What if thread #3: Italy joins the Central Powers in WW1

[TheKiwi]

OK, it's been a long time coming so here is What If thread #3.

At the outbreak of WW1, Italy was a member of the Central Powers alliance. Taking a very legalistic approach, they interpreted the agreement as saying that they did not need to declare war. For the next year, both the Allies and the Central Powers tried to get Italy to join in on their side. Finally, offered a great deal more of the Austro-Hungarian Empire than the Allies were prepared to honour, Italy declared war on the Empire. As we know, a long bloody struggle around the alps followed with high casualties on both side. The Austro-Hungarian ability to provide troops against Russia suffered accordingly, with Germany taking on ever more of the responsibility.

What if the Central Powers were prepared to offer a little more to Italy than they did at the time. Italian demands were quite high, and it would almost certainly have taken considerable pressure from German to make the Austro-Hungarians accede to enough of them, but the Italians may have been prepared to compromise with what they'd take. Certainly by 1915, the outcome of the war was far from certain and the Central Powers may have looked like they had just as much chance of success as the Allies.

My thoughts are that an Italy hostile to the Allies (in 1914) would create large problems for them. The AH Empire would be able to release more troops onto the front with Russia, while France would have gained another 200km of front between Switzerland and Nice that would need to be protected. A similar flurry of attacks like those seen in 1914 seems likely, before the French go on the defensive in this sector due to the more urgent needs of facing the Germans further north.

At sea, although the Italian dreadnoughts would be unlikely to tip the balance decisively in the Mediterranean, they would allow the AH dreadnoughts (which were regarded as well constructed for the time) to come into play. British convoys from the colonies might have had to have been diverted around Africa temporarily until sea supremacy could be obtained. Another Jutland type battle between British and French dreadnoughts on one side and Italian, AH and the two "Turkish" ships on the other is a distinct possibility, especially if the Italians are feeling aggressive. The end result is most probably a victory for the Allies though, the British in particular can send enough dreadnoughts to the Med to cancel out the Italians without badly affecting their superiority in numbers over the German Navy in the North Sea. The end result would be a blockade of Italy, like that applied to Germany.

In the longer term this means that I can see Italy acting as something of a drain on the Central Powers. The need for steel and coal and food would certainly be hard to meet. If a result could not be obtained by the Central Powers by late 1916, the overall results are (in my opinion) likely to be very similar to those experienced in our real timeline.

Thoughts, comments and differing points of view are (as always) most welcome.

[Clockwinder]

My thoughts are that an Italy hostile to the Allies (in 1914) would create large problems for them. The AH Empire would be able to release more troops onto the front with Russia, while France would have gained another 200km of front between Switzerland and Nice that would need to be protected. A similar flurry of attacks like those seen in 1914 seems likely, before the French go on the defensive in this sector due to the more urgent needs of facing the Germans further north.
I cannot comment on sea warfare (I get seasick), but the land component is interesting.
Italy's reversal of allegiance could indeed have changed the Eastern front considerably. However, this may have played into the Allies favour - more troops against Russia - increased confidence on that front, and less focus on the West. France may have played the border much more loosely than did the Germans, and just played a holding hand rather than an offensive one.
Raw materials and logistics though are another thing entirely. With Italy's strategic position, interdiction of Allied supplies and reinforcements may have been a much more complex situation.
Overall though, a reversal of Italy's allegiance would have been a nuisance and lengthened the war, but the eventual result would have been the same - Germany was over-extended and all but bankrupt of any ability to continue any sort of offensive. They were sending 14yo boys to the horror of the trenches!

[Kitsune]

Overall though, a reversal of Italy's allegiance would have been a nuisance and lengthened the war, but the eventual result would have been the same[...]

I do not agree that the end would have necessarily been the same. Italy's number of war dead is said to be 650.000 - quite something. Had this effort been spent fighting with the central powers instead of fighting against them, it may have been more than just a nuisance for the Entente powers and could indeed have made the decisive difference. For example, in our reality, France almost dropped out of the war in 1917 as it was. If the French would have had to fight Italy as well and had suffered about another half a million war dead while doing so, they might have indeed thrown the towel after hearing of the Russian capitulation.

