatic. Men were drawn from southern territories in Tripolitania where I think it can be taken Turkey was providing whatever assistance to the Senussi natives in agitation. Indeed towards the end of 1915 they mounted a revolt which also extended to British Egypt. At the end of 1915, the Italians and the French began effecting a ‘Dunkerque’ for retreating Serbian troops with Italy landing two divisions to protect the Albanian port of Valona and a small amount of territory. The foothold was maintained for about a year till the Italians struck north through Austrians and linked up with a French/Serbian stronghold. Other than their time in southern Albania - against Ottoman forces (?) - and contending with say ‘military advisors’ in north Africa, I’m not aware of direct Ottoman engagement? Would be interested to learn of any. No.9
