If Italy hadn't backed out at the last minute, would France have fallen?

Not until well into 1915.

the Schlieffen plan would've succeded due to the additional pressure from the Italians. We all know what happened on the eastern front, and the effects would've been increased due to additional support from german troops that would've been in trenches. Eventually a peace agreement would've come out of the stalemate where France cedes some land to Germany and Italy, Germany gets eastern Europe, austia gets their Serbia, and the ottomans would probably get control of some colony or something

>immediately

Unlikely, since existing stockpile should have enabled them to hold out for some time without supplies; in the scenario, France loses already in 1914 because they can't transport the 250,000 troops stationed at the Alps to the North.

By the way, in WWII, Germany was able to supply Italy with the coal it needed.

In WWI, Germany got access to coal mines in Belgium, Luxemburg and Poland pretty quickly so I don't see why delivering some of it to Italy would've been impossible.

>Unlikely, since existing stockpile should have enabled them to hold out for some time without supplies; in the scenario, France loses already in 1914 because they can't transport the 250,000 troops stationed at the Alps to the North.
Not him, but France really had 250,000 troops stationed in the Alps against a possible Italian attack? I have a bit of trouble believing that, do you have a source for that?

I remember it from the book "L'entrata in guerra dell'Italia nel 1915" by Gian Enrico Rusconi and Johannes Hürter.

Unfortunately, there's no preview on google books so I can't really prove it

Still they barely survived against the Germans even with British and Belgian support especially after following Plan Seventeen and literally marching into machine guns in Alsace Lorraine while they were outflanked by the Germans through Belgium.

In this hypothetical scenario they would need troops on the southern border too perhaps making it easy enough for the Germans to take Paris, after which the French would surrender as they did in WW2 and Franco-Prussian War

So basically Kaiserreich but Italy ruined it

>Still they barely survived against the Germans even with British and Belgian support
Nope

They ammounted to nothing

>In this hypothetical scenario they would need troops on the southern border too perhaps making it easy enough for the Germans to take Paris, after which the French would surrender as they did in WW2 and Franco-Prussian War

And now you go bakc fils de pute

We conquered your shithole and senr negroes to fuck and rape your women, even now we destroyed Syria and Lybia so negroe can come in your country and rape your women

Inferior race like yours should shut up and do what you're good which swallon shitskin sermen ;)

t. butthurt frog at odds with reality

holy shit you're the delusional. A frenchie talking about negroes ruining other countries...

>Nope
>The Alps are a western caucasus, they are a natural fortress

All the germans suckers up here saying that France would immediatly collapse are stupid and ignorant.

You can't compare the plains of Belgium and Northern France which were ''designed'' for the Schiefflen Plan to the Alps. Southern France is quite populous, even at that time, so France could just had to mobilize more to create a defensive army able to stop the italians in the Alps.

Plus, Algeria, Maroc, Tunisia and French Africa are closer to Italy than Germany. So I think if Italy had backstab France, it would had been the colonial army and navy which would go fighting in Italy.

And finally, in 1940, the Krauts passed by the North and they succed. But Italy failed miserably in the South with more troops than the french.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France

Perhaps they would not have fallen immediately, but surely eventually they would have been overstretched by fighting on two fronts. Even though the Italian army was useless, they still would have held a front against the French and the Alps would make it difficult for either side to make gains.

The French had difficulty fighting on one front against the Germans for most of the war, almost collapsing at certain points and relying on hopeless offensives by the British to take pressure of them such as at Verdun. With a second front against Italy they would have not been able to commit troops to the Western Front which they otherwise would have, and that includes colonial troops many of whom were sent to the Western Front.

>muh hypotheticals
>muh alternate history

America probably would have entered the war earlier in this scenario, so...

I find it unlikely that America would join the war while Russia was fighting with the Entente, considering they were utterly opposed to their autocratic regime. Besides there was also a fair amount of pro-German sentiment in America at the time

>>The Alps are a western caucasus, they are a natural fortress

Irrelevant, the point is not that Italy advances into French territory but that a substantial number of French divisions has to defend the border in the South and cannot fight in the North.