[Mordoror]

Sorry for any Italian here (no pun intended) but from a strategical point of view Italian armies performed overally bad during WWI. They, individualy, fighted with a extrem bravery under terrible conditions but they were poorly equiped and leaded and a change in the allegeance would have not changed that.
So the main impact of Italy shifting of team would have to free AH troops to operate more easily in Balkans and against Russia, freeing maybe by a domino's effect German units to be used on the Western front
On an operational point of view i don't see Italian troops to be more successful against the south front in France as they were in the same area during WWII or even in thei own mountains during WWI, especially without the huge support from a equipment and councellors (late one but positively impacting the result of fighting) they received from the Allies
the main questions here are then : how many French/UK/allied troops would have to be diverted against them and would there troops miss somewhere else....uneasy answer though

[Dr_ColoSSus]

I have always believed that if the Italians fought the French with the same ferocity that they threw troops at the Austrian Alpine positions in WW1, The war would have been a much different outcome. However, Austria would never have given in to Italy's territorial demands so such a union is unlikely.

Assuming the krauts threw the same amount of troops against France in this scenario as they did in reality, the French would have been hard pressed to repel both the Germans and the Italian-Austrian forces in the south. If this had occured, I believe France would have have been defeated by 1917 at the latest (most likely mid 1916) and forced to sue for peace. The French army was shattered by 1917 and if the They asked for armistice in 1917 or earlier, before the US entered the war, there is no way in my own opinion that the British would have been able to keep on fighting, except perhaps against the Turks in the middle east.

In short, if the Italians honoured their commitments and fought the allies, It is doubtful the allies would have won, though I doubt the Central powers would have dished out such harsh peace terms as were dictated to them. I Beleive that they would have still taken heaps of Russia's territory and the outcome on the Eastern front would have been the same, except it would have occured a lot sooner.

The Austrians, even if they did not sent troops against France, alongside the Italians, they would have had more to deploy against Russia, and Serbia which makes it very likely that Serbia would have fallen sooner (freeing up more troops) or they would have had more troops to face the Russians.

People often Forget that Austria Hungary had a larger population than France, Britain and Italy and was able to put huge numbers of soldiers in the field, If they had one less front to deal with, it would have made a huge difference to the fortunes of the central powers. However, if the Central powers had not defeated France by early 1917 and the Americans entered the war, the Central powers would in that case have no hope of victory, but the war might have dragged on for longer.

[CMNot]

I don't see the biggest point being the release of troops to Russia (which would fold in the coming revolution anyway) or the Entente need to divert troops to defend against Italy (with the Alps as a natural obstacle they could hold the rather poor comparitively speaking troops Italian troops in the border region IMO indefinitely). I think the Italian navy would in the very best cause a nuisance - although the shipment of materiel and troops from the East into Nice etc. would be rather more fraught with an active combatant just down the coast.

However, the need to divert troops from the Northern French sector to a South Eastern sector would, I think, be keenly felt during the German 1918 Spring Offensive which at any rate came very close to ending the war. It is here, IMO, the crux of the issue lies. The situation was barely (i.e. skin of the teeth) contained with the factual troop figures, would have been interesting to see the results had the Western front been missing a dozen divisions to head the Italians off.

[Kitsune]

People often Forget that Austria Hungary had a larger population than France, Britain and Italy and was able to put huge numbers of soldiers in the field [...] Nah. Austria-Hungary was essentially an colonial empire of 10 million Germans which dominated 40 million or so Hungarians plus others. This is not the same as a solid national state (like for example France or Germany were) of 50 million inhabitants. By your reasoning, the state who should have been able to field the largest army of all would have been the British Empire with its 300 million inhabitants! But once again this gargantuan number was more of a technicality, since most of these people were Indians who could be used not in the same way as Englishmen to fight in Flanders. Any attempt to enforce this might have caused an open revolt which Britain could not afford (especially not during wartime). Austria was in such a situation with respect to Hungary.

