This topic has been moved to Website/Forum Discussion.
Why is Italy an allied power?
-
This could give somebody more background of what Italy felt regarding the lands disputed with Austria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_irredenta
They simply wanted areas where Italian citizens and culture to be part of Italy. Nowhere in Africa where the CP offered Italy would benefit in this manner. This is why the choice was clear and strong for the case of joining the allies. It was a popular sentiment.
“Originally, the movement promoted the annexation to Italy of territories inhabited by an Italian indigenous population but retained by the Austrian Empire after Third Italian War of Independence in 1866 (hence ‘unredeemed’ Italy).”
Note: the green areas are the same as the picture in the above link
The Peace of Prague was a peace treaty signed at Prague on 23 August 1866, which ended the Austro-Prussian War. The treaty was lenient toward the Austrian Empire because Otto von Bismarck had persuaded William I that maintaining Austria’s place in Europe would be better in the future for Prussia than harsh terms. Austria only lost Venetia, ceded to Napoleon III of France, who in turn ceded it to Italy. Austria refused to give Venetia directly to Italy because the Austrians had crushed the Italians during the war.
You see the Italian and Austrians hated each other. They could never fight together because Italy wanted to bring their Italians together at the expense of Austria. Africa was totally secondary from Italian interests.
-
@Imperious:
Italy only gains those Austrian territories if they join the Allies and the Allies win. In a situation where the CP are winning decisively, those interests in Austria are not even close to on the table.
And that’s why they choose the Entente and signed the treaty of London. They choose what was most valuable to them, not Africa.
Would they still have signed if the Germans had overrun Paris?
You act as if Italy’s only goal was the Austrian territories and that they would risk everything to get them.
So what if they wanted the Austrian territories more than African ones? No one said any different. Let’s not be ridiculous and say that they would prefer no territorial gains over African territories or that if the CP wsa very successful in the early war that Italy would still have joined against Austria.
-
Would they still have signed if the Germans had overrun Paris?
If that happened the war would be over, so no need for speculation.
You act as if Italy’s only goal was the Austrian territories and that they would risk everything to get them.
Just like France had the only goal of taking back Alsace Lorraine which was taken in 1870. No different for the Italians from 1866…. :roll:
So what if they wanted the Austrian territories more than African ones? No one said any different. Let’s not be ridiculous and say that they would prefer no territorial gains over African territories or that if the CP wsa very successful in the early war that Italy would still have joined against Austria.
Well you agree now. that’s good.
-
@Imperious:
Would they still have signed if the Germans had overrun Paris?
If that happened the war would be over, so no need for speculation.
Fascinating. I assume you will now pretend to have some sort of proof?
-
Fascinating. I assume you will now pretend to have some sort of proof?
The proof is the rules for 1914. Take Paris and you pretty much won the game since it is the hardest Capital to capture.
Historically, Defeating France was the goal for Germany in the war. Stopping Russia was of secondary consideration. Read up on Keenan regarding German war aims.
Also you can’t prove the opposite: Proof that If Paris didn’t fall and Italy joins the Central powers, you won’t find it either.
Yes fascinating indeed.
-
That’s exactly my point; you can’t prove the hypothetical, so your statement that the war would be over is unverifiable, but plausible, just like my statement that if Paris fell Italy might have worked with the CP.
Please don’t bring up again this “goal” stuff. That being Germany’s goal did NOT mean it was the way by which they would win the war.
-
That’s exactly my point; you can’t prove the hypothetical, so your statement that the war would be over is unverifiable, but plausible, just like my statement that if Paris fell Italy might have worked with the CP.
The fall of France would mean the end of the war, not an unverifiable conclusion.
In that case Italy has some remote chance of joining the CP. <5%
But if you are correct, the game is over anyway so their is no real point in considering it for the game due to the existing Victory conditions. Germany came close to winning in 1914 and Italy didn’t join. They even pulled out and made excuses and went neutral for 10 months. By the time they did join the Allies, the war was not going well for either side and they still choose the Allies.
The offensive of 1914 and victory at Tannenberg didn’t do anything for Italy, so for you to be correct the CP must be much farther to winning than at any point in the war and 1914 was probably the closest they came. Result is Italy still went neutral.
So for you to be right, the Historical result would both be unplayable from a game standpoint. It might look like “If Germany takes out France on turn 1, Italy has a chance to join the CP…otherwise they join the Entente on turn 2”
But we both know this is impossible given the rules/setup,etc.
If i am correct it would be more plausible, Historical, practical, and the game could actually be played because it does not require France to fall in order to work.
Please don’t bring up again this “goal” stuff. That being Germany’s goal did NOT mean it was the way by which they would win the war.
