Why is Italy an allied power?

Triggering and causing a war are two different things. Franz Ferdinand’s assassination didn’t cause the war, it triggered it. Much like how the Zimmerman note triggered the war with the US

Exactly!

Causes: Militarism, Nationalism, Colonialism…ideas

Triggers: Killing the Archduke, Zimmerman Notes, Declaration of War…events.

Get it straight.

Can we please get back on topic? Discuss US entry somewhere else.

@Makoshark13:

Can we please get back on topic? Discuss US entry somewhere else.

You mean the topic of bickering?

I was hoping for discussing the actual topic but there’s no hope of that. Nevermind

rjpeters70, sounds reasonable to me.  I’m sure somebody can find something to argue with that, perhaps usage of the word ‘the’?

Happy to talk about it.  There’s basically three POVs, so far as I can tell.  One that offers that Italy joining the CP is at least plausible in certain circumstances, and at a minimum, should be considered for house rules.  The second is that while plausible, probably too difficult to implement.  The third is that Italy joing the CP is as plausible as landing on the moon in 1914, the US allying itself with Imperial Germany, or wormholes that brings the American navy from the future back in time.

I think that pretty much sums up where people stand.

Actually, there are only two sides where his second and third option are just one line of commentary. And as disingenuous as you labeled the most reasonable of the options, is that Italy joining Austria-Hungary in a general war is about like having France and Germany join an alliance for mutual benefit. The analogy is based on almost 50 years of incessant wars between the two and disputed lands between them. ( not unlike the Alsace Lorraine). The second point of view maintains even if in some fantasy world where some conditions could be present for an alliance ( option one), the conditions would mean the virtual end of the war, or in terms of the requirements for victory in the game…the end of the game. This makes the first point of view invalidated for any practical measure in this game.

Now you have the correct reasoning of all opinions outside the first opinion ( the weakest).

I think the reason why some people have wondered about Italys role in this game called A&A 1 9 1 4 is this map of the alliances in      1 9 1 4.

The Triple Alliance was renewed on July 8th 1914 (Italians demanded it), so this is the political situation of Europe at the outbreak of the war 1914.

Then the French High Command must have been insane too for stationing parts of their armytroops at the italian border instead of throwing all of them into the north against invading Germany Â

Did nort want to read all 15 pages ;), but…

The Dreibund was already dead before 1914

Saying Italy broke the treaty is also not correct: it was a defensive treaty - and Germany and A-H waged a war of agression

Italy had economic reasons to side with the Entente - British coal and other assets which could NOT be provided by A-H and Germany

Aside that - Italy wanted territory that was owned by both sides (Nice, Savoy, Trento, Istria… - Tunesia) - but the base decision was made by economic reasons not territorial.

The best the CPs could hope was a neutral Italy (a possibility and if A-H had offered more earlier a very realistic possibility)

and now for the ingame perspective: - Shifing Italys unit from CP to Entente and the better strategic position of A-H wiould totally upset the current setup positions - You would requirea different setup to balance things - possible, but deciding on turn X would be too late the decision should be made before setup is even done …

PS - If my post reads a bit apologetic to teh Italian decision  - I may remeber you I am Austrian ;)

Did nort want to read all 15 pages Wink, but…

The Dreibund was already dead before 1914

Saying Italy broke the treaty is also not correct: it was a defensive treaty - and Germany and A-H waged a war of agression

Italy had economic reasons to side with the Entente - British coal and other assets which could NOT be provided by A-H and Germany

Aside that - Italy wanted territory that was owned by both sides (Nice, Savoy, Trento, Istria… - Tunesia) - but the base decision was made by economic reasons not territorial.

The best the CPs could hope was a neutral Italy (a possibility and if A-H had offered more earlier a very realistic possibility)

and now for the ingame perspective: - Shifing Italys unit from CP to Entente and the better strategic position of A-H wiould totally upset the current setup positions - You would requirea different setup to balance things - possible, but deciding on turn X would be too late the decision should be made before setup is even done …

PS - If my post reads a bit apologetic to teh Italian decision � - I may remeber you I am Austrian

Right, Italy could not well swallow her pride and side with her natural enemy (Austria) since Napoleonic days. Many Italians lived in disputed areas shared between Italy and Austria. Italy wanted these people to be integrated into what they felt was part of their country.

Germany came close to victory on both fronts in early 1914 and yet what did Italy do? They went neutral. And don’t let the low information Historian tell you this trick: “They were allied, so they were friends”  The travesty of this fake trick is the alliance was purely a defensive one predicated on the protection of Italy from foreign wars. It was the signatory of Germany ( of which Prussia and Italy were close allies since the 1860’s) that made Italy even marginally comfortable into joining.

On top of this and early CP successes, Italy immediately pulls out of this alliance reasoning correctly that AH was the aggressor in this new war. The CP could not mitigate this by offering all the tea in China and Italy decided it could never join Austria and in 10 months signed on to the Treaty of London.

So for this smallest of margins of Italy actually changing her mind, it is so argued that if the war quickly ended in terms of France falling and success on the eastern front ( much more than Tannenberg victory) and within this same 10 month window, that Italy could join/rejoin the CP.

The other point is if were this to happen, the war would basically be over and in terms of this game the conditions would need to occur on turn one ( remember they join the allies in 10 months which is turn  2). The practicality and sensibility of these ideas is so remote from the Historical record and a game standpoint, it is really a stretch. The proper analogy would be knowing about the the History between Germany and France 1795-1870 and the disputed prize to the former of Alsace Lorraine taken in 1870, that somehow by osmosis they discover they are magically friends. Out of the blue they forget a hundred years of mutual warfare and team up? Hardly. Nothing but rubbish.