[CMNot]

The British Indian Army was massively affected by post-Mutiny reforms. Many millions who could fight were essentially bar on account of those reforms and the 'Martial Race' theory. The Indian Corps (Indian Expeditionary Force A) did fight in Europe 1914-15 but were subsequently withdrawn and assigned to other theatres. Particularly augmenting and reinforcing Expeditionary Force D in Messopotamia.

Off topic I know, but the Indian Corps in France is the subject of my thesis so had to jump at the opportunity to say something.

[TheKiwi]

...

In short, if the Italians honoured their commitments and fought the allies, It is doubtful the allies would have won, though I doubt the Central powers would have dished out such harsh peace terms as were dictated to them. I Beleive that they would have still taken heaps of Russia's territory and the outcome on the Eastern front would have been the same, except it would have occured a lot sooner.

...

The peace that would have been dealt out by Germany seems to have varied from year to year, but my understanding was the Brest-Litovsk gave a fairly good idea of what it would have been. Certainly for the western front, there was talk of annexing parts of Belgium, Luxembourg and further parts of France. Not exactly (as we know) a recipe for future peace.


I don't see the biggest point being the release of troops to Russia (which would fold in the coming revolution anyway) or the Entente need to divert troops to defend against Italy (with the Alps as a natural obstacle they could hold the rather poor comparitively speaking troops Italian troops in the border region IMO indefinitely). I think the Italian navy would in the very best cause a nuisance - although the shipment of materiel and troops from the East into Nice etc. would be rather more fraught with an active combatant just down the coast.

...

The Russians did quite well in their 1915 offensive, so the release of troops to counter that would have made a difference there. Whether this would have accelerated the revolution in Russia is unlikely though, that required that conditions at home (inflation, food shortages, differences in pay between country and city etc.) become worse faster, something that even the Tsars were unlikely to manage.


Nah. Austria-Hungary was essentially an colonial empire of 10 million Germans which dominated 40 million or so Hungarians plus others...

Really? My understanding was that it was both the Austrians and the Hungarians who were the privileged members of the empire and that it was the Hungarians who most actively resisted giving any more rights to any other group for fear of diluting their own. Open to correction on this though.

[Kitsune]

Really? My understanding was that it was both the Austrians and the Hungarians who were the privileged members of the empire and that it was the Hungarians who most actively resisted giving any more rights to any other group for fear of diluting their own. Open to correction on this though.
Yeah, but the idea of an Hungary without Austria did also exist. The double monarchy was a state that heavily emphazised tradition and was wary of change - and increasingly fearful of falling apart. That meant that it wasn't quite as powerful as it looked on a map or as its large population suggested.

[filochard]

For example, in our reality, France almost dropped out of the war in 1917 as it was.


France had "dropped out the war in 1917" ? well if it was true I think the Germans would have taken advantage of it don't you think so ?
No France stopped its offensive but as far as defensive is concerned the Germans saw no difference even where there was some mutiny.
As far as the hypothetical franco-Italian front is concerned , it's easy to defend french side. Now, elsewhere, the difference between holding the line and being overwelmed was so thin sometime, that diverting troops and material there could have had a big impact.



If the French would have had to fight Italy as well and had suffered about another half a million war dead while doing so, they might have indeed thrown the towel after hearing of the Russian capitulation.

there is imho no way france could lose half a million casualties on that front: this front is a dead end for the attaquer. See how little troops were able to stop the Italians in WWII. And, elsewhere but on a similar ground, see how it was difficult for the allies to puncture the Gustav line still during WWII.

[James]

France had "dropped out the war in 1917" ? well if it was true I think the Germans would have taken advantage of it don't you think so ?
No France stopped its offensive but as far as defensive is concerned the Germans saw no difference even where there was some mutiny.


That the Germans saw no difference was pure luck. It's very fortunate that they fought 1917 defensively.


In the longer term this means that I can see Italy acting as something of a drain on the Central Powers. The need for steel and coal and food would certainly be hard to meet. If a result could not be obtained by the Central Powers by late 1916, the overall results are (in my opinion) likely to be very similar to those experienced in our real timeline.

Thoughts, comments and differing points of view are (as always) most welcome.

