Indeed. The Central Powers and winning in the game, Russia already capitulated (revolution).
Why is Italy an allied power?
-
It’s laughable because it just wasn’t going to happen. This is NOT just another example of seeing the historical outcome as the only possible outcome. There were a lot of points in history where things could have played out either way. Italy joining the Central Powers just wasn’t one of them. You guys can protest the facts all you want, but the overwhelming verdict of scholars on the war who have studied the issue much more carefully than gamers at a fansite is that Italy would either have stayed out of the war or (as it did) joined on the side that was fighting Austria.
Also, while I’m not here to defend Italy or its fighting skills (von Blomberg reported, after watching Italian war games and asked what he thought, “The side that wins the next war will be whatever side doesn’t have Italy for an ally”), it should be noted that Italy kept fighting even after the disaster at Caporetto and went on to win a victory at Vittorio Veneto. Italy didn’t “change sides” in the war - from 1902 it was allied with France and it stayed on the Allied side despite calamitous setbacks.
-
Who cares.
It could be a fun house rule, if the thought makes you irritated then obviously its not suited for you. -
It’s laughable because it just wasn’t going to happen. This is NOT just another example of seeing the historical outcome as the only possible outcome. There were a lot of points in history where things could have played out either way. Italy joining the Central Powers just wasn’t one of them. You guys can protest the facts all you want, but the overwhelming verdict of scholars on the war who have studied the issue much more carefully than gamers at a fansite is that Italy would either have stayed out of the war or (as it did) joined on the side that was fighting Austria.
Which scholars?
Italy would still have joined the Allies if they saw them losing badly? Italy wouldn’t have joined the CP if they saw the CP winning handily and Italy was offered North Africa to help finish the job?
Italy may have been fickle, but it’s leaders weren’t stupid.
-
Montanelli is very clear about it. Italy needed time before it could join the war:
Ma sopratutto bisognava rimediare alle gravi lacune della nostra preparazione militare. Del milione e trecentomila uomini che lo Stato Maggiore riteneva indispensabile per la difesa delle nostre frontiere, non ne avevamo sotto le arme che quattrocentomila. E Salandra, dopo aver dichiarato alla Camera ch’eravamo in grado di equipaggiarne tre volti tanti, scopr� che i magazzini, svuotati dalla guerra di Libia, non erano stati riforniti. Se l’Austria - scrisse pi� tardi Cadorna - ci avesse attaccato, ci saremmo trovati alla sua merc�.
San Giuliano tranquillizz� il Generale scrivendogli alla fine di agosto che l’Italia non sarebbe entrata nel conflitto senza un novantanove per cento di probabilit� di vittoria perch� una campagna come quella del 1866 avrebbe significato la fine della monarchia, e ribad� ufficialmente la neutralit�. - p. 146, L’Italia di Giolitti, 1974, Rizzoli Editore, Milano, reprinted 2010 RCS Libri S.p.A., Milano.
_But above all it was necessary to remedy the serious gaps in our military preparedness. Of the one million and three hundred thousand men that the General Staff considered indispensable for the defense of our borders, we did not have more than four hundred thousand under arms. And Salandra, having declared in the House that we were able to equip as many as three times that much, discovered that the warehouses, emptied by the war in Libya, had not been replenished. If Austria - later wrote Cadorna - had attacked us, we would be at its mercy.
San Giuliano reassured the General writing to him at the end of August that Italy would not have entered into the conflict without a ninety-nine percent chance of winning because a campaign like the one in 1866 would have meant the end of the monarchy, and officially reaffirmed the policy of neutrality._
As to which side to join, Montanelli two sentences later explains that the first overtures were made to the British. However, the government of Salandra was weak. Popular forces, particularly the irredentists, were making waves. Montanelli notes that the group “Secolo” had formed, that Peppino Garibaldi had already formed a volunteer legion, and others like Marinetti coined mottos such as “marciare, non marcire” (to march, not to rot), advocating an active role to support France. Giuriati also advocated fiercely for a pro-French, anti-Austrian point. The socialists, under Filippo Corridoni, supported by Michele Bianchi, Edmondo Rossoni, Alceste De Ambris and Giuseppe Giulietti, had all gone to the banner of irredentism and advocated attacking Austria. Of course, it was when the editors of “Avanti” didn’t like the anti-Austrian writings of Benito Mussolini that he founded a new paper, “Il Popolo d’Italia”, to advocate for intervention. His exact phrase was “O guerra, o rivoluzione”. Of the major newspapers, “Giornale d’Italia”, “La Tribuna”, “L’Idea Nazionale”, “Il Secolo” and “Corriere della Sera” all advocated intervention against Austria, with only “La Stampa” from Turin advocating neutrality.
