41 thoughts on “What If Italy Was Competent In WW1?”
3 points to keep in mind about this scenario, including how it could be expanded to be even more dramatic:
1. It's entirely plausible that Italy could have anticipated another war and therefore willingly piled on more debit in order to finance recuperating their armament stocks. This is because Italian planners widely expected another war with the Ottomans in the near future. In fact, there were war fears in European financial markets in early summer of 1914, before things went haywire during the July crisis, not because a general conflict was anticipated, but because another Italo-Turkish war was imminently anticipated. What the Italian military would be preparing for would not be very similar to the war which eventuated, but it would at least be SOME degree of active, sustained rearmament. Italy did not take this path, but it's a scenario which is not too unrealistic to consider.
2. The Austrians had prepared their border areas very well for the Italian entry into the war both because of poor diplomatic maneuvering which failed to meaningfully obscure Italian intentions (this problem really goes back years, which is why many of the fortifications were well-developed, and not hastily slapped together) and very poor operational security for Italian mobilization. I'm not sure how much the 1st factor could be changed, but the 2nd factor seems believably changeable, if a little unlikely.
Italy could conduct a policy similar to that of the Swiss in our timeline by mobilizing border areas along both the Austrian and French borders immediately upon the conflict breaking out in August of 1914, and then remain in a state of partial mobilization and armed neutrality for however long it took for them to decide that they were ready to enter the war. This could result in prepared forces which could attempt a much faster strike into the Slovenian mountains – I think that their attacks up into Trento were doomed regardless and should be largely written off. If they could push past the prepared Austrian defenses, even at very high casualties, they could potentially keep the Austrians on the back foot long enough to break out into the flatter plateau areas of Carniola. In our timeline, Italian war plans supported their war aims focused at taking territory along the Adriatic, but those plans were unlikely to deal especially serious damage to Austria, even if they were successful. If Italy could have taken a sort of "bridgehead" into wider, flatter terrain, even at great cost, that would set them up for genuinely meaningful success later on during the conflict.
They'd need luck on their side, and the Austrians would need to make a few mistakes of their own (which is always a possibility with a buffoon like Hotzendorf in chief command of their military), but it's only a mild stretch, not an unbelievable one, to posit a scenario in which a sufficiently ambitious Italian opening campaign advances beyond the easy geographical defenses and forces the Austrians to start to make even tougher choices.
3. The semi-coordinated allied Summer offensives of 1916 came closer to dealing unrecoverable damage to the central powers than is usually acknowledged in popular culture. The Brusilov offensive in particular left Austria permanently crippled and dependent upon the Germans. If a competent Italian military had access to a wide bridgehead past the mountains, and within the plateau country of Slovenia, then they could have launched an offensive coordinated with the Russians which actually dealt a fatal blow to Austrian military sustainment as early as the July-August 1916 timeline.
I'm not saying that it would've immediately ended the war, but it would've put Germany on such a back foot to hold remaining territory once Austria starts suing for peace that we likely would've seen German leadership recognize the necessity of coming to the negotiating table by the end of the year – or possibly in the Spring of 1917, after they have assessed the damage from the 1916-17 Winter famine, and before serious allied offensives could have a chance to put Germany in an even worse negotiating position.
If Italy wasn't shunned for invading Abyssinia by France and Britain, it's likely that the Anschluss would never have happened. Italy only ended their alliance with Austria after they were isolated as a result of the war.
How come I’m not surprised President White Hood Wilson some how made things worse by alienating Italy from the Allies. So that makes turn former Allies Japan and Italy into eneimes, persuading the other nations to ignore the red Army in Russia and growing communist movement in China, removing all minorities and women from government positions, bring back the KKK which were all but dead at this time, make Jim Crow laws all but officially legal, and help create the military complex. How is he not the worse president in American History again.
Bro. What. The. Fuck. I undestand the fact that the italian army performed terribly in WW2. But you definitely can't say it was terrible in WW1. The italian army threatened seriously the stability of the Austro-Hungarian front by taking Gorizia, so the Austro-Hungarians had to ask Germany for help. With that massive help, they beat the Italians at Caporetto. All other efforts from the Austro-Hungarians to ease the tension on the front (such as the Strafexpedition) were denied. Even when the italian army was crumbling after Caporetto, they managed to reorganize and beat the Austro-Hungarians on the Piave. And they NEVER lost Venice. Not counting the successful rescue operations in Albania, Greece and Montenegro. I dunno about you, but this, to me, is NOT a terrible performance. Of course, it is not great, but not terrible anyway. Really, I can understand the WW2 thing, but dont touch WW1, expecially when the facts of the war are not analyzed that deeply in the video.