I agree with this assessment. It's hard for me to imagine the Italian Army at the time being used as a viable offensive force outside their own territory.

[filochard]

That the Germans saw no difference was pure luck.

sorry but lol.
very credible theory, you take the Germans as idiots or what ?

All the reports show that in 1917 the french couldn't stand suicidal human waves attacks any more but did there duty as usual as far as defensive was concerned.
In fact this pause to reconsider the strategy was much beneficial as the successes of 1918 showed.

[martinexsquaddie]

Would have ruined churchills quote.
ribbiontoff IF war comes italy will be on our side
Winnie "seems only fair they were on our side last time:)"

[filochard]

If on the french south-eastern front the Italian wouldn't have been very dangerous, one thing we have missed here is: what if the Italians have sent troops and material to work with the Germans on the french north-eastern front plains ? the impact there could have been very dangerous imho.

[Kitsune]

@ filochard:

Well, I am not the one who said that Italians troops in a hypothetical Central Powers Triple Alliance could not have been ferried over the Alps to Austria and from there to the front in the West. The whole argument that Italy couldn't do much harm because being geographically bottled up wasn't a terribly striking one in the first place.
Let's face it, those millions of additional Italian and Austrian soldiers (those Austrians who would not have needed for fighting the Italians could also have been used againts French, Russian or British troops) available to the Central Powers could have very well made the decisive difference.

[filochard]

@ filochard:

Well, I am not the one who said that Italians troops in a hypothetical Central Powers Triple Alliance could not have been ferried over the Alps to Austria and from there to the front in the West. The whole argument that Italy couldn't do much harm because being geographically bottled up wasn't a terribly striking one in the first place.
Let's face it, those millions of additional Italian and Austrian soldiers (those Austrians who would not have needed for fighting the Italians could also have been used againts French, Russian or British troops) available to the Central Powers could have very well made the decisive difference.

I agree.
But still, lets keep in mind that the Italians would have risked themselves invasion from France since the ground make it easier to attack from France to Italy than the reverse.

[gosho4]

If Italy had stuck with their original allies, the war would have been different.


The Italian Army, as well as the Austrian Forces who were to fight against them would instead guard the Border with France.

Yes, the Italian Army was not up to the standards of the French or Germans, but they were still a formidable force when considering that France was stretched to the breaking point.


Question: Would Italian entry with Austria and Germany, make Germany more cautious in their Naval war with the British (in the form of unrestricted Submarine Warfare).

[TheKiwi]

The largest constraint on German submarine naval warfare with the British was the possibility of bring the US into the war. US entry could (and eventually did) mean that the German Navy would be even more massively outnumbered than it already was. Submarine warfare by Germany in WW1 tended to follow a pattern. Merchants ships would be sunk, and US lives lost. The US would get snippy with the Germans who would halt unrestricted submarine warfare for a while before the demands of knocking the British out made to too difficult to resist and they would start again.

So the Italian contribution to the naval war was unlikely to make any significant difference to overall strategy. Anglo-French forces in the Mediterranean were more than sufficient to prevent any kind of real link up between the two.

[gosho4]

The largest constraint on German submarine naval warfare with the British was the possibility of bring the US into the war. US entry could (and eventually did) mean that the German Navy would be even more massively outnumbered than it already was. Submarine warfare by Germany in WW1 tended to follow a pattern. Merchants ships would be sunk, and US lives lost. The US would get snippy with the Germans who would halt unrestricted submarine warfare for a while before the demands of knocking the British out made to too difficult to resist and they would start again.

So the Italian contribution to the naval war was unlikely to make any significant difference to overall strategy. Anglo-French forces in the Mediterranean were more than sufficient to prevent any kind of real link up between the two.



sorry, I did not make the question clear, would this make Germany more Cautious, meaning restrict their Submarine Warfare, so that they do not bring US in the war as They have substantial Military Advantage over France and Britain in the term of Army and Position

[TheKiwi]

Ah, gotcha and a good question. I think the advantage from having Italy on their side is fairly short lived, no more than 18 months which may not be sufficient to achieve victory, especially if the French/British stay more on the defensive in the west. After that, the effects of the almost certain blockade on Italy mean that it becomes a burden to the Central Powers, requiring steel, coal and food in order to keep fighting.

