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

  1.  @Pajdas610  Defeated countries can't decide what to do of their warships, apart scuttling them. Are the winners that decide if they can keep them, or have to scrap them, or hand them over to the winners themself. Infact Austria-Hungary carefully avoided to give to the Entente the news to have given its fleet to the State of SHS, since that would have derailed the peace talks. As a matter of facts, Viribus Unitis had never been property of the State of SHS, since Austria Hungary had no more the right to cede it. Infact all of the rest of the main ships of the Kriegsmarine had been divided between Italy, Great Britain and France.
    2
  2. Greek = traitor in Venetian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
    2
  3. In all likelyhood, not. An "Italo-Austrian" fleet would have matched the" French+ what the Brits could dispatch there" one, but, even winning on the sea, there was really nothing decisive that the domain over the central Mediterranean could provide. The terrain on the Italo-French border is really difficult, and a war there would surely have ended in another stalemate, so, in the end, Italy would have been strangled by the economic block like Austria and Germany did. There could have been some nice military operation in Algeria tough.
    1
  4. Because it was known as Constantinople, or Kostantiniyye even in Ottoman official documents until 1928.
    1
  5. It was the last "formal" charge, performed using mainly bladed weapons and where the succession of orders "trotto, galoppo, carica!" ("trot, gallop, charge!") was given. Even the italians made others (the last one in Jugoslavia) but they were more impromptu attacks.
    1
  6.  @МихаилЧерников-п2т  Kushevskaya was 2 august 1942. Izbushensky was 24 august 1942.
    1
  7. Before the war, maybe not. After the war, they decided it would have been nice to not fight another war uphill, so it was better to put the border on the watershed.
    1
  8. Actually there is the account of Adm. Vian that stated that both the ships hit the bottom of the arbour. “Standing with [Cunningham] . . . on the cloudless morning after the disaster we saw, high above the harbour, a reconnaissance machine which had eluded the defences. The battleships had settled on the bed of the harbour, with submarines alongside supplying them with electric power: a photograph would reveal disaster.” Both ships stayed out of action for one and half year.
    1
  9. +jerolvilladolid Germany lost WWI because the only war plan they had did't work. Once they failed to defeat France in the first weeks of war (and worse, pulled the Brits into it), the economic strangling due to the blockade was only a matter of time.
    1
  10.  @irongeneral7861  They already did in WWI, with the sinking of the battleship Viribus Unitis in the port of Pola.
    1
  11. It was not because 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. Germany had no role there. The question was between Italy and Austria-Hungary. 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 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 AT THAT POINT, it did only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front.
    1
  12.  @rootin222  Oh, yeah. The roads reverted to trails. Please...
    1
  13. The facts of the '30s don't seem so smart to me.
    1
  14. +FrizzTheSnailAtWork It has to be said that the same Italian Army was not really enthusiast of an eventual gain of Dalmatia, since, in case of war, that territory would have been indefensible.
    1
  15. The funny idea that to win a war with Russia would have been easier attacking Belgium and France owns Germans WWI. The one to attack Rsoviet Union non having finished the job in the west owns you the second.
    1
  16. +Devil of war The ultimate goal of the Austrians is inconsequential. Art.7 of the treaty clearly stated that a war in the Blakans could have been declared only by mutual accord, instead Austrians and Germans not only did not ask for the opinion of the Italians, but acted to keep them out of the negotiations at all (see the rejection of the British proposal of a mediation involving Italy in july 1914).
    1
  17. Unfortunately, they are almost folcloristic episodes. The fact that the clip concentrates on them instead of regular operations is a defect. Regular Italian soldiers (not obsolete cavalrymen, or super-professional frogmen) had been effective many times (Bir El Gubi, Operation Agreement, Kasserine Pass, Operation Winter Storm...).
    1
  18. 18.13.22.17 So Britain betrayed Germany?
    1
  19. 18.13.22.17 So you edited your message... See... A pact there is, or there isn't. There are not half-pacts. Austria-Hungary chose to break the pact it had with Italy by attacking Serbia (art. 7 of the Treaty of the Triple Alliance. It was allowed only by mutual accord). From that moment, there was not more a pact between the two. Austria-Hungary chose to not pay conpensation for the aggressive act (art. 7 again), and over that infringement Italy declared war to Austria-Hungary, NOT TO GERMANY. Italy declared war to Germany only in August 1916, after Germany put Italy under economic sanctions and German soldiers began to show up on the Italian front (so violating the treaty).
    1
  20. Stephan Klein Art. 7 of the treaty clearly stated that, In case one of the signatories was forced to change the status quo n the Balkans, compensations were required. By not offering any real compensation, Austria-Hungary was at fault. Italy could have stayed neutral in front of the Austrian cheating, but why should it? BTW, "Austrian land"?
    1
  21. No. Thanks to the mediation of the German emissary Von Bulow, FIRST the Austrian Foreign Minister Berchtold promised the Trentino, and that would have been enough. THEN Berchtold was replaced by Burián, THAT RENEGED ANY PROMISE, so undermining the position of Von Bulow as a mediator and of the Italian neutralists (Giolitti that, believing to Berchtold's promises, had previously exposed himself, saying that Italy would have obtained "much" by neutrality, was mocked in the Parliament when it was clear that Austria-Hungary would have given "nothing" instead). At that point the Italian Foreign Minister Sonnino presented his requests to the Entente. Only when the negotiations with the Entente were almost complete, maybe realizing the mistake, Burián offered a small part of the Trentino, and only at the end of the war, but, at that point, it was too little, too late (Belgrade in exchange of a pair of alpine valleys?). Italy entered in the war because the idiotic Austrian diplomacy managed to undermine the position of anyone that wanted to avoid a war with it.
    1
  22. They eroded the borders of the Ottoman Empire like Austria-Hungary did, but they didn't take Constantinopole.
    1
  23. Like at Gallipoli.
    1
  24.  @PMMagro  "Italy has big coast and the French & British could invade her easily..." What happened at Gallipoli? the Ottoman Empire had been humiliated by Italy in 1911, but the invasion didn't exactly go like French & British planned four years later. In WWI even the bigger ships had not protection against torpedoes. A ship standing still during a landing was only a sitting duck. At Gallipoli, in theory, the Entente had the complete control of the sea. In practice a single German submarine sunk two battleships and an ammunition transport. The most modern Austrian battleship was sunk by an Italian torpedo boat while sailing under escort. Landings are more easily said than done.
    1
  25. Actually Art. 7 of the treaty of the Triple Alliance stated that a war in the Balkans should have been declared only by mutual accord of Italy and Austria, so, Austria, unilaterally declaring war on Serbia, broke the treaty.
    1