>just had to mobilize more

There was already a full mobilization in France and additional divisions couldn't just be created out of nowhere given that depot stocks are limited.

An alternate argument perhaps is that with a second front against Italy France would not have implemented Plan Seventeen and marched into Alsace Lorraine since they were more inclined to take a defensive position. This would save them the horrendous casualties they encountered and leave their army in a much better position to counter the German Schlieffen Plan

And I find it unlikely Italy would join the war on the side of the Alliance. Therefore, what the fuck are we talking about? This is why alternate history is garbage for brainlets.

Probably the same outcome, either the British would have sent down their army, which was the most professional and well trained in Europe at the start of the war, and finished the Italians in no time, or we would have took on more of the fighting against Germany and let the french send more of their army to deal with the Italians, which they should have had no trouble with really.

Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance up to the start of war in 1914 when they backed out when the war started. They were in an alliance with German and Austria-Hungary and were therefore obliged to follow them into the war.

USA was neutral in 1914 and had no obligations to any country

Correct, they didn't join the war on the side of the Alliance.

France was then, as now, America's oldest ally. If France looked as if it might fall, we would likely have entered the war. Not to mention the fate of the UK if France had fallen. Sure we had no obligations, but as history showed us, we were clearly partial to one side.

This thread, as with most alternate history threads, assumes that the war would have continued on the same course even with this major alternate hypothesis. Which is fucking stupid. Things would have gone much differently. It's so foolish to even have these discussions.

France did come near falling though in 1914 and yet America did not join the war until 1917 until provocation by the Germans.

It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to make at all considering Italy joining the war is an entirely reasonable scenario

it's almost like the tech wasn't available or something

True, but given the "cult of the offensive" that was predominant at that time, they might have attacked anyway. On the other hand, if the French stay on the defense, the Germans would not have weakened their right wing in that case.

Cadorna (not the greatest authority in military matters, I know :) ) at least was very optimistic about the possible outcome of an entry on the side of the Central Power's in 1914.
>They were in an alliance with German and Austria-Hungary and were therefore obliged to follow them into the war.

No, they weren't obliged to do this because it arguably wasn't a defensive war for the Central Powers.

Is Libyan oil tricky to get at or something?

>If Italy hadn't backed out at the last minute
????

Yo holla! Mah nigguh, dont be dat mad brah! That craut shiiiieeet is just jelly of us culture?! *crying laughing smile*
C'mon, lets go and eat a bagget or some shit, fug those white frenchie womans, toobad they dont speak American amIright brah? haha

>British army
>Most proffesional on europe
Top kek, their shells didn't even explode up until late in 1916

It's true, the regular British soldier in 1914 was the best trained in the world. The only problem was that there was only 100,000 or so of them, so they were wiped out pretty quickly.

The quality of shells, equipment and their leadership etc is another matter.

How weren't they on part with their French and German counterparts ? I'm not talking about conscripts, but proffesional soldiers.

It still amazes me how the Russians controlled Alaska for 200 years and never once thought about looking for oil there.

If they use the same strategy they used when they were only fighting Germany? Yes, they had Morale issues with just Germany alone.

>why they werent looking for usseles burning mud on 1,717,856 km2

The Brits were already drilling oil in the Middle East...

>oil was equally important in the 1600s and 1900s
>oil was equally important in oil-rich Russia and oil-poor Italy

If Germany had kept Britain neutral they would have won

Germany and France didn't have any professionals.

What kind of bullshit is that ?
It's not the middle ages anymore, every country had proffesional standing armies

youtube.com/watch?v=UVs1F3x3eOs

I apologise, what I mean is that the average British soldier was a professional and the average French/German wasn't.

Both France and Germany had a standing and proffesional army, as trained as their british counterparts ( Take the Alpenjagers, or the Chasseurs Alpins, how in the name of god aren't they proffesionals, those were considered elites ), they just used consciption to get every able bodied man to the frontlines, those men weren't proffesionals.
Britain didn't have any concripts until 1916.

Spicy meme but no, would've just seen a different version of Luigi Cadorna's autism

I love this channel so much