So I can see the need to continue the submarine warfare pretty much as it happened in real life.

[gosho4]

Your viewng the Italian Entry in Long Term Advantage/Disadvantage, and your right in the long term it will be a drain on resources, as well as troops if the British Decide to Strike at the soft underbelly.



What if we considered Advantage/Disadvantage short term only. I mean the first 6 months only, when the French had to fight the Germans on the Western Front, and an invasion by Italy in the south might have made a big problem for the French.



Knowing the State that the Italian Army was and that the Germans and Austrians defended with only about 25% of the Italian numbers, it will be a question of wether the Border Troops that France has are enough to defend tagainst them.


Overall it might have negligeble effect if the French can Defend against Italy with what they have on hand thereby not being forced to weaken their northern front.

[JackTheRipper]

Knowing the State that the Italian Army was and that the Germans and Austrians defended with only about 25% of the Italian numbers, it will be a question of wether the Border Troops that France has are enough to defend tagainst them.


25%? maybe i did not understand, but you are saying that austiran forces were the 25% of italian forces? until caporetto, the italian numbers were superior (men, not in guns or machineguns) but not so much. Depends on the battle. In the sixth battle of isonzo austrian forces were much less numerous than italian forces. but in the eighth battle the forces were almost equal, like in the last two battles (piave river and vittorio veneto). it's right saying that italians were more than austrian but not in this proportions

about the question of the topic.
it's a very intresting "what if..." but consider that Italians perceived the Austrians as the enemy.. three wars in XIX century, and many territories of the empire in which (supposedly) the Italian minorities were mistreated.. not the same in France, a country that welcomed millions of Italian immigrants. Immigrants that join france forces in both world wars. My grandfather told me that when he was on the alps front in WWII he was afraid of killing his cousin immigrated to France 10 years before...Italians do not fight people they consider "brothers", but fight against people perceived as enemy and threat. That is why Italians fights the Austrians and that's why, after the September 8 1943 thousands of Italians fought the Nazis.

so maybe the performance of italian soldiers in an hypothetical italian french border war in WWI were bad.. mix this with the incompetence of italian generals.....

[gosho4]

Sorry, I might be mistaking since I remember this from Hisotry Class a few years ago, but I am pretty sure the Austrians were outnumbered by quite alot.


Why they held on could be atributed that they were better organized, led, and armed, as well as they were in some of the battles fighting from the higher ground.


Also the Italians needed to build up their industry at a quick pace to be able to sustain a wareffort.

[JackTheRipper]

Sorry, I might be mistaking since I remember this from Hisotry Class a few years ago, but I am pretty sure the Austrians were outnumbered by quite alot.


Why they held on could be atributed that they were better organized, led, and armed, as well as they were in some of the battles fighting from the higher ground.


Also the Italians needed to build up their industry at a quick pace to be able to sustain a wareffort.

depends on which battle.
i've just controlled if wikipedia is reliable by comparing to some books that i have here, the numbers are ok, you can look here, as you can see the numebers are quite equal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_vittorio_veneto
instead in this battle austrians are clearly outnumbered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Battle_of_the_Isonzo

Other battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Battle_of_the_Isonzo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Battle_of_the_Isonzo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Piave_River

as you can see italians outnumber austrians in every battle but not in such proportion... 1 to 4 is really too much.

[gosho4]

depends on which battle.
i've just controlled if wikipedia is reliable by comparing to some books that i have here, the numbers are ok, you can look here, as you can see the numebers are quite equal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_vittorio_veneto
instead in this battle austrians are clearly outnumbered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Battle_of_the_Isonzo

Other battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Battle_of_the_Isonzo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Battle_of_the_Isonzo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Piave_River

as you can see italians outnumber austrians in every battle but not in such proportion... 1 to 4 is really too much.


