Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1. So, for mistakes, let's start with the title. First of all: "betrayed" implies a moral judgment that, in this case is completely out of place. Austria-Hungary broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again. Even the German mediators considered the position of Austria-Hungary unreasonable on that point) and, over that, war was declared to Austria-Hungary on 23/05/1915. Second: why "German Empire"? I know that Germany is more famous, so better suited for a title, but the question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the weird belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front. So the real question is: why you wrote a title stating something that didn''t even happen? As for the content: the main part of the video is dedicated to a not-so-related Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912, nothing to the real content of the Triple Alliance Treaty, and almost nothing on the negotiations of 1915 (see for example the mission of Von Bulow)?
    59
  2. In WWI actually, when, on 1 November 1918, two men of the Italian Navy, Raffaele Paolucci and Raffaele Rossetti, rode a primitive manned torpedo (nicknamed Mignatta or "leech") into the Austro-Hungarian naval base at Pola and sunk the battleship Viribus Unitis.
    49
  3.  @calvinfernandez1956  Italy, like any other WWII power at the start of the war, had some very good equipment, some not so good, some bad and some abysmal. The average quality was not worse than the German, French or British. Italian problems with the equipment in WWII had always been of quantity, not quality. In 1939 Italian industrial production was just 1/4 of that of the United Kingdom and in wartime, without an empire, or the US, supplying it, that could only worsen.
    47
  4. Nazism was made by an ex painter. Painting leads to Nazism.
    42
  5. There are actually far better examples than folcloristic cavalry charges or even the spectacular success of the frogmen. IE the two battles of Bir El Gubi demonstrated that, if they could fight in parity, or only slight inferiority, on material terms, regular Italian troops could win vs. their corresponding Allied troops.
    35
  6.  @alyssinclair8598  To make an historical comparison, I've always been impressed at how, from historical accounts, Scipio Africanus was one of those guys. Everyone he talked with, Iberian tribesmen or African kings, became a friend and an ally. He was even frowned upon in Rome, for all this relationships he had with foreigners.
    24
  7. Austria-Hungary broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again) and, over that, war was declared on 23/05/1915.
    22
  8. So, for mistakes, let's start with the title. First of all: "betrayed" implies a moral judgment that, in this case is completely out of place. Austria-Hungary broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again even the German mediators considered the position of Austria-Hungary unreasonable on that point) and, over that, war was declared to Austria-Hungary on 23/05/1915. Second: why "German Empire"? I know that Germany is more famous, so better suited for a title, but the question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front. So the real question is: why you wrote a title stating something that didn''t even happen? As for the content: the main part of the video is dedicated to a not-so-related Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912, nothing to the real content of the Triple Alliance Treaty, and almost nothing on the negotiations of 1915 (see for example the mission of Von Bulow)?
    21
  9.  @HerrXenon_  Germans used on the eastern front their last cavalry division, and the Soviets had several too (actually several cavalrymen of the Savoia Cavalleria at Isbuscenskij used Russian sabres they had taken from captured Russian cavalrymen). The Russian steppe was particularly favourable to the use of horses. The others simply didn't have the same successes.
    17
  10. There are actually better examples than cavalry charges or even the spectacular success of the frogmen. IE the two battles of Bir El Gubi demonstrated that, if they could fight in parity, or only slight inferiority, on material terms, regular Italian troops could win vs. their corresponding Allied troops.
    15
  11. Art.4 states "in case a great power that is not a signatory of this Treaty would threaten the security of one of the Contracting Parties". there is no way this could be applied to the july 1914 situation, since Serbia was in no way a "great power" and it was not threatening anyone. Art. 7 of the third Treaty of the Triple Alliance specifically deal with Austria, Italy and the Balkans. It states that Italy And Austria committed themselves to mantain the status-quo in the Blakans. The status-quo could have been changed only by mutual accord, and on the principle of the mutual compensations. No previous accord = Austria broke the treaty.
    14
  12. A little more than a franco-prussian war and two world wars over Alsace and Lorraine, or one over Belgium's neutrality, Or the disgregation of an empire over the death of an archduke. Among the main actors, the Italian reasons seems to be the more sound ones, really
    12
  13. Much of the conquest of the Italian north-east was unopposed. It was the time of the expansion of the Duchy of Milan and the Papal State, and the choice was between becoming part of a rich and stable Republic or being continuely passed between the other two players, with good possibilities of being sacked one or more times for generation. None really had stable armies in the Renaissance, only mercenaries and militia raised on occasions. The success of Venice in the war of the League of Cambrai was due, other than in its diplomatic ability, to the fact that the major European powers could win pitched battles vs. the Venetian army, but not pay their mercenaries long enough to win the war. And that was due exactly to the fact that, once conquered by the Imperial or French forces, the cities of Nort-east soon rebelled to return under the Republic. Actually Venice was peculiar in the fact that much of its sea soldiers and oarsemen were Venetian free citizens.
