>>1271411
I'm going to go full armchair general here. While the Italian military was rather incompetent (lack of military history outside of condottieri, incompetent generals that thought Roman ideas that had been outdated for 2000 years made for good strategies), their soldiers were still soldiers. Let's look at what happened to France in our timeline when Germany declared war.

>The French fought in the frontier regions
>Not realizing that it's 1914 and not 1870 they wore bright colors
>Get BTFO
>All survivors concentrate around the Marne
>Reinforcements from Paris and the rest of France arrive
>They switch uniforms to something more practical for modern warfare
>Miracle of the Marne
>Germany's lightning victory was stolen away from them and they were forced into a long, two front war

Merely including Italy here limits the number of men available at the Marne. We would very likely see what happened in WW2: the French destroy the Italians, but there aren't enough men to keep the Germans outside of Paris. Despite being their superior in every way, the French will have to surrender to the Italians as well.

Now consider that this means all of Western Europe is German, the Netherlands probably won't say safe for long, and in WW1 the Germans actually managed to bring Russia to its knees. Germany has won, and there's close to nothing Britain can do. Even with America involved (considering America in WW1 wasn't America in WW2).

Total German victory, which also leaves them capable of building a navy to challenge the British for the next war.

tl;dr: Praise Italy, the true savior of Europe.

>>1271411

WWI would probably reach an end before the Us get involved.

Italy was not as shit as in WW2, and its presence as an ally could knock Russia out of the war quickly. Then Germany would invade as far as Paris.

Voilà, you have Germany controlling Europe in 1916 or so.

No Eastern Europe clusterfuck, surviving AH empire, surviving Ottomans (as much as one can dislike them, the Middle East was far more stable with them).

Italy would have been blockaded and starved until they gave up, the war dragging for 1-2 years more at max

>>1271498
>nothing Britain can do
Meh, Conquering that extra bit of France doesn't mean winning the war. With Russia and the UK still in it. Starvation caused by the blockade played a major role in the defeat of Germany in 1918, while their army still remained in the field.

>>1271554
>Meh, Conquering that extra bit of France doesn't mean winning the war.
You know "that extra bit" is Paris, right? Which might as well be all of France?

>Starvation caused by the blockade played a major role in the defeat of Germany in 1918
Which would heavily be offset by fertile France and, later on, fertile Ukraine. France still is one of the largest agricultural producers in the world. France falling would heavily move the war in Germany's favor. And unless the French manage to do something like the scuttling of the Toulon fleet in WW2, Germany's naval strength is effectively doubled. I can't say with certainity if this is enough to defeat the British, but it surely is enough to severely sting them.

>>1271498
>>1271563
It is not certain that France would surrender if the Germans reach Paris.
It did in WW2 because people just didn't want to fight and because some people saw a chance in overthrowing the republic.
But in WW1 the French were much more willing to fight and to put their political ambitions and convictions on the back seat. They strongly resented the Germans and wanted revenge for 1870.
I think they would have kept fighting as long as they could. Paris itself might have resisted.

Italy didn't back out. The alliance was meant to meant to be defensive and the Central Powers embarked on an offensive war.

>>1271639
Not saying you're definitely wrong, but what makes you think they'd keep fighting after Paris? Even in 1871, when the country continued even after Napoleon III had surrendered (effectively forcing him off the throne), the siege of Paris ended the war.

So if Paris falls, where would the stragglers concentrate? And would they be able to resist a Germano-Italian force effectively singlehandedly, with very little British support if the BEF survives at all?

>>1271657
yeah, this is technically true but it's also a cop-out.

Italy was playing both sides, and could have realistically entered on either side.

>>1271563
While I agree with your assessment that food would be offset by Ukraine and whatnot and that the Eastern front would be a sweep for the Germans once they relocate their western armies there, I don't get why you seem to act as though the Germans would suddenly have all of France if Paris folded and also get all of France's ships.

If anything I'd imagine that if they got to Paris the French would start frantic peace talks, hold a conference in Versailles (cause hell, embarassed the French their once before, might as well do it again), the Germans would force some minor economic, colonial, and perhaps border terms on them, sign it, then give the land back and send the army east. They'd keep some army units on the border and belgium might be a bit complicated (could see the Germans just saying (yeah no we're occupying belgium or perhaps just giving it to the netherlands or just set up their own puppet government) and then just send everything else east as they march to St. Petersburg. They wouldn't get anything else out of France than that IMO.

>>1271669
The situation was different in 1870-1. At that time, again, politics got involved. Republicans, socialists, royalists and bonapartists were at odds, and some oft them preferred a quick peace so as to be able to make civilian things go their way. But still a lot of people including major public figures wanted to draft a new army and fight back, and it was half-attempted. There was a siege of Paris because the people there didn't want to give up.

In 1914, when there was more to lose than Alsace and already one past humiliation to avenge, and also a stronger national sentiment, I think they would have tried.

As for where to go and regroup , I dunno. South. Lyon, Nantes, Toulouse, Marseille. Maybe in africa if all else fails.

>>1272935
During Operation Blucher-Yorck of the Spring Offensive the French were contemplating relocating the government to Bordeaux as fears arose that Paris might be taken, especially as the Paris Guns gut in range and started sporadically hitting the city. I could see them relocating there, at least in terms of a secondary capital.