Thanx, I quess my numbers were off quite a bit.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

The Main Austrian effort was against Russia who was percieved as the biggest threat (and inflicted the most damage) while until 1917, the Alpine front was a defensive holding action. Austria could not Defeat Russia, Serbia and Italy all at the same time.

[JackTheRipper]

The Main Austrian effort was against Russia who was percieved as the biggest threat (and inflicted the most damage) while until 1917, the Alpine front was a defensive holding action. Austria could not Defeat Russia, Serbia and Italy all at the same time.

nevertheless Central Powers were able to defeat Serbia and Russia, bringing german troops to the italian fornt e causing the disaster of Caporetto. Actually i think that if Italy had not found the strength, also thanks to the enormous resources of materials provided by the allies, to resist on the Piave river, Central Powers could actually bring almost all the Austro-Hungarian army to the western front.. and this could be a very interesting "what if..."

[centa]

Sorry for any Italian here (no pun intended) but from a strategical point of view Italian armies performed overally bad during WWI. They, individualy, fighted with a extrem bravery under terrible conditions but they were poorly equiped and leaded and a change in the allegeance would have not changed that.
So the main impact of Italy shifting of team would have to free AH troops to operate more easily in Balkans and against Russia, freeing maybe by a domino's effect German units to be used on the Western front
On an operational point of view i don't see Italian troops to be more successful against the south front in France as they were in the same area during WWII or even in thei own mountains during WWI, especially without the huge support from a equipment and councellors (late one but positively impacting the result of fighting) they received from the Allies
the main questions here are then : how many French/UK/allied troops would have to be diverted against them and would there troops miss somewhere else....uneasy answer though

Jes absolutely....probably Italy ( i'm italian...) was not able to do decisive battles on the Alps against France....but the new 200km front and a lot of AH soldiers ready for war should be a really big problem for the allies...

But a lot of people doesn't know that the I World War was won first of all in the Balcans, than with the Italian counter-offensive of Vittorio Veneto that put AH empire out of war, and this big event colapsed some months later Germany....

[owner_bsp]

sniper 1 was terrible, and even Apache Dawn IMHO was not particularly good...Ed Macys Apache however, really goes into quite a bit of detail about in-cockpit ops, and honestly is the best military book Ive read about modern ops

[JackTheRipper]

But a lot of people doesn't know that the I World War was won first of all in the Balcans, than with the Italian counter-offensive of Vittorio Veneto that put AH empire out of war, and this big event colapsed some months later Germany....

yes, true. Almost all forget that Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed after the battle of Vittorio Veneto. Of course the dissolution of the empire was already in place, but this after the defeat on Piave river that worn the Austrian army and gave a boost to all the independence movements. The Italian offensive at Vittorio veneto was the coup de grâce.
I'm reading a very interesting Book http://www.amazon.com/Great-Wars-Forgotten-Front/dp/0880333979 it talks about a czech soldier in the Austro-Hungarian army on the Italian Front. Explains all the major italian offensives in 1917, Caporetto and the last 2 battles

[Saturn]

Italian army of 1918 was a very, very serious oponent.

Very modern, well comanded now, motivated, numerous.... everything one can expect (or dream for if you take the central power side...)

They had made their reform, a bit like the French first half of 1917, they were building Renault FT17 tanks under licence en masse, and the French were sending them huge loads of modern materials
(to the Italian but also to the Serbs, the Greeks, the Americans, ... It's incredible the amount of iron and other killing machines France was able to through on the field in 1918... even compared with WW2 standards!)
Plus advisers as well as combat procedures France experimented before, etc.

So that end 1918 an Italian invasion of Bavaria was one of the most dangerous - if not the most dangerous - threat for Germany! Not less.

Germany had nothing left to oppose it! Austra had surendered and opened its border. The Italian were there and ready to enter. A matter of days.
Plus the offensive on western front planed for the 14th of November, plus the offensive of Franchet d'Esperey along the Danube after Bulgaria collapse...

No wonder that Germany was so hurry to collapse end 1918 and Italy was actually a major part of it.
Too bad Wilson prevent it otherwise you can bet that Italian military reputation would have been different seen from the German's eyes...

[zeelim]

AH lost the Battle of Caporetto mainly for internal political reasons. The country was already breaking apart in the midst of the battle.