    11
  14.  @jamesmason8436  "the Brits had no help from the US during the Battle of Britain" Please... Already in June 1940 the US started to deliver to Britain what Roosvelt called "surplus military equipment". Twelve ships sailed for Britain, loaded with seventy thousand tons of bomber planes, rifles, tanks, machine guns, and ammunitions. Britain received from the US, the same month that France fell, more material than what Italy received from Germany in the entire war (a total of some dozen planes, and some hundreds of aircraft cannons, paid in light alloys on Italian part). In september 1940 US handed to Britain fifty destroyers.
    8
  15. Nor existed Austria for that matter. First than part of the Tyrol, the "south Tyrol" was a Ladin (a romance language) speaking part of the Bishopric of Trent.
    7
  16. First of It had been Austria-Hungary that broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It had not been Italy that left it. So no "betrayal" included. Simply Austria-Hungary decided a course of actions that would have broken the treaty it had with Italy, and so exposed itself to a war with the same country (it was no secret that there were many unfinished business between the two powers). Even more refusing to agree on the compensations required by the same Art.7 of the Treaty. Even the German mediators stated that the Austrian position (they were not willing to give Trento to the Italians, even if they would have obtained Belgrade in exchange) was unreasonable, and their wavering positions (Austrian foreign Minister Berchtold was initially willing to concede a part of Trentino to Italy, only to be contraddicted by the new foreign Minister Stephan Burián when he took office on 13/01/1915) were undermining the efforts of the German diplomacy and the Italian neutralist politicians. Then: Why the "German Empire"? The question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
    7
  17. The heir to theAustrian throne had been killed by a guy that born, and lived all his life, in Austria-occupied Bosnia.
    7
  18. Supporting an unprovocked attack is worse. Art.7 of the treaty clearly stated: 1) A war in the balkans was allowed only by mutual agreement (that Austria not only didn't seek, but actively made so to not involve Italy in the negotiations). 2) In case one of the signatories was forced to change the status quo, compensations were required (on this part, even the German negotiators deemed the Austrian position as unreasonable. Everyone knew that there were many unfinished business between Austria and Italy (see Conrad's position) and so it was: or treaty, or war "tertium non datur". By choosing to not follow the treaty, Austria chose a path that had very high possibilities to end in an open war with Italy. By refusing to concede any real compensation (and with a wavering position that undermined the efforts of the German negotiators and the neutralist Italian politicians) it made the war inevitable.
    7
  19.  @jamesmason8436  "majority" is a thing. "Brits had no help" is another thing. The RAF Roll of Honour recognises 574 pilots, from countries other than the United Kingdom, as flying, operational sorties with an eligible unit during the period between 10 July to 31 October 1940, alongside 2,353 British pilots, so almost 20% of the RAF pilots during the BoB were not Brits.
    6
  20. Really it's a trollish title followed by grossly uninformed content.
    6
  21.  @lautaromoyano5692  Dictatorships tend to create bad armies, because the only danger for the dictator comes from the army, so the dictator tend to fill the army with "yesmen" without initiative (and that excludes japan, since there wasn't a dictator there). That's true, IE, for both Italy and the Soviet Union in WWII. That's partially not true for Germany, but Hitler rose to power only in 1934. In five years he didn't have time to do much damage. Practically all the German high officers in WWII were high officers already in the Weimar Army. The branch that received the more attention from the nazi regime had probably been the Luftwaffe, and infact it had been probably the most disappointing of them (it's often forgotten, but the Luftwaffe already suffered huge losses during the French campaign).
    6
  22. "if Serbia continued like it had in the last few years" means that Austria-Hungary had all the time to respect Art.7 of the Treaty instead of ignoring it. "officers of the Serbian military" is not "on behalf of Serbia". Conrad Von Hotzendorf, when he was chief of staff of the Austrian Army (not just an officer, the chief of staff), repeatedly advocated the necessity to attack Italy without any warning. Even taking advantage of the 1908 Messina Earthquake. That doesn't mean that Austria-Hungary was threatening Italy.