Tell that to the Kaiser and Ludendorff and Helmuth von Moltke. They treated it as a goal. And before that, Germany always had plans for war and what their goals would be.
-
Classic IL, attacking things I never said.
I have already admitted that this game, AAWWI1914 is not a good place to implement an official rule of a flip-flopping Italy.
An Italy with a vastly different role, including the possibility of fighting with the CP, is historically plausible, and people who think that such a thing would be plausibly historical in an AA game are right, I believe.
I don’t recall making an claims about the implementation of such a rule in a created game being easy. Only that it would not be implausible from a historical standpoint.
I really don’t have much more to say, if anything, other than of course the straw men you set up for my arguments.
-
I love the way everyone talks about the Italians as though their government was not totally subservient to an Italian electorate that was clamoring for war. Even if Salandra had somehow decided to commit political suicide and sign an agreement with the Central Powers, his government would have faced, and almost certainly lost, a confidence vote, the government would have fallen, and whatever followed (new government, dictatorship, temporary assumption of power by the King) would have reflected a very overwhelmingly anti-Austrian public opinion. Imagine what would happen if Obama tried to convince Congress to declare war on Israel in alliance with Hezbollah and Iran.
-
And it would not have been political suicide to side with the Entente as their ship was sinking?
That’s quite a hyperbolic analogy (what is it with people thinking that the CP Italy Alliance was so impossible that they exaggerate so severely) when Italy was actually in a formal alliance with Austria at the time and yet the government was not destroyed by the refusal of the leaders to get out as soon as the “electorate” realized they were allied with their mortal enemy!
-
I have already admitted that this game, AAWWI1914 is not a good place to implement an official rule of a flip-flopping Italy.
Right and i have already said to stop arguing for it in that game.
An Italy with a vastly different role, including the possibility of fighting with the CP, is historically plausible, and people who think that such a thing would be plausibly historical in an AA game are right, I believe.
Yes vastly is the word. Akin to allowing the plausibility of France and Germany teaming up in 1914.
I don’t recall making an claims about the implementation of such a rule in a created game being easy. Only that it would not be implausible from a historical standpoint.
I recall you posting about it in a forum about AA1914…big mistake.
I really don’t have much more to say, if anything, other than of course the straw men you set up for my arguments.
I just expose them for what they are. For somebody to argue about something they don’t believe would work in AA14 is a waste. The OP question was answered by facts which you never brought up for somebody who claims Italy had a snowball in hells chance of joining the CP. Italy had close to zero chance of joining any alliance with AH…of course unless by the standards of victory in the game and German war aims the prerequisites would have meant a very short game or a short war. That does not benefit this game or this discussion.
-
And it would not have been political suicide to side with the Entente as their ship was sinking?
I guess you are unwilling to read previous posts…. The Entente would have needed to collapse in 10 months which is ONE TURN. Italy signs on to the London treaty in Spring of 1915. For this to work it is possible in the smallest of margins and by that event the game is over. If France falls the allies really have no hope anyway, so in that one turn it could be possible but no.
That’s quite a hyperbolic analogy (what is it with people thinking that the CP Italy Alliance was so impossible that they exaggerate so severely) when Italy was actually in a formal alliance with Austria at the time and yet the government was not destroyed by the refusal of the leaders to get out as soon as the “electorate” realized they were allied with their mortal enemy!
It was a defensive alliance only. You see it protects AH and or Germany from attacking Italy. However, those CP members became the aggressors and Italy wanted out. The alliance was not in effect because AH and others started it. Italy could never get claims on the disputed areas as a member of the CP, the Allies offered just what they wanted. Getting some crap in Africa was secondary importance than bringing the Italians together ( I posted the link on this info, not like you) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_irredenta
A proper analogy would be Hitler signing an alliance with Russia in 1939, knowing it was only worthless paper and latter attacking them. I guess in your world treaties are everything?
I guess if you knew this you wouldn’t be so silly.
-
@Imperious:
And it would not have been political suicide to side with the Entente as their ship was sinking?
I guess you are unwilling to read previous posts…. The Entente would have needed to collapse in 10 months which is ONE TURN. Italy signs on to the London treaty in Spring of 1915. For this to work it is possible in the smallest of margins and by that event the game is over. If France falls the allies really have no hope anyway, so in that one turn it could be possible but no.
That’s quite a hyperbolic analogy (what is it with people thinking that the CP Italy Alliance was so impossible that they exaggerate so severely) when Italy was actually in a formal alliance with Austria at the time and yet the government was not destroyed by the refusal of the leaders to get out as soon as the “electorate” realized they were allied with their mortal enemy!
