Why is Italy an allied power?

For the record, I did offer evidence from the admittedly weak source of wikipedia that the decision to go to war was a split one, that their Ministry of Foreign Affairs was feeling out both sides, and that Italian irredentists wanted south eastern France.  For whatever reason, you discount this out of hand, despite using wikipedia to back up your own claims.  So yeah, I am not trying real hard to provide you with any more “evidence.”

But they made no war with France recently. However, they did have a conflict with AH in 1866 which left bitter feelings over not bringing together the Italians. The map i posted shows alot more areas in Dalmatia with people of Italian heritage. Do you want a large tract of land or a small one? Fighting over Nice is hardly akin to that sliver of Dalmatia.

Not to mention the war between Italy and AH which didn’t settle for Italy. It is no different than when Germany took Alsace Lorraine in 1870 from France, and Raymond Pointcaire mobilizing France for 2 years for war…and another crack against Germany. Italy wanted another crack at AH and only signed the treaty ( triple alliance) for defensive purposes.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Suvorov:

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.

Don’t act like some benevolent instructor who is helping us understand the keys to history, helping us idiots out of our ignorance. The question is not whether Italy would have jumped at easy, quick gains in North Africa in the case that Germany offered them after the war might have tipped decisively in CP favor, it’s whether or not Austria and Germany would have even bothered to make that offer to Italy.

I’ll make it simple. France is overrun, Russia is being pushed back. France cannot defend its North African colonies. Italian leaders have concluded that the CP is winning decisively, and the war will be over soon.
The CP offers those North African colonies to Italy if they help against the British in Africa.

Do you honestly still guarantee that Italy would have just snubbed the CP and said “no thanks?”

Well, based on what you and that other guy have posted here, I rather do see myself as a benevolent instructor attempting to help you out of your ignorance; the “idiots” part was not intended.  I’ve cited respected and recognized works of history, I’ve even typed out excerpts, and I’ve done virtually everything possible at an intellectual level.  After seeing the way that no one seems to want to listen to reason, I realized that I had two options: (1) reduce it to stick figure drawings in hopes of getting through, or (2) accept that the resistance has nothing to do with a lack of understanding but rather, simply the propensity of people with too much time to argue on the Internet for the sake of arguing.

You can make fifty hypothetical situations, but the likelihood of any of them is extremely low.  You by your own admission left the standard at “plausibility”, and your hypotheticals aren’t plausible.  France might have been overrun; it was touch and go for a while.  However, Germany didn’t have the manpower to do that and push Russia back in a permanent way.  The Germans were unable to follow up on the successes at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes, and they were only able to do what they did there because they pulled out vital troops from the Marne.

All of these points are the sorts of things that guys with nothing better to do start to argue about: would the Marne Offensive have succeeded if Hindenburg and Ludendorff hadn’t taken out the troops?  Could the Germans have just held a defensive line in East Prussia?  Would Berlin have fallen?  We will never know, and the speculation about that is useless from a historical perspective (history does not know the conditional) but fun in the proper settings.

However, not all historical “what ifs” are as easily debated, because there is no evidence to support a hypothetical outcome.  Italy entering the war on the side of the Central Powers is one such hypothetical outcome.  I’ve pointed this out by citing sources.  To review: 1. Austria was Italy’s sworn enemy, and Italy’s three prior wars (outside colonial wars) had all been against Austria.  2. Irredentism was a powerful force in Italian politics, because many felt that the goals of the Risorgimento, begun so long before, had not been met until Italy recovered South Tyrol, Fiume, Zara, the Dalmatian coast, etc.  3. No one in the government advocated an alliance with the Central Powers, except Sonnino, who changed his mind after the Marne.  4.  Outside the government, those in Italian society who were not in favor of neutrality were vocally arguing for intervention against Austria, including the socialists, the nationalists and all major papers other than La Stampa (which advocated neutrality), and any attempt at approaching the Central Powers for an alliance would likely have caused the government to collapse.  5.  Italy had only ever signed the alliance with Germany and Austria because Bismarck didn’t like Austria, and Italy saw Bismarck as a counterbalance; once he died and Germany realigned itself, Italy was looking for ways to ditch the alliance.  6.  Italy HAD to remain neutral long enough to see the Germans fail at the Marne, because it didn’t have enough troops or equipment (cf. Montanelli quote from earlier post).  7. The Allies promised Italy so much more than Austria could bring itself to promise that there was no way, in any universe that could be replicated in game play, that Italy would join the Central Powers.

Please provide a source, a credible source, that can refute these points if you want to continue.  Otherwise, all you’re saying is, “Well, it could have happened, so that makes it plausible”.  Plausibility is not equivalent to possibility.  If the Germans had miraculously destroyed the French Army and the Russian Army and the Ottoman Empire driven the British from Egypt, then perhaps Italy would have joined in the free-for-all that followed.  However, that scenario is itself not plausible.  To show something is plausible, you need to generally present evidence that would support that assertion.  I’ve presented evidence to counter it.  I have yet to see evidence for it.

Not only that, but if the Germans have destroyed the French and Russian armies, the Axis & Allies 1914 game has been effectively won, so from a game play perspective it makes even less sense.

Excellent post with one correction if i may:

Well, based on what you and that other guy have posted here

They you refer too are both the same person. Vonlettowvorbeck1914 created this “ripeters70” account.

Posting style is exactly the same…no evidence just “you’re a dick” comments instead of links…

Laughing… you honestly do believe the Zimmerman telegram started the war for the US?  Jesus, you are stupid if you believe that.  At best, you have zero understanding of American history.

And yeah, I’m done.  Keep fantasizing about sock puppets or whatever it is you keep next to your bed at night.  Not going to waste any more time with you neck beard.

You obviously don’t read much. I said the note triggered the war. It didn’t “start” it. Many causes are too blame.

And yes you have been done since like 2 days. And keep fantasizing about “being a Dick or an asshole”. You make alot of comments with these words, perhaps they hold something more for you?

And how you answered the other guy who posted a page of information with a one sentence rebuttal, speaks alot about you.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/trigger

Main Entry: 
trigger  [trig-er]  Show IPA

Part of Speech:  verb 
Definition:  cause to happen 
Synonyms:  activate, bring about, cause, elicit, generate, give rise to, produce, prompt, provoke, set in motion, set off, spark, start 
Antonyms:  block, check, halt, stop

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

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…