    6
  23. Both Germans and Japanese experimented on similar weapons and tried to use them operationally, but nothing came of it. The weapons and the operators simply went missing. Italians are actually the only ones in the Axis that managed to use them effectively, both at Alexandria and Gibraltar (manned torpedoes) and at Suda Bay (explosive motorboats). It's worth to note than the Italian machines had been effective despite the fact that they didn't require suicidal attacks.
    6
  24. You should check your sources. It had been the fall of the Rumenian and German sectors (operation Uranus, november 1942) that caused the encirclement of Stalingrad. The Italians were deployed further north. They had been attacked by Operation Little Saturn only in january 1943, The Italians held the line (despite their corp being attacked by four armies of the Voronezh Front ), but had to start retreating, to not be encircled, when the Hungarian sector collapsed.
    5
  25. Since the video itself is simply trollish starting with the title, that's not exactly surprising.
    5
  26. They did well against the Brits (Bir El Gubi, Operation Agreement...) and Americans (Kasserine Pass, Operation Winter Storm...) too.
    4
  27. Really it's a trollish title followed by an uninformed content.
    4
  28. They passed through North Italy after the defeat ad the Catalunian Camps. The city of Aquileia was sacked and burned.
    4
  29. You can summarize the entire WWII in less time.
    3
  30. Actually not only Ethiopia had been conquered and mostly pacified, but, in just four years, Italians build infrastructures, that still stand today. More than 4,500 km of roads, 900 km of railways, airports, dams and hydroelectric plants.
    3
  31. First of all: "betrayed" implies a moral judgment that, in this case is completely out of place. Austria-Hungary broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again) and, over that, war was declared on 23/05/1915. Second: why "Germany"? I know that Germany is more famous, so better suited for a title, but the question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not Germany. At that point Germany was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia simpler. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARED WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
    3
  32. Fact is that Italy didn't betray any German Empire.
    3
  33. They stole the "black code", the US diplomatic code, that the US Consul in Alexandria used for his communications to Washington, telling them (and to the italians at that point) precious informations about the British movements in N.Africa and the Med. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Italian Intelligence, Mussolini handed some decrypted page of communications to Hitler. At that point, having the originals and the decryptions, the Germans broke the code, and were able to read the US communications as well. Unfortunately for the Axis, the Germans had the idea to transmit the decrypted messages through Enigma, that the Brits were already capable to read. Reading the messages the Brits understood that they were written by a third party that had a deep knowledge of what was going on in Alexandria, so the USA embassy, alerted the Americans that changed the code.
    3
  34. Italy was not obliged to fight of Austria. the art.7 of the treaty of the triple alliance clearly stated that one of the signatories (and that meant Austria, the one that had interests in starting a war there) could start a war in the balkans ONLY BY MUTUAL ACCORD OF THE OTHERS. By keeping Italy out of the decision process (not only by inertia, but actively refusing a British proposal of a mediation involving Italy in July 1914) and unilaterally declaring war on Serbia, Austria broke the treaty on 28/07/1914, so Italy and Austria were no more allies. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again) and, over that, war was declared on 23/05/1915.
    3
  35. Well, it sounds a little different tha to say "Italy took the view to reassess the situation and ignore their treaty obligations". Italy had no treaty obbligations after the treaty had been broken by Austria declaring an offensive war in the Balkans. However, regarding the actions that led to WWI, some power had been more pro-active than others. Austria surely had no obligations to declare war on Serbia, and Germany had not to declare war on France and invade Belgium (France was not even planning to support Russia, and Britain sent to Germany a proposal to guarantee the French neutrality, had Germany not invaded Belgium. It was ignored because, in practice, Germany only prepared one plan and decided to execute it anyway).
    3
  36. Well, it sounds a little different tha to say "Italy took the view to reassess the situation and ignore their treaty obligations". Italy had no treaty obbligations after the treaty had been broken by Austria declaring an offensive war in the Balkans. However, regarding the actions that led to WWI, some power had been more pro-active than others. Austria surely had no obligations to declare war on Serbia, and Germany had not to declare war on France and invade Belgium (France was not even planning to support Russia, and Britain sent to Germany a proposal to guarantee the French neutrality, had Germany not invaded Belgium. It was ignored because, in practice, Germany only prepared one plan and decided to execute it anyway).
    3
  37. Actually the first aerial bombing had been performed in Lybia by pilot Giulio Gavotti on 1/11/1911, using "Cipelli" 2kg hand grenades from a Etrich Taube monoplane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Gavotti
    2
  38. Stealing to a thief?
    2
  39.  @fuzzydunlop7928  It did, they fought very well in the battle of the Chernaya and to Sardinia was given a place at the peace table, where they could talk of the Italian situation, taking advantage of the diplomatic isolation of Austria.