No one advocated for intervention on the side of the Central Powers outside the government, and hardly anyone inside had. One of the only Italians in government in favor of the Central Powers was Sonnino, who replaced San Giuliano as Foreign Minister in October 1914 (San Giuliano died). However, Sonnino had taken that position only when the Germans were advancing quickly, and he rebuffed the Austrian offers, just as Giolitti rebuffed von B�low when the two met face to face.
In short, in 376 pages there is ample evidence to refute any allegation that Italy was seriously considering joining the Central Powers. Italy had to play for time, however, because it was not ready in 1914 to declare war, and so of course the various ministers and ambassadors met to discuss theoretical alliances.
-
Who cares.
It could be a fun house rule, if the thought makes you irritated then obviously its not suited for you.How would you balance that out? The Allies would be crushed if the Italians joined the CPs without any other adjustments.
-
Why this is such a laughable concept, I honestly don’t get.
let me help you…
The decision to join the fray on the side of the Allies was based largely on the assurances Italy received in the Treaty of London, signed in April 1915. By its terms, Italy would receive the fulfillment of its national dream: control over territory on its border with Austria-Hungary stretching from Trentino through the South Tyrol to Trieste. In addition, the Allies promised the Italians parts of Dalmatia and numerous islands along Austria-Hungary’s Adriatic coast; the Albanian port city of Vlore (Italian: Valona) and a central protectorate in Albania; and territory from the Ottoman Empire.
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Italian_Independence -
Interesting, so it was a treaty signed well after the Germans failed to defeat France.
Clearly, if France had gone differently, so would have Italy’s role.
-
@Texas:
Who cares.
It could be a fun house rule, if the thought makes you irritated then obviously its not suited for you.How would you balance that out? The Allies would be crushed if the Italians joined the CPs without any other adjustments.
Who said anything about not making other adjustments?
-
Montanelli … alliances.
Where in your volumes of information does it discuss what would have happened with Italy if France had been snuffed out?
-
Interesting, so it was a treaty signed well after the Germans failed to defeat France.
Clearly, if France had gone differently, so would have Italy’s role.
Exactly the opposite as usual.
Let me help you…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Italian_Independence
about 50 years of animosity and land disputes. Italy joining any coalition with AH is like France and Germany joining a military alliance.
The rule could work if AH went neutral and pulled out and Germany decided to attack AH a second time. But then again with that scenario, this is not WW1 anymore.
-
I don’t see why many are so against having Italy be a Central Power due to historical reasons…
We’re talking about an alternate history scenario here. The slightest possibility makes anything possible, and well, Italy was an official ally of Austria and Germany… So why can’t we just play it and say “What if?”
-
@Texas:
Who cares.
It could be a fun house rule, if the thought makes you irritated then obviously its not suited for you.How would you balance that out?�� The Allies would be crushed if the Italians joined the CPs without any other adjustments.
Who said anything about not making other adjustments?
Huh? I am asking what he is proposing to balance it out. What adjustments would he make to make the option work. I am curious to making it a possible way of playing it. My post wasn’t meant to shoot the idea down. I am having trouble seeing how you can make it where Italy decides once the game has begun. I can see two different setups for each variation, but I don’t see it being possible to make the decision once the game has begun since that would be a pretty big swing one way to the other.
-
Italy goes into a revolution. Then U.S.A. For some reason sends even more stuff via convoy to France and France gets 12-20 extra IPCS to spend a turn
Bam seems balanced almost ;) -
@Imperious:
about 50 years of animosity and land disputes. Italy joining any coalition with AH is like France and Germany joining a military alliance.
The rule could work if AH went neutral and pulled out and Germany decided to attack AH a second time. But then again with that scenario, this is not WW1 anymore.
It’s not “WWI anymore” when the CP takes Moscow or when the Ottoman Empire takes India. :roll:
Imagine this: Late fall, 1914. France is overrun, and the CP turns on Russia. The Ottoman Empire threatens the Suez canal. For help in threatening the British Empire, the CP offers Italy large swaths of North Africa. Only purely out of stubbornness at this point can one say that it is still implausible that Italy would join up with the CP.