Great video, but in my opinion Italian performance during ww1 wasn't bad, they were on an average level compared them to the others countries, so calling the video "if italy was competent" doesn't have sense and it is wrong for me.
I agree up to fascism, but if you make the army meritocratic and no longer something for nobles then the thought of fascism would not have been born since it was already formed in that period where characters like Cadorna pushed the a kind of proto fascism. In all likelihood Italy would have become much more communist-oriented in a Years of Lead scenario
I disagree that Italy would have fallen to fascism since fascists got very lucky during the march on Rome: the King had already signed the siege status but then he opted to give the future Australian the position of prime minister. Within this possible scenario I firmly believe that the King would have been more confident in the capabilities and loyalty of the army stopping this nonsense
An alternative history where the youtuber is competent when ? In ww1 Italy did well for her possibilities , despite Cadorna , a retreat is a common thing in war and in ww1 Italy was pushed back when both Germany and Austria Hungary , after Russia surrendered , concentrated most and their best troops in the front against Italy (most of the Nazi officials in ww2 served in Caporetto battle ) . After Germany . relocated his troops on the French front, against France and the UK, Italy took back the territory. Frankly this video is built only on stereotypes
Nice video, but it is not completely true that Italy underperformed during WW1… starting positions were bad if compared to the more defensible position of Austria-Hungary, just to make an example.
I have a Question: Why did the Italians even colonize Libya? As you already said, it was costly to hold. Was that just to join the colonial game or was there actually a thought behind it
As an historian, italy being incompetent is one of the false myths about WW1. Italy was pretty competent in WW1, considering they were fighting on the Alps, at hundreds or even thousand of meters above sea level. They managed to keep the Austria Hungarian Empire busy, preventing it from sending millions of troops to the western front and thus allowing the French to focus only on the Germans in the north of France. They also basically prevented the Austrian navy from getting out of the Adriatic Sea and the Turkish navy from leaving the eastern Mediterranean, thus leaving the German navy alone in the fight against the Royal Navy. For Italy to be more competent you’d have to change the geography of northern Italy. In the end, by late 1916 the Austrians were already at their limit and by their own admission they couldn’t hold much longer, that’s why the Germans had to step in 1917. I mean, if Italy is considered incompetent for not advancing in the Alps, what about the British and French, who were fighting on a plain ground, and they were even 2v1 against Germany? They must be utter trash then.
>What If Italy Was Competent in WWI? Hey, incredible, nothing changed!
Imagine believing that since the Entente sent a whopping grand total of 5 divisions (more for show than anything) then that means Italy wasn't able to hold the front on her own. Especially if we count that exactly 5 divisions and several regiments were sent by Italy both in the Western Front and the Balkans.
The Treaty of London wasn't respected due to the meddling of US President Wilson and his freemason clique vying for power at Versailles, not because Italy didn't perform well enough, we gave over 600,000 lives to the cause. Had Italy somewhat been able to do the impossible and break the deadlock alone, the Treaty of London would have been disregarded nonetheless, such were our "allies".
3 points to keep in mind about this scenario, including how it could be expanded to be even more dramatic:
1. It's entirely plausible that Italy could have anticipated another war and therefore willingly piled on more debit in order to finance recuperating their armament stocks. This is because Italian planners widely expected another war with the Ottomans in the near future. In fact, there were war fears in European financial markets in early summer of 1914, before things went haywire during the July crisis, not because a general conflict was anticipated, but because another Italo-Turkish war was imminently anticipated. What the Italian military would be preparing for would not be very similar to the war which eventuated, but it would at least be SOME degree of active, sustained rearmament. Italy did not take this path, but it's a scenario which is not too unrealistic to consider.
2. The Austrians had prepared their border areas very well for the Italian entry into the war both because of poor diplomatic maneuvering which failed to meaningfully obscure Italian intentions (this problem really goes back years, which is why many of the fortifications were well-developed, and not hastily slapped together) and very poor operational security for Italian mobilization. I'm not sure how much the 1st factor could be changed, but the 2nd factor seems believably changeable, if a little unlikely.
