Why is Italy an allied power?

@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.

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.

Then post this in another forum, this is for 1914 only.

@Suvorov:

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.

Â

Your ignoring them does not make them tired, it makes them ignored. This game is full of hypotheticals, and much is plausible beyond what actually happened in history, unless you insist on destiny (which makes studying history a lot less worthwhile). Does your book cover a lot of hypothetical Italian history? I didn’t see that if it did.

@Suvorov:

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.

Thanks for addressing the situation, finally. Your hypothesis is quite plausible. So is one where Russia and England fight on. This would put Italy in a very interesting situation. Considering how Italy was chomping at the bit to gain the territories the Allies promised, it’s not a stretch at all, in fact it’s quite plain to see, that if they saw the CP clearly on its way to decisive victory, they would have took what they could have gotten.

Unless of course you want to insist that “Italy” hated “Austria” so much that they would have passed on large chunks of North Africa just to give the Austrians the finger.

@Imperious:

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.

Then post this in another forum, this is for 1914 only.

The topic developed naturally into this discussion. Some made arguments (including and especially you yourself), saying that Italy flip-flopping would be totally implausible. I debated and am debating that. Why aren’t you telling yourself to go to another forum? (Rhetorical question)

Some made arguments (including and especially you yourself), saying that Italy flip-flopping would be totally implausible.

The people here are dealing with 1914 only. If you don’t support an Italian flip flip either, then stop arguing for it in some other game nobody is talking about.

IN THIS GAME, Italy going to the CP is ridiculous for the reasons everybody brought up.

that if they saw the CP clearly on its way to decisive victory, they would have took what they could have gotten.

But the game would be over, making Italy flip flop impossible.

IF
1. They would not join the CP under any circumstances
2. If the CP won the war they would join in the last minute for free land

ThEN
3. They might join the CP if both the war and GAME were over, which makes for a bad GAME idea

Unless of course you want to insist that “Italy” hated “Austria” so much that they would have passed on large chunks of North Africa just to give the Austrians the finger.

They would much rather have valuable land at Austria’s expense than worthless desert. They picked correctly.

Guys this whole thread has become a pissing contest, can you just put it to rest?

We just arguing for fun when he is on my side, but still argues. Thats entertainment not ‘piss’

However you want to say who is on whose side, I do not support this for this game because the changes necessary would be far too large and complex to be undertaken officially.

However, I support those numerous voices who believe Italy could have sided with the CP, especially under conditions that this game can conceptually create.

I do not support the Italy change basically because it is too big for the game that has already come out. But to marginalize the idea by saying it’s more ridiculous than a 1914 moon landing is a disservice to consideration of historical contingency.

Alternative:

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.

So, the CPs (and Austria in particular) has to decide on a preemptive strike against a power that may never become an enemy if left alone; but if it doesn’t invade Venice or attack the Italian fleet, it risks the Italians grabbing the initiative by invading Tyrol or Trieste, or attacking the Austrian fleet.

I agree that Italy can never join the Central Powers in this game, there’s just too much thrown out of balance.

Said it before, said it again.  Tunisia, Algeria, Provence, the Riveria, and British East Frice (AKA Kenya) is not worthless desert.  If you think otherwise, that problem lies with you, not with geography.

Relative to gains outside Isonzo and parts of Austria, it is worthless. Italy was still mad about 1866 and all the interference Austria did in that period. Relative is the key word.

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

@Imperious:

Said it before, said it again.  Tunisia, Algeria, Provence, the Riveria, and British East Frice (AKA Kenya) is not worthless desert.  If you think otherwise, that problem lies with you, not with geography.

Relative to gains outside Isonzo and parts of Austria, it is worthless. Italy was still mad about 1866 and all the interference Austria did in that period. Relative is the key word.

Relative to the gains of North Africa, zero territorial gain at all is worthless. 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.

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.

The only rule I would consider would be to have an optional rule to help the Central Powers if you think they need help for play balance.

In this case, Italy is neutral on turn one, using the same rules for US neutrality. Starting on turn two Italy enters the war on the Allies side.

I wouldn’t want to put it to a die roll as sure as heck I can see it going 4 or 5 turns without entering the war!

This is the easiest and most simple way to show Italy sitting on the sidelines for 10 months after the war began.

Kim

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.