Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Armaguerra Last-Ditch M35 Pistol" video.

  1.  @jimmydesouza4375  In WWI the Austrians broke the Triple Alliance pact. In WWII is like saying the Germans betrayed the Japanese by surrendering before them.
    1
  2.  @jimmydesouza4375 No, sorry. Austrians broke the Triple Alliance pact when they declared war to Serbia (art. 7. of the 1891 treaty). Italy invaded Tyrol only at the and of WWI (where do you hear that the Italians invaded Tyrol? Lol! That's your knowledge of the facts?). So the Germans were going to win? To simply extend the pain of your population and the death of your soldiers when there are no possibilities of winning, and any further day of war is going worsen the peace conditions, is simply stupid and criminal. the Finnish quit way before Italians did (in terms of conditions on the field), and rightly so. However, according to your reasonong (if it could be called that way) Japanese were a bunch of pussies. They surrended when only a small island had beeen invaded.
    1
  3.  @jimmydesouza4375  Declaring war to Serbia broke the treaty, since it broke the status quo without previous agreement and not for the action of a third power. Doing something and having perhaps the intention of doing something are different things. Not sure where your issue with that is? Possibly you're not a human, and those simple concepts are alien to you? Any loosing party of a war surrender or ask for peace in the end. If you want to call this "betrayal", your choice, but you asking the others if they know the meaning of words is quite hilarious at this point.
    1
  4.  @jimmydesouza4375  The Triple alliance Treaty says that status-quo matters. Maybe you should learn to read first to write ("apparent" lack of knowledge? LOL!).
    1
  5.  @jimmydesouza4375  So the reaty stated that: a) Italy had no obligation to fight alonside Austria in a war it declared. b) a "temporary or permanent" "occupation shall take place only after a PREVIOUS agreement between the two Powers" c) Austria (in this case) had to give compensations for changes in the status quo in the Balkans. Austria invaded Serbia in 1914 (that's a change in the status quo and an occupation) without any previous agreement (breaking the treaties). Despite the obvious violation of point "b", Italy was willing to get over it in case Austria complied with "c". Austrian foreign minister Berchtold, agreed on some concession (the recognition of the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese and Valona, that already happened). Italians wanted the cities of Trento and Trieste. German mediator Bernhard von Bülow pushed for the Austrians to accept the cession of Trento, and the Italians to accept a bigger degree of autonomy for Trieste in the Austrian Empire. That would have been probably enough, but unfortunately on 13/01/1915 Berchtold had ben replaced by Stephan Burián, that retired any concession made by his predecessor, so breaking the talks, and exposing the Italian "neutralists" politicians (like Giolitti, that publicly stated Italy could gain much by peace) to ridicule, since it was evident that Austrians were not willing to give anything. After two months of unsuccessful attempts to obtain anything Italy started the talkings with the Entente. Bulow considered the Austrian position to be irrational. That's his opinion on the matter, from a letter to a friend, the journalist Felix von Eckhardt: "We must influence Vienna. It would be unheard of, for Austria, after pulling us into this war for its own incapacity in last two or three years, to deprive us of the collaboration of Italy and Rumenia, and to throw two million more enemies against us [. ..] I'll do what I can to spare us a new, great and not needed trouble. I'll do it for ourselves and for Austria, which must be saved from the hereditary defect of always arriving too late ". That's what you call "betrayal".
    1
  6. ​ @jimmydesouza4375  That's only valid as long as the treaty is valid. Since Austria broke the treaty, first invading a country in the Balkans without previous agreement (and that would have already been enough), and then refusing to give compensations (and that would have already been a concession on Italy's part), Italy was no more bound by it. If you want others to respect the treaties, you should respect them first, not violate it, and then cry foul when others consider them expired. It's pretty funny how, contrary to you, the Germans of the time had no problems in understanding this fact, and considered Austria's position to be irrational. Sorry, it's "temporary or permanent" occupation, not only conquest. As above, the Germans of the time had no problems in considering a military invasion an occupation. Only you have. Sorry, but Austria had not been "threatened" by Russia. It started a war with Serbia. Your very personal opinion of Russia threatening Austria via Serbia is pretty ridicolous, and had not weight in 1915. Trying to rewrite history to your liking is not going to do you any favour. Grow up.
    1