Italy could conduct a policy similar to that of the Swiss in our timeline by mobilizing border areas along both the Austrian and French borders immediately upon the conflict breaking out in August of 1914, and then remain in a state of partial mobilization and armed neutrality for however long it took for them to decide that they were ready to enter the war. This could result in prepared forces which could attempt a much faster strike into the Slovenian mountains – I think that their attacks up into Trento were doomed regardless and should be largely written off. If they could push past the prepared Austrian defenses, even at very high casualties, they could potentially keep the Austrians on the back foot long enough to break out into the flatter plateau areas of Carniola. In our timeline, Italian war plans supported their war aims focused at taking territory along the Adriatic, but those plans were unlikely to deal especially serious damage to Austria, even if they were successful. If Italy could have taken a sort of "bridgehead" into wider, flatter terrain, even at great cost, that would set them up for genuinely meaningful success later on during the conflict.
They'd need luck on their side, and the Austrians would need to make a few mistakes of their own (which is always a possibility with a buffoon like Hotzendorf in chief command of their military), but it's only a mild stretch, not an unbelievable one, to posit a scenario in which a sufficiently ambitious Italian opening campaign advances beyond the easy geographical defenses and forces the Austrians to start to make even tougher choices.
3. The semi-coordinated allied Summer offensives of 1916 came closer to dealing unrecoverable damage to the central powers than is usually acknowledged in popular culture. The Brusilov offensive in particular left Austria permanently crippled and dependent upon the Germans. If a competent Italian military had access to a wide bridgehead past the mountains, and within the plateau country of Slovenia, then they could have launched an offensive coordinated with the Russians which actually dealt a fatal blow to Austrian military sustainment as early as the July-August 1916 timeline.
I'm not saying that it would've immediately ended the war, but it would've put Germany on such a back foot to hold remaining territory once Austria starts suing for peace that we likely would've seen German leadership recognize the necessity of coming to the negotiating table by the end of the year – or possibly in the Spring of 1917, after they have assessed the damage from the 1916-17 Winter famine, and before serious allied offensives could have a chance to put Germany in an even worse negotiating position.
Day 1 of asking For What if Britan joined the Central powers.
What if Spain Won The Thirty Years Wars fully
It would be interesting ti do a "what if everything had gone perfect for Italy"
Io avrei una timeline alternativa che ho scritto non so se può interessare a qualcuno potrebbe?
changes to our timeline: tinier albania, greece is a little bit better. Why make this scenarioif nothing was going to happen
In WW1 we actually fought better than in WW2. We won the war, but we lost the peace conference
We never lost Venice in WW1 and the Anglo-French tropps in our front were LESS than you said….
There is a mistake, Italy dint got Istria. During the peace treaty they got humiliated with only Trento.
If Italy wasn't shunned for invading Abyssinia by France and Britain, it's likely that the Anschluss would never have happened. Italy only ended their alliance with Austria after they were isolated as a result of the war.
what if the UK refused to pay back there debt to america in 1919?
What if everything went perfectly for the Ottomans?
Point of departure:Battle of Ankara 1402
its a weird question considering that they won
The Italians got what they deserved for disloyalty
How come I’m not surprised President White Hood Wilson some how made things worse by alienating Italy from the Allies. So that makes turn former Allies Japan and Italy into eneimes, persuading the other nations to ignore the red Army in Russia and growing communist movement in China, removing all minorities and women from government positions, bring back the KKK which were all but dead at this time, make Jim Crow laws all but officially legal, and help create the military complex. How is he not the worse president in American History again.
Bro. What. The. Fuck.
I undestand the fact that the italian army performed terribly in WW2. But you definitely can't say it was terrible in WW1. The italian army threatened seriously the stability of the Austro-Hungarian front by taking Gorizia, so the Austro-Hungarians had to ask Germany for help. With that massive help, they beat the Italians at Caporetto. All other efforts from the Austro-Hungarians to ease the tension on the front (such as the Strafexpedition) were denied. Even when the italian army was crumbling after Caporetto, they managed to reorganize and beat the Austro-Hungarians on the Piave. And they NEVER lost Venice. Not counting the successful rescue operations in Albania, Greece and Montenegro. I dunno about you, but this, to me, is NOT a terrible performance. Of course, it is not great, but not terrible anyway. Really, I can understand the WW2 thing, but dont touch WW1, expecially when the facts of the war are not analyzed that deeply in the video.