[LordTyphus]

By the way there were French troops on the Austro-Italian fronts. In fact Italy reached a point during the war where they pleaded for help from France and britain and both nation had to send troops and advisers to that front to prevent Italy from collapsing. The Austrian army was hardly impressive. At the onset of the war the Serbian scattered a much larger Austrian army sent to punish the Serb. And Hapsburg empire was quite rebellious as only the rulers (that is Austrian and Hungarians) benefitted from that empire.

I seriously doubt Italy could have posed a serious threat. The German economy was bound to collapse sooner or later.

[JackTheRipper]

By the way there were French troops on the Austro-Italian fronts. In fact Italy reached a point during the war where they pleaded for help from France and britain and both nation had to send troops and advisers to that front to prevent Italy from collapsing. The Austrian army was hardly impressive. At the onset of the war the Serbian scattered a much larger Austrian army sent to punish the Serb. And Hapsburg empire was quite rebellious as only the rulers (that is Austrian and Hungarians) benefitted from that empire.

I seriously doubt Italy could have posed a serious threat. The German economy was bound to collapse sooner or later.

French and British troops were used only as reserve force on italian front. For example, during the battle of vittorio veneto the allied casualties were 145 French and 374 Britons. the italians lost 38.000 men and the austrians at least 450.000 men.

The allied were very important supporting Italy with industrial product, weapons, food and raw materials. don't forget that Italy was since 1950s one of the poorest country in Europe. without this kind of support, Italy could never win the war.
but on the front line, the main effort was sustained only by italian troops

Ludendorff wrote:

In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself, dragging Germany in its fall. Without the destructive battle of Vittorio Veneto, we would have been able, in a military union with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, to continue the desperate resistance through the whole winter, in order to obtain a less harsh peace, because the Allies were very fatigued.

[WinG_HU]

I'm pretty sure that if Italy had joined the Central Powers in 1914, the outcome of the war would have been entirely different. The Italian front was a HUGE burden for the Austro-Hungarian army and also for the navy. Those hundreds of thousand KuK soldiers and zillion tonnes of resources (kaiserlich und königlich, which meant that it belonged to the Austrian emperor and the Hungarian king) could have been dropped to the Serbian front or against the Russians or, say, against the French in a combined Austro-Hungarian-Italian campaign in South France. Just imagine if the French had faced not only a large offensive on the North, but another - just as huge in size - attack on the South. That would have made the German breakthrough quite possible.

The Italian front was a bloody one. The Austro-Hungarian navy lost many large ships (like the battleship SMS Szent István) due to Italian subs and smallers vessels and the Italians had also enormous losses. A combined Austro-Hungarian-Italian fleet would have been able to check the French fleet, or even to control the whole Mediterranean Sea with the help of the Turkish Navy.

[Djordjija]

Jes absolutely....probably Italy ( i'm italian...) was not able to do decisive battles on the Alps against France....but the new 200km front and a lot of AH soldiers ready for war should be a really big problem for the allies...

But a lot of people doesn't know that the I World War was won first of all in the Balcans, than with the Italian counter-offensive of Vittorio Veneto that put AH empire out of war, and this big event colapsed some months later Germany....

Well indeed Serbian army by wining and repelling AH forces in 2 big battles in start of WW1 made war go different way.They left Central powers with 3 fronts and a lot of soldiers need to come from Russian front on balkan even some german troops which eventualy lead for Serbian army to retreat.If there would be british-french troops to come to Serbia to try to strike at heart of AH (50k with good weapons could do a lot under great generals of Serbian army maybe even split AH) then Italy on side of germany would be big problem.But allies opened Souln front to late and fighting like pussies (french army).There was one ultimatum from Russia to withdraw from war in 1915 if Ally dont help Serbia to recover their army.on that subject anyone got battle of Cer and battle of Kolubara ww1 info from West point?

[Corto_Maltese]

this video may be of some help to understand how the WW1 evolved in the south http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-jY-YiH4ro&list=UUX0IzlvyYxRw4-VcCMbMqkQ&index=11