User blog:I am that guy/Question to the Community

Hello Wikians,

As you may or may not be aware of, for over a month LG and I have been disagreeing over the status of wether or not its implausible.

If you haven't read my timeline, here's the overview:

The POD is on June 28, 1914, during Archduke Franz Ferdinand's visit to Sarajevo. In OTL, Franz Ferdinand made a route change, to head to the hospital where the victims of the bombing minutes earlier were being treated. Accidentally, their driver turned down the road they would've taken had the route not changed. Upon realizing the mistake, the motorcade stopped to reverse, and just so happened to stop in front of Gavrilo Princip. That's when he saw his chance and killed both of them, and,...well we know the rest. But in my TL the driver doesn't make the wrong turn, and the assassination plot ultimately fails.

Without the killing, tensions continues to rise. In the fall months, Italian irredentism grows, and under pressure from its supporters makes the demand to Austria to transfer the regions to Italian rule in December. Now of course it's rejected, so over time it becomes a new flashpoint. Germany, realizing the need for the Triple alliance to remain together, attempts to act as meditator for negotiations, but neither wish to compromise. On February Italy declares war, and A-H declares war back. The Triple Entente sits back and watches their rivals fight amongst themselves. Germany declares neutrality, not wanting to go to war just yet, though several thousand Germans volunteer to serve with the Austrians.

The war lasts for about a year, culminating in the fall of Venice following the Asiago Offensive, where the Austrian army broke through the Italian lines after many of the Italian troops in that area were moved to the lines around the Isonzo River for their own offensive. Following the failure of the Italians attack, Austria redeployed troops to the weakened Italian lines and attacked. After the lines are broken and their supply lines threatened, the Italian army begins to withdraw. The with draw lead to more attacks by the Austrians, and the withdrawal became a rout.

The Italian generals decide to leave a skeleton defense for Venice, opting instead to establish more effective defense at Milan, where a large portion of the Austrian army was heading. Venice was also vulnerable from Austrian naval attacks (the Navy is more active ITTL due to advocating by Franz Ferdinand, a large supporter of the navy). After about a month, Venice falls when the few remaining defenders surrender. This forces Italy to the negotiating table, as neither are in the best shape to continue the war. Franz Joseph, who was the last King of Lombardy-Venitia, looked to re-establish his old realm, and was the main concession demanded by Austria. After a few months of negotiating, the Austrians bluff and demand it be ceded or hostilities will resume (Austria was, in fact, in no shape to continue, but the Italians were ignorant of this fact). That proved the deciding factor, and Italy ceded the regions, resulting in an exodus of Italian citizens, and an influx of Austrian citizens (namely from Trentino and Trieste) though the region remains majority ethnic Italian.

LG and others raised a few issues:


 * "Austria-Hungary didn't outnumber Italy, it was vis versa": I tried to find figures supporting this, but couldn't. Everything I found had Austria with the larger army by at least a million. He later said "those numbers are common, but incorrect", when I asked for a link or source, he didn't respond.


 * "Austria's army was the most incompetent in Europe": after thorough digging, this appears to be another case of "History is written by the victor". While I'm not disputing Austria's army was far below par than that of, say, Germany or Great Britain, I'm disputing this due to that for the most part, Austria held off Italy for the course of the war. Even though otl it was helped by about five German divisions, those are supplemented ITTL thanks to Austria not having to divide its forces among Italy, Serbia, Romania and Russia. This, and the fact that Austria more than proved its worth in many battles, especially on the Russian front. Austria's internal turmoil at the end of the war, its collapse and subsequent loss probably lead to this notion of Austria's army being utterly incompetent.


 * "The population of the Lombardy-Venetia region would be too large for A-H": an issue raised by Fed (who just so happened to provide sources) about the population of the region being added to the Empire would ultimately make the Germans and Hungarians even more minorities than they are (both combined only accounted for about 44% of the population). This is explained as many of the Italian civilians would flee the region, some from the advancing Austrian army during the war, and some following the Austrian annexation after the war (I don't think many would simply want to stay in an active war zone, or at the expense of becoming Austrian citizens). Then, Austrian Italians (that almost sounds like an oxymoron) would most likely move into the region after the peace was agreed. There most likely would be an increase in the Italian population, but I believe there would be at least a 60% displacement of the pre-war population.


 * "Why would the hopelessly romantic Italians give up Venice with barely a fight": another issue raised by Fed, revolves around the lax defense of Venice. In the face of the advancing Austrians, it would be determined Venice is indefensible, and opt to fall back to defend Milan, another culturally significant city. Despite the romanticism in Italy, most military leaders with basic knowledge would make the decision to abandon the city in favor of further fortifying Milan or other locations.


 * "Why wouldn't this nation or that nation get involved": several people brought this up, the most common mentions were France and Germany, ultimately leading to World War I. For France, the issue is Italy is a member of a rival Alliance set, and wouldn't get involved in a war, period, if they had not stake in it, even more so if it meant two members of the aforementioned alliance fighting each other, and weakening them militarily. Fed (I believe it was Fed) then brought up that France wouldn't allow Austria to regain Lombardy-Venetia, but thanks to the fact that France never had interest in the region, in fact said to Italy following the Austro-Prussian war "Hey, you can have this", them included that France would be more concerned about retaking Alsace-Lorraine, its unlikely France would get involved over what was asked at the negotiating table. The arguments surrounding Germany centered around it not going to let Austria (don't know why Austria was targeted, Italy was the aggressor) or Italy betray the Triple Alliance. Case and point, a mutual ally of enemies rarely wants to get involved in favor of one or the other. Then with France always eyeing Alsace-Lorraine, it would keep its armies home, prepared for the impending war with France. Besides, many in Germany saw their alliance as "chained to a dying body", and I don't see them entering on the Italian side. Another candidate mentioned was Serbia and Mother Russia. Please keep in mind, prior to the assassination Serbia was minding its own business, doing its thing. I believe they even offered concessions to Austria even after Russia declared support for them. So it hardly seems plausible the would go all agro in the event of a war between Austria and Italy. Then Russia really only got involved after Austria threatened Serbia, and entered to support its ethnic brethren (hey, look at that, History does repeat itself).

I've made my case, now I'm asking you all to give your opinion: plausible, needs some work, ASB, "Oh my god, did Ratc write this POS?"

I would really like to know,
 * I am that guy (talk) 09:22, May 8, 2014 (UTC)