Italy losing Venice after Caporetto? 🤦🏻♂️…my God, this guy has no clue of what happened…
Wdym? It was enough competent to beat the Austrians out attacking high peaks. Strangest title ever, very misleading
Great video, but in my opinion Italian performance during ww1 wasn't bad, they were on an average level compared them to the others countries, so calling the video "if italy was competent" doesn't have sense and it is wrong for me.
Nice
Well, Italy was competent in WW1
you could do next video about austria-hungars titeld what if austria-hungary wasn't terrible in ww1
I agree up to fascism, but if you make the army meritocratic and no longer something for nobles then the thought of fascism would not have been born since it was already formed in that period where characters like Cadorna pushed the a kind of proto fascism. In all likelihood Italy would have become much more communist-oriented in a Years of Lead scenario
I disagree that Italy would have fallen to fascism since fascists got very lucky during the march on Rome: the King had already signed the siege status but then he opted to give the future Australian the position of prime minister. Within this possible scenario I firmly believe that the King would have been more confident in the capabilities and loyalty of the army stopping this nonsense
Imagine backstabbing only to get backstabbed.
Please make a « what if Italy joined central powers » or what if everything went perfect for Italy »
11d ago
There is just a mistake: if italy got their stuff yugoslavia wouldnt form, intead there would be greater serbia accoring to the london treaty
An alternative history where the youtuber is competent when ? In ww1 Italy did well for her possibilities , despite Cadorna , a retreat is a common thing in war and in ww1 Italy was pushed back when both Germany and Austria Hungary , after Russia surrendered , concentrated most and their best troops in the front against Italy (most of the Nazi officials in ww2 served in Caporetto battle ) . After Germany . relocated his troops on the French front, against France and the UK, Italy took back the territory. Frankly this video is built only on stereotypes
Too mistakes
Nice video, but it is not completely true that Italy underperformed during WW1… starting positions were bad if compared to the more defensible position of Austria-Hungary, just to make an example.
Montagne 🗻 scala 2000 metri solo per attaccare
I have a Question: Why did the Italians even colonize Libya? As you already said, it was costly to hold. Was that just to join the colonial game or was there actually a thought behind it
Italys leading commander was an idiot, that's all.
As an historian, italy being incompetent is one of the false myths about WW1. Italy was pretty competent in WW1, considering they were fighting on the Alps, at hundreds or even thousand of meters above sea level. They managed to keep the Austria Hungarian Empire busy, preventing it from sending millions of troops to the western front and thus allowing the French to focus only on the Germans in the north of France. They also basically prevented the Austrian navy from getting out of the Adriatic Sea and the Turkish navy from leaving the eastern Mediterranean, thus leaving the German navy alone in the fight against the Royal Navy. For Italy to be more competent you’d have to change the geography of northern Italy. In the end, by late 1916 the Austrians were already at their limit and by their own admission they couldn’t hold much longer, that’s why the Germans had to step in 1917. I mean, if Italy is considered incompetent for not advancing in the Alps, what about the British and French, who were fighting on a plain ground, and they were even 2v1 against Germany? They must be utter trash then.
>What If Italy Was Competent in WWI?
Hey, incredible, nothing changed!
Imagine believing that since the Entente sent a whopping grand total of 5 divisions (more for show than anything) then that means Italy wasn't able to hold the front on her own. Especially if we count that exactly 5 divisions and several regiments were sent by Italy both in the Western Front and the Balkans.
The Treaty of London wasn't respected due to the meddling of US President Wilson and his freemason clique vying for power at Versailles, not because Italy didn't perform well enough, we gave over 600,000 lives to the cause. Had Italy somewhat been able to do the impossible and break the deadlock alone, the Treaty of London would have been disregarded nonetheless, such were our "allies".
Why don't you try to put france or britain fight in the fucking alps and dolimites, than let's see who performed bad this time, hmmmm?
There are a lot of stupid error in this video . . .
I think in this timeline Mussolini would have been much more likely to stick with the Stresa Front and may have actually opposed Germany.
What if Novgorod united Russia?
Need italy join Ww2 with the axis with these new land gains
A competent Italy sounds less likely than a happily unified Yugoslavia/ Balkans.