But then one might lamely claim “Oh no! If something like that happens in the game, the Allies will be having insult added to injury.” Well, an Italy on the CP side being balanced in the basic outline of the game has nothing to do with whether that was historically plausible or not.
Is it a good idea to try to officially introduce Italy flip-flopping rules into this game? I personally don’t think so since the changes would be too big for an official move.
Does that make Italy joining the CP historically implausible, especially in the case of much greater CP success? Of course not.
-
Let me state a few things here:
1. I provided you with extensive quotes from a book of recognized quality that covers nothing but Italy during World War I, and all you could counter with was the same old tired arguments. I could continue to argue, but at this point it reminds me of the old quote about how arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. The entire point was to show you that what you are talking about is historically implausible, but you just don’t want to admit it.
2. If France had fallen in 1914 the other Allied Powers would almost certainly have entered negotiations for a peace settlement immediately, and given the way the Central Powers thought (certainly nothing like the Nazis in World War II), they probably would have gotten it. Willy didn’t want to see Nicky killed along with his whole family; he just wanted colonies at the expense of Great Britain and France, and a fleet that would rival Britain’s. Austria just wanted expansion in the Balkans. It would have been 1870 all over again, not 1940.
-
I don’t see why many are so against having Italy be a Central Power due to historical reasons…
We’re talking about an alternate history scenario here. The slightest possibility makes anything possible, and well, Italy was an official ally of Austria and Germany… So why can’t we just play it and say “What if?”
Well, if you’re going to do that just treat the whole thing like Diplomacy and let anyone ally with anyone they want to. You’re free to make up any game you want to. Just don’t think it has anything to do with the historical conflict of World War I.
-
Well, if you’re going to do that just treat the whole thing like Diplomacy and let anyone ally with anyone they want to.
No, I wouldn’t go as far as letting everyone ally whoever they want.
Or maybe I would, the more I think of it the more fun it sounds, but of course I wouldn’t call that WW1.
But we’re not talking about changing the game to Diplomacy…You’re free to make up any game you want to.
Yes, we are.
1. I provided you with extensive quotes from a book of recognized quality that covers nothing but Italy during World War I, and all you could counter with was the same old tired arguments. I could continue to argue, but at this point it reminds me of the old quote about how arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. The entire point was to show you that what you are talking about is historically implausible, but you just don’t want to admit it.
It’s historically implausible for the Axis powers to control much of the world then stage an invasion of the Americas. But it can happen in an A&A game. And it sounds like a fun scenario to play (Quite interested in that “Amerika” game.)
My point is, whether its historically plausible or implausible… Why not give it a go? It is a GAME after all, not an actual representation of the war (which would suck cause the centrals would lose every game.) Of course, I’m not saying that you have to play this, but I don’t see everyone’s zeal for not having something just because it seems like a historical implausibility.
@Texas:
Huh? I am asking what he is proposing to balance it out. What adjustments would he make to make the option work. I am curious to making it a possible way of playing it. My post wasn’t meant to shoot the idea down. I am having trouble seeing how you can make it where Italy decides once the game has begun. I can see two different setups for each variation, but I don’t see it being possible to make the decision once the game has begun since that would be a pretty big swing one way to the other.
Well, I don’t have anything specific, I’m just saying the idea can work if you put in other adjustments. But before I ever try to do such a thing, I need to play more actual games of A&A 1914.
-
I don’t see why many are so against having Italy be a Central Power due to historical reasons…
We’re talking about an alternate history scenario here. The slightest possibility makes anything possible, and well, Italy was an official ally of Austria and Germany… So why can’t we just play it and say “What if?”
The same number of people would also be against France and Germany fighting on the same side. Just a level of ridiculousness that some cannot accept. WW1 is not alternative History BTW.
Some events could clearly be different but Italy joining the central powers with AH is not one of them.
-
Is it a good idea to try to officially introduce Italy flip-flopping rules into this game? I personally don’t think so since the changes would be too big for an official move.
Then don’t argue the opposite just for the sake of argument.
-
@Imperious:
Is it a good idea to try to officially introduce Italy flip-flopping rules into this game? I personally don’t think so since the changes would be too big for an official move.
Then don’t argue the opposite just for the sake of argument.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would see that is not what I am doing. I do not support a flip-flopping Italy in this game (A&A WWI 1914), but I do support that idea as plausible inside a WWI game depending on the causes.
Suggested Topics