It was a defensive alliance only. You see it protects AH and or Germany from attacking Italy. However, those CP members became the aggressors and Italy wanted out. The alliance was not in effect because AH and others started it. Italy could never get claims on the disputed areas as a member of the CP, the Allies offered just what they wanted. Getting some crap in Africa was secondary importance than bringing the Italians together ( I posted the link on this info, not like you)Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_irredenta
A proper analogy would be Hitler signing an alliance with Russia in 1939, knowing it was only worthless paper and latter attacking them. I guess in your world treaties are everything?
I guess if you knew this you wouldn’t be so silly.
And again you cross the line between game arguments and historical arguments at will, ignoring the distinction. There are at least two issues here. 1. Is it plausible, that, especially given CP success, Italy would have pursued its national self interest through cooperation with Austria and Germany? (I have been saying yes) 2. Would such an idea be a good thing to implement an official rule for in this game that has already been released? (to that I have been saying probably not/no).
i am not sure you are are incapable of seeing the distinction between my argument of what is historically plausible and what I think would be good or bad to include in an already-released game, or if you are just taking another opportunity to attack me personally because of your vendetta against me.
-
Don’t think anyone is going to win this argument. Could any country have allied with the opposite faction? Sure. Did it? No. This should go to the house or general discussion.
-
@rjpeters70:
@Imperious:
And it would not have been political suicide to side with the Entente as their ship was sinking?
I guess you are unwilling to read previous posts…. The Entente would have needed to collapse in 10 months which is ONE TURN. Italy signs on to the London treaty in Spring of 1915. For this to work it is possible in the smallest of margins and by that event the game is over. If France falls the allies really have no hope anyway, so in that one turn it could be possible but no.
That’s quite a hyperbolic analogy (what is it with people thinking that the CP Italy Alliance was so impossible that they exaggerate so severely) when Italy was actually in a formal alliance with Austria at the time and yet the government was not destroyed by the refusal of the leaders to get out as soon as the “electorate” realized they were allied with their mortal enemy!
It was a defensive alliance only. You see it protects AH and or Germany from attacking Italy. However, those CP members became the aggressors and Italy wanted out. The alliance was not in effect because AH and others started it. Italy could never get claims on the disputed areas as a member of the CP, the Allies offered just what they wanted. Getting some crap in Africa was secondary importance than bringing the Italians together ( I posted the link on this info, not like you)� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_irredenta
A proper analogy would be Hitler signing an alliance with Russia in 1939, knowing it was only worthless paper and latter attacking them. I guess in your world treaties are everything?
I guess if you knew this you wouldn’t be so silly.
I know some folks say that each turn is 12 months, because the US can only declare war (if not attacked) by Turn 4, and the US didn’t enter the war until 1918, but it sounds like a number of games are going to Turns 7 and 8 (or more), which would make the war last until 1921 or 22. I didn’t see in the rules anywhere (unless I missed it, very possible) that turns were 12 months. It may be that the design of the game is such that each turn is 6 months, given that it seems to take 8 turns at least to win; just that the US is allowed to enter the game too soon.
That’s an excellent point. Some people assume that because X event happened in Y year, that the game turn where an event happens MUST BE the time in history that it did happen. This kind of thinking leads to a scheduled and closed-minded game where there is little acting out the situation as it started in 1914 and a lot of going through the same steps, perhaps because the idea that things that happened were not destined to is scary.
It’s been said a thousand times “Gameplay considerations often outweigh historical ones.” Who knows what the time for a turn is, but it’s quite plausible that the imagined time is a lot shorter than 1 full year and that the USA entering later “on time” would have been too long a wait for a game.
Even if Larry says turn 4 is 1917, that doesn’t make it a good idea to assume that.
-
Also note that this would allow the Austrian navy to pass through the (neutral) Italian SZ without rolling for mines or running afoul of the Italian navy.
But would they be allowed to do this, then use that move to launch an AA on Libya? You can hardly say that all movement is simultaneous, when the landing on the beaches of north Africa clearly occurs after Austria has used neutral Italian seaspace.
@Imperious:
Before Italy’s first turn, flip a coin. Heads, and it declares war on the Central Powers, tails it stays neutral.
If neutral, repeat every round until it goes to war.
Right. Only neutral or at war with central. But use dice 1-3 or 4-6
-
Okay, guys. You play whatever crazy alternative reality game you want to. You can even roll for wormholes, through which AA1940 units can enter the game in a nod to The Final Countdown. I’m going to play the game with the rules as written, in which Italy is a member of the Allied powers, because no other alternative is plausible. Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.
-
Nice job Flash trying to get this thread back on track.
Guys, don’t get sucked into the “IL Twilight Zone”.
