Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

@Balrog2005 Considering even German high command disagrees with you on how effective the Saar Offensive could have been, I don't know what you base you claim on.
114
this only means they could remain neutral, attacking Austria-hungary clearly was a betrayal, even if the pact had been cancelled a few days earlier
57
90 years is a long time, not even 80 years ago Germany was at war with much of europe, yet now it's an important ally to most of these former enemies.
23
it depends on whether or not Serbia was seen as a (minor) great power by 1914. Article 4 states that members can go to war against a non-signatory great power that theatens the security of their state and that neutrality of the other signatories is assured. The assassination of Ferdinand and the well known aspirations of Serbia to form a united slavic country might be seen as threatening the security of the Austro-hungarian state. As for article 7 compensations were offered and a permanent annexation of Serbia was unlikely seeing the hungarians were against it, therefor partially annexing Serbia or weakening it was more probable and would probably justify the rather low concessions to Italy. then there is article 14 which states that a cancellation should be made one year in advance, so even if Italy decided to get out it attacked before the end of this year. In the end it depends on how you interpret the articles and the 1914 situation.
13
no, it was on the road of becoming one of the greatest economies and industrial powers. That's what Germany was afraid off.
13
@selinane2Seli-zw3pz Yes, it could have. Most respectable sources speak about the missed opportunity of the Saar offensive. The population count doesn't matter in the initial stages of the war, only when you get caught in a prolongued war. And if you talk about population numbers, you should add the British to the french numbers. Sure they weren't there in the initial stages, but they would join them afterwards when the fighting would get thougher. More importantly the main reason why the Saarland offensive could have been successfull was precisely because almost all experienced and well equiped Germany forces were active in Poland, the opposition France faced at that front was pretty weak. The French army during the Saar offensive at that front outnumbered the Germans at least 2 to 1 and the difference in material like tanks and artillery was even more stark. Basically all German armour was in Poland while France had over 400 tanks ready for the offensive and the French had over 40 times the artillery the German defenders had. That is the entire point about why the Saar offensive could have been a game changer, one hard push and the French army would have been able to come into striking distance of the German industrial heartland. Once France took over the Ruhr area and Rhine crossing points (if possible), they could just have waited on the british and further mobilisation before pushing onto Berlin, if such a push was even needed.
9
the black hand (which supported the group of killers) originated from officers from the serbian military whose goal it was to form a south slavic nation (which inlcuded parts of austria-hungary). First it's the assassination of the archduke, next instigating/supporting full blown revolts? Serbia definitely was a threat to Austria-hungary, even its military leaders knew that if Serbia continued like it had in the last few years it would be a very real threat to the unity of Austria-Hungary.
8
@c.j.cleveland7475 Their tanks might have driven over them, but then what? Only tanks advancing without any kind of support from trucks to deliver supplies, troops, etc? Great way for the unit to just get taken out quickly afterwards.
7
but then conrad didn't support someone who killed the italian crownprince (and honestly conrad seemed to want war with nearly everyone, except maybe germany). My issue is not that the treaty remained valid or not, but that Italy should have at least waited the year mentioned in the treaty for as long as they themselves aren't threatened. Basically Italy played the opportunist a little bit to early imo
6
they hated the nazi's because they came to the ukraine as occupiers and commited atrocities. They didn't really cared about the distinction between russians and ukrainians. If the nazi's came to ukraine as liberators and supplied the ukrainians with infantry weapons, they might have had a large allied army in the region with high morale instead of more enemies. I believe this is what Black feather meant.
5
I need to call bullshit on this logic. If Italy would be given for example french lands, it would have made Italy a stronger ally, while weakening one of their main adversaries. Ofcourse when we are talking about giving austro-hungarian lands to italy, yes the central powers wouldn't give Italy too many lands.
4
basically the equivalent of a vietnam war where china and the USSR would also be in?
2
The USSR could have won ww2 without the US, but it would have taken a lot longer and have been a lot more costly. Obviously they couldn't have done it alone, just the US wasn't absolutely necessary. The main problem was that Germany wasn't prepared for the long supply lines needed. In WW1 Germany might have won without US intervention, but this made the US involvement just the tipping point and doesn't mean the US "beat" Germany's ass.
2
@scottadler Because they wanted the UK out of the war. Without the UK, the US was a much smaller threat and the western front would essentially be secure.
1
@sarahluise3153 Yeah, because they were at war, Europe was not. Most of the union/confederate were untrained conscripts, the european powers during WW1 conscripted a lot more troops than the union or confederates did.
1
So without the code breaking, it probably would have been much more succesfull?
1
@matthewnewell4517 Actually in 1938 France's army was quite a bit bigger than Germany's. Also if France and the UK went to war to protect Czechoslovakia, countries like Poland would also get involved. In reality the German forces would be outnumbered 3-4 to 1 at least and easily beaten/forced to back down. However western leaders overestimated German strength and prefered a tactic of appeasement.
1
@matthewnewell4517 From what I remember France had 100 divisions, not 40. The 40 was British intelligence, which I assume was wrong, or they only included some active troops, ignoring what France could mobilise more in short time.
1
the same could be said about the ottomans, and we all know how great that turned out. Even germany had coastlines that in theory could be invaded. It's just not as easy as it sounds. And it would costs yet more troops the allies needed on other fronts.
1
Peter Magro the Ottoman Empire was divided due to WW1... With The Frenc border, similar to the one vs Austria plus the colonies and coast as front Italy whould have been worse off than just the Austrian border. The Austrian fleet was slightly weaker than the British & French I talked about your comment about the coastlines and defending it and that invading through the coast isn't as easy as you make it sound. I didn't talk about the afthermath, that is a completely different topic.
1
Just imagine if the Italian army was as effective as the Germans. Germany would not need to care about a southern front and also possibly not a western front with Italian help. They would be able to fully focus on the east. And if a competent italian army could quickly breakthrough to Suez, this would be hurting the allies immensely. I don't really know the situation of Turkey at this time, but what if a strong Italy could convince Turkey to join the axis to try and take back some of their lost territories in Syria, the levant, (Greece?)...
1