    2
  40. Are we talking of the same Germany that attacked Belgium and France without povocation in the weird belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win?
    2
  41. For the Art. 4 to be invoked, Serbia should have been a "Great Power" (and it was not) and should have threatened Austria (and it had not). Art. 4 clearly shows the defensive nature of the pact. Even when one of the signatories had been threatened by a great power, the only obligation was to remain neutral. Art. 7 of the third Treaty of the Triple Alliance specifically deal with Austria, Italy and the Balkans. It states that Italy And Austria committed themselves to mantain the status-quo in the Blakans. The status-quo could have been changed only by mutual accord, and on the principle of the mutual compensations. No previous accord = Austria broke the treaty. There was no obligation to neutrality once the treaty was broken.
    2
  42. First of all, it had been Austria-Hungary that broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It remained the question of the compensations (See Art. 7 again) and, over that, war was declared on 23/05/1915. Second: Why the "German Empire"? The question here was between Italy and Austria-Hungary, not the German Empire. The German Empire at that point was only someone that decided to back up Austria-Hungary, and unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief that it would have made a war with Russia easier to win. There was no part in the Triple Alliance stating that the others had to follow it in such a folly. However, ITALY DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO GERMANY, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
    2
  43. I prefer Austria-Hungary, or simply Austria, for Austria-Hungary, and German Empire, or simply Germany, for the German Empire. At this point in the story, they were not the same thing. Anyone of them had to independently decide what to do. It had been Austria-Hungary that broke the Treaty of the Triple Alliance by unilaterally attacking Serbia (see art. 7 of the treaty, it was allowed only by mutual accord), so Italy and Austria were no more allies since 28/07/1914. It had not been Italy that left it. Austria-Hungary decided a course of actions that would have broken the treaty it had with Italy, and so exposed itself to a war with the same country (it was no secret that there were many unfinished business between the two powers). Even more refusing to agree on the compensations required by the same Art.7 of the Treaty. Even the German mediators stated that the Austrian position (they were not willing to give Trento to the Italians, even if they would have obtained Belgrade in exchange) was unreasonable, and their wavering positions (Austrian foreign Minister Berchtold was initially willing to concede a part of Trentino to Italy, only to be contraddicted by the new foreign Minister Stephan Burián when he took office on 13/01/1915) were undermining the efforts of the German diplomacy and the Italian neutralist politicians. In this story there were not "central powers". There were different countries with different foreign politics.
    2
  44. +David Gavrilo Princip didn't act on behalf of Serbia. He didn't even born, or lived, in Serbia (he born and lived in Austrian-occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, so the killing of Franz Ferdinand was an internal Austria-Hungary affair).
    2
  45. Err... no. That's an opinion. Gavrilo Princip was a member of a Bosnian organization (prevalently, but not exclusively, composed of ethnic Serbs) that, among other, was funded by some member of the Serbian Army.
    2
  46. More like 20.000 men.
    2
  47. It's bullshit. This is an actual report of the effectiveness of various Italian artilleries vs. various Soviet tanks. http://www.icsm.it/articoli/daicsm/2gm/artit34.html All the 75mm guns (the old 75/27, and the modern 75/32 and 75/97/38) were effective vs. the Soviet light tanks, even without using armor piercing ammunitions (in this case, the old 75/27 could have problems vs the frontal armor of the light tanks). Both the 75/32 and the 75/97/38 had no problems in piercing the T34 armor, even the frontal one, using HEAT ammos. BTW, the Italian cavalrymen shouted "Savoia!" and only when they were already charging (because the correct succession of the orders is "trotto; galoppo; carica!", "trot, gallop, charge!", then, during the charge, there is the war shout). If your soldiers don't shoot while part of the enemies are already shooting at them (infact a third of the Italians were fixing the position of the enemies with rifles and gunfire) because the ones that are charging at them shout something vaguely similar to "friendly", I would question their mental faculties.
    2
  48.  @thecommentaryking  Ops, sorry.
    2
  49. A little more logic than a franco-prussian war and two world wars over Alsace and Lorraine, or one over Belgium's neutrality, Or the disgregation of an empire over the death of an archduke. Among the main actors, the Italian reasons seems to be the more sound ones, really
    2
  50. Germans used on the eastern front their last cavalry division, and Soviets had several. The Italians were the ones that used them successfully.
    2