Larry has always stated that a round of play (turn) isn’t relative to a certain frame of time (months), it is abstract. The first turn/round might be 2 months, and the second 1.5 years. He try’s to keep the events in a historical order, but historical correctness will take a back seat to game play. With Italy he said he kinda explored some options, but decided it would just be easier to put them at war from the get go. Other wise it could take a whole page of rules and conditions etc….kinda like the optional Rus Rev rules.
Also note that this would allow the Austrian navy to pass through the (neutral) Italian SZ without rolling for mines or running afoul of the Italian navy.
But would they be allowed to do this, then use that move to launch an AA on Libya? You can hardly say that all movement is simultaneous, when the landing on the beaches of north Africa clearly occurs after Austria has used neutral Italian seaspace.
@Imperious:
Before Italy’s first turn, flip a coin. Heads, and it declares war on the Central Powers, tails it stays neutral.
If neutral, repeat every round until it goes to war.
Right. Only neutral or at war with central. But use dice 1-3 or 4-6
Flash, the way that DOW works (in G40 anyway) the Austrians couldn’t do that. If they wanted to attack Libya they would need to DOW on Italy at the beginning of their turn, this would instantly make the Italian navy hostel, and activate their mines. A Power is never given the option of moving through the navy of the power they attack (even when neutral). Same if the Austrians attack Venice, the DOW would be reciprocated and the Italian navy/waters instantly become hostel. I would think that the Austrians would be able to freely enter (or move through) Italian waters to launch attacks on the French or English though if Italy was considered neutral until its turn 1st starts.
I think we all know that Italy can’t be given the option to join the CP, because it just causes major balance issues (you would need a major offset). You might be able to do it if in the event Italy goes CP, then the Turks join the Allies but that would need to be tested and would be strictly for game play. Both powers were drawn in the war, and both sides courted them that we do know. What happened historically can’t be changed, but you could do an alternate universe scenario (that would be cool).
Even having the Italians starting neutral, but they DOW on the CP at the start of their 1st turn could throw balance off, but at this point most are saying that the CP are at a disadvantage so maybe it would bring things back to center? It would allow the CP (Austria) to move its navy, maybe get some units into Africa, the Mid East or join the Turk navy. They could make attacks on the French (equal navy + mines), or the UK Egyptian fleet, but they would be sitting ducks, and it would open their coast up to attacks by the Italians, and the other allies (unless they build a ship(s) as the move out.
Any way I don’t think you could roll dice/flip coin to see when Italy comes into the war. If they are delayed too long things get murky and again balance become a problem.
-
@rjpeters70:
Okay, guys. � You play whatever crazy alternative reality game you want to. � You can even roll for wormholes, through which AA1940 units can enter the game in a nod to The Final Countdown. � I’m going to play the game with the rules as written, in which Italy is a member of the Allied powers, because no other alternative is plausible. � Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.
You’re making a statement (“Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.”) and pretending it is fact. It is not. It is simply an analytic assertion. Others here have offered alternative analyses. Now, we can argue the validity of the various analyses and arguments, but no one can say “X was the only way things could have played out” and pretend it is a “fact.” It is at worst an assertion, and at best, an outcome of analysis (which in and of itself is open to dispute).
Well, now that’s starting to sound like the “evolution isn’t proven” sort of arguments. If you want to get technical, the only thing that can be proven is hard mathematics, and that only because you are working in a system where the rules have been set a priori. As far as facts can ever exist outside of mathematics, Italy’s antipathy to Austria and the Italian political situation are pretty solid facts. As Imperious Leader pointed out, Italy might have joined the CPs if the war were already over (a fait accompli), but at that point the game is over anyway. Anything short of that was as impossible as something can be short of actual physical impossibility.
-
From your own link, I quote: “The territories of Corsica, Nice, and Savoy have been claimed by irredentists.” So, yes, I get the Italians wanted pieces of Austria, and they may well have hated the Austrians, but they also wanted the Riveria and parts of Provence… just as they did in World War II. So, if they saw a situation in which they believed the Central Powers were winning, why wouldn’t they choose to join the CPs, if they saw it possible to expand their holdings in areas in which they believed were theirs?
Those areas are promised to AH postwar, not Italy. Do you look at the map or just post?
Look, no one is disputing your claim that the Italians did not like AH and had territorial designs on the Dalmatian coast. How is it then so hard for you to admit that the Italians similarly had designs on certain French possessions, and would take them if they saw an opportunity? Are you being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative? How do you not see at least a degree of plausibility in the other side’s argument?
Because only Italy and Austria have a history of fighting over it recently ( 1866) I represent the links to support my claims. Do you or do you make arguments for the sake of being argumentative?
Suggested Topics
