Discussion:
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?
(too old to reply)
WolfBear
2017-07-04 22:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?

Basically, I have previously read that Kaiser Karl wanted to make peace in 1917 but that a significant obstacle to doing this was Italy's large-scale territorial claims on Austria-Hungary. Thus, what if--for whatever reason--Italy would have remained neutral in WWI? Would Austria-Hungary have then been able to make a separate peace in 1917?

Also, if so, what exactly would the consequences on this have been on WWI, the post-WWI peace settlement, and the decades after the end of WWI?
Don Phillipson
2017-07-05 12:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?
A separate Austrian peace would have interrupted the land
(railway) connection between German industry and the Turkish
active fronts. German commanders were anxious to keep Turkey
in the war, so that opposing British and Russian forces remained
unavailable for the war in Europe: so Germany would have been
likely to coerce Austria to keep going and not attempt an armistice.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
The Old Man
2017-07-05 15:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by WolfBear
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?
A separate Austrian peace would have interrupted the land
(railway) connection between German industry and the Turkish
active fronts. German commanders were anxious to keep Turkey
in the war, so that opposing British and Russian forces remained
unavailable for the war in Europe: so Germany would have been
likely to coerce Austria to keep going and not attempt an armistice.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
By the same token, with a neutral Italy, Austria might well have sued for peace at that time. Their army was pretty much in shambles, the country was about twenty minutes from dissolution and generally in chaos. With a separate peace, they might have been able to regroup a bit and keep the ruling family, at least enough to transfer power to a constitutional monarchy. They probably would have had to let Hungary go its own way and make some territorial concessions to their opponents though.
However, even with the above thoughts, the royalty MIGHT have gone toes up by the early twenties when the various treaties were hammered out. I say might because if they did call it quits and thusly disrupt the Germany-Ottoman Empire connection, that front would have collapsed more quickly and things might have gone differently for the Allies. As a result, Austria might have been allowed to keep its royalty intact.

Regards,
John Braungart
t***@go.com
2017-07-13 16:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by WolfBear
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?
A separate Austrian peace would have interrupted the land
(railway) connection between German industry and the Turkish
active fronts. German commanders were anxious to keep Turkey
in the war, so that opposing British and Russian forces remained
unavailable for the war in Europe: so Germany would have been
likely to coerce Austria to keep going and not attempt an armistice.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
By the same token, with a neutral Italy, Austria might well have sued for peace at that time. Their army was pretty much in shambles, the country was about twenty minutes from dissolution and generally in chaos. With a separate peace, they might have been able to regroup a bit and keep the ruling family, at least enough to transfer power to a constitutional monarchy. They probably would have had to let Hungary go its own way and make some territorial concessions to their opponents though.
However, even with the above thoughts, the royalty MIGHT have gone toes up by the early twenties when the various treaties were hammered out. I say might because if they did call it quits and thusly disrupt the Germany-Ottoman Empire connection, that front would have collapsed more quickly and things might have gone differently for the Allies. As a result, Austria might have been allowed to keep its royalty intact.
Regards,
John Braungart
Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary on May 23, 1915,
then the Ottoman Empire on August 21, 1915, then
Bulgaria on October 19, 1915, then the German Empire
on August 28, 1916.

There was a year and a half after the POD of May 23
before 1917 where Austria-Hungary might have dropped
out also.

The United States did not enter the war until April 2,
1917.

The February and October revolutions in Russia happened
in 1917, however the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed
on March 3, 1918.

Either way, enough happened in 1917 that it is hard to
say if the part of 1917 for the possible effect might
be relevant.

If you go back to 1916 and AH dropping out then, one
possibility would be for it to happen as a deal involving
the peace negotiations going on at that time.

Has there ever been many threads on what would have happened
if the peace negotiations on the part of the U.S. in 1916
were successful with all of WWI ending in 1916?

What further might have been needed for peace to have happened
in 1916? Was it very unlikely or was it actually quite feasible?
Rob
2017-07-08 13:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by WolfBear
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?
A separate Austrian peace would have interrupted the land
(railway) connection between German industry and the Turkish
active fronts.
I read this first sentence with wonderment, Don was actually considering knock-on consequences of a what-if, rather than just doing the usual and pointing out the impossibility. Wow, banner day!


so Germany would have been
Post by Don Phillipson
likely to coerce Austria to keep going and not attempt an armistice.
....and then the law of gravity reasserted itself, and Don cut off the OP's line of inquiry to dismiss it. Just another normal day on SHWI.
w***@gmail.com
2017-07-08 16:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
If Italy remains neutral in WWI, does Austria-Hungary make a separate peace in 1917?
Basically, I have previously read that Kaiser Karl wanted to make peace in 1917 but that a significant obstacle to doing this was Italy's large-scale
Will A-H _need_ to make a separate peace in 1917 if Italy is still neutral? A neutral A-H removes an active front. Not being sure of Italy's next decision, A-H will need to maintain a presence on the border, as they did in 1914 and 1915, but it seems like a neutral Italy frees men and resources to be allocated elsewhere that just weren't available in OTL since they were engaged against Italy.

Given A-H's experience in '14 and '15 maybe more men and material doesn't help against the Russians. But maybe it does; at least to stabilize the situation. And a neutral Italy also means that German troops aren't needed on the Italian front, which should have consequences elsewhere.

wes
Loading...