BTW Chamcool, The sock puppet account above ( an account created 3 days ago by vonLettowVorbeck1914 and now with 75 posts and Vorbeck1914 magically gone from this debate at the same time Ripeters70 appears) is giving you misinformation. We said the note triggered US entry, which is a fact. It was not the cause, only the trigger for a long list of causes going back years.

The low information student might miss the actual claims because ignorance often obfuscates the actual and far more reasonable point of view in order to “puff” it’s own bankrupt claims.

I’m just a new poster who figured out in a few hours that Imperious Leader’s an asshole (I mean, his Battlestar Galactica name alone is enough for you to figure out he’s kind of a jerk).  He hates that someone, particularly a new poster, has the audacity to call him for what he is.

You see all the sock can do is bring up names rather than substance to his posts.

Check out my post on the previous page on the causes and triggers of the American entry into World War I.  If you think that the Zimmerman telegram was the straw that broke the camel’s back, you simply don’t understand American history.

It was the trigger of which you NEVER refer to it that way knowing factually it is true. This is why you use other words like “straw that broke the camel’s back” rather than the exact word which is TRIGGER. And the fact that vonLettowVorbeck1914 argued against this a few months ago, and this fake account brought it back up out of the blue can only be surmised as using the sock puppet account to re-fight lost debates using another name.

Pretty shameful.

Walks like a sock puppet, posts like a sock puppet, it’s a……

Sock puppet…lol!

And back to bickering…

Well first of all, the game is clearly not balanced for Italy to be on the CP side. It would take some drastic reorganizing of the E. Powers forces if you are going to let a major front just switch to the other side. For that reason alone I obviously agree with the lack of an official “optional rule.”

Second, as if game balance wasn’t enough of a reason, the sheer lack of probable plausibility is enough to avoid any “optional rule.” The culure of Italy at the time, the political situation at the time, the fact that the Austrians really didn’t like the Italians either, yeah, I don’t see it happening. Think about it. Within the first few weeks of the war Germany seemed to have outflanked the entire French army, annihilated an entire Russian army in the east, and within a few months the Ottoman Empire would join in completely shutting of a vital supply lane for Russia. Yet Italy didn’t join (regardless of whether her army was ready or not, which it wasn’t). Italy, more importantly the Italians in control of the goverment, REALLY hated Austria-Hungary…like a lot. For the situation to appear where Italy has more to gain by fighting with it’s hated enemy instead of against it would have required almost literally impossible German victories against the French and Russians, things which never materialised and if you look closely at logistics, probably wouldn’t have happened.

I realize there is a lot of posting here, so I apologize if anyone has seen this before but since I know some haven’t, here it is.

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

No one is saying that Italy should be allowed to switch sides and that everything else should stay the same. As far as I can tell, no one has said that either.

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

Right and by the same token expect the Allies to “lose every time the setup is not mostly changed”.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

It’s not completely irrelevant. Having Italy potentially flip-flop is an interesting what-if, even if it’s not well grounded in historical hindsight. But the placement of Italy’s forces on the game board might have to reflect that. Because they did not enter the war until May 1915, the Austrians had left a token force in the Alps and had pulled a great deal of artillery out of that region. Italy was not at all prepared either when the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine bombarded its Adriatic coast; just about the only time all major units of the navy sortied. They spent a lot more time hiding or becoming floating artillery. They were a bit caught off guard at the Austrians doing so, and the Italian navy even set up an armored train to help prevent it again.

The White War, 1915-1919: Life and Death on the Italian Front might be an interesting read in that regard.

As far as I know, the Italian colonial units were usually kept at a fairly high strength. In Libya, they had only captured it 1911-12, so it still had internal security problems. Over 60,000 Italians were eventually kept busy by the Senussi during the war, and the battle name escapes me… but they suffered a rather stinging defeat in 1915. You almost never read about this, or the Portuguese border war with the Germans in Angola.

So if you want to have Italy change alliances, it might be best to reflect that with a decreased mobilization on the board.

My pet peeve is how weak Russia starts the game in terms of infantry/corps/whatever. Not so far fetched (infantry=corps), for in Africa, the German forces did approach 20,000 troops and carriers under Lettow-Vorbeck. That’s probably adequate to qualify it is a corp equivalent in Africa. Even a brigade was tough to utilize in GEA; units like the KAR had better luck. In New Guinea, the Germans barley mustered 350 men to oppose the Australian landing.

If someone were to put some time into it, you can really crank out some very spiffy house rules for A&A 1914. I am hard at work on that…

We all would love to see them.

@Imperious:

We all would love to see them.

They are still in the prelim stages at this point, but it would basically call for a more vigorous Eastern Front. I am ambivalent with the RR rule at this point. I think it serves a valid historical point, but there is no way the CPs advanced that far into Russia (as the rules require for the event to trigger). And the turning point came with the offensives launched by the Kerensky govt. that produced empty victories and more horrendous casualties. Enter, Bolsheviks.

Anyhow, adding some of the historic fortress complexes might make for a more interesting game. It would certainly slow down steam-rolling advances, and create more of the static warfare that you saw in the Carpathians, Alps, and even near some portions of the Western Front. Games like Paths of Glory or Guns of August can help to identify those fortresses. You could keep the rules simple but interesting. I think a small siege element would be a fun factor in the game, but I would keep the number for forts down to a manageable number.