@@ethanhatcher5533 Probably not. If Italy stayed neutral, why would anyone drag it in? What use would the French have for opening a second front when the one against the Germans was only barely tenable? And why would the Austrians push into Italy while they were busy tied up in the Balkans and getting their asses saved by the Germans in Russia? No one wanted another enemy, so Italy could have probably kept safe and neutral.
Simple animation, questions everybody’s asked but nobody’s answered, right amount of light humor, Consistent uploads. This is why this channel is one of the best history channels on UA-cam.
I remember when this channel was 10 Minute History and I'm sure when they transitioned video styles it must have got backlash. I can't give enough credit to whoever made that decision because it's meant we got way more consistent uploads across a wider range of topics. Your comment made me think of that and I just feel like it doesn't get enough appreciation.
It's worth remembering that the German/Austrian/Italian alliance was so "sound" and sincere that when Italy was struck by the Messina earthquake in 1908 (100,000 plus dead), Austria seriously thought about profiting of it by declaring war on Italy.
Tbf, it was mainly one nutjub general in Austria, Conrad von Hötzendorf who had always been calling for a preventive war against Italy. That said, Italy had wanted an alliance with the German Empire, but ended up in a package deal with Austria-Hungary added. The whole thing would have worked out a lot better had Germany picked Russia instead of Austria-Hungary as their main ally, because Germany-Russia-Italy have a legit chance to win the whole war early. Even in our timeline Russia almost managed to overrun Austria in 1914 and without Germany saving them they'd have collapsed.
afaik Conrad von Hötzendorf advocated for war no less 30 times while being in military stuff. Dude was a fucking warmonger. btw. his family name is Conrad and "von Hötzendorf" was only his second family name. He even announed that in a newspaper that people should adress him with "Conrad" as this was his preferred family name and people mixed it up even back then.
@@znalniaskas Bismarck left two warnings for Germany. One was that there are always 5 major powers in Europe, and to be on the side with the most. The other was to always be on the same side as Russia. Germany did *neither* of those things, and to make matters worse picked the single worst power on the continent to align itself with.
It's also worth pointing out that the relations between Austria-Hungary and Italy were at an all time low by the time of the beginning of WW1. The video explains the issue with AH annexing land in the Balkans, but it's also worth remembering that AH was also repressing the Italian population in Dalmatia, then during the 1908 Messina earthquake (Literally the most devastating earthquake by loss of life in European history) Hötzendorf, chief of the general staff of the Austro-Hungarian army and navy, called it a good occasion to invade Italy because its army was busy helping the population. Relations were so bad, that the Italians and Austro-Hungarians were literally building fortifications on the border despite being allies because neither trusted the other
Plus the competition of influence in Albania towards its Catholic population in the north. Both contested and made up their own alphabets for the Albanian Franciscans to shore up support
Most of the italians: "War sucks, we prefer peace" Salandra: "Let me just force the king to declare war, I'm not even sure on which side we'll end up fighting but this move will result in war 100% of the time"
Neutrality wasn't even an option here, you failed to understand the situation. The guy only had 2 choices, choose a side or have someone choose it for him.
As an italian I can say that Italy could've certainty been kept neutral, as the majority of people wanted peace and they didn't want Italy to join in, no matter on wether the Allies or the Central Powers. But Italy wanted Trento and Trieste at all costs, and Austro-Hungary couldn't give them. Then Britain arrived and could give all the territories Italy wanted to own, but at one condition: *joining the war on the side of the Allies*. But yeah, Italy could've been kept neutral for sure and if Austro-Hungary still lost Italy could take the territories easily, but no: I guess we had to be hot heads.
@@Nick-gy6ed you want to know the sad part ? We could have easly take this territory, right at the start, if not for the most retarded, useless general my country ever bread who was so determined to fight the same battle for 12 times, with the same tactics
They got what was promised. The mutilated victory is a myth created by the Italian government as a scapegoat of their own impossible promises during the war. See, the treaty of 1915 promised Italy that France and Britain would push on the peace negotiations with the AUH to get Italy dalmatia. Issue is, by 1917, it was clear the AUH would not reach the peace table. As such the 1915 was basically null and void. Furthermore, with the USA joining the war, a new treaty had to be written. And in this, still, most Italian territorial claims were respected, and Italy indeed gained a lot of territory from the war. So if the war did give them so much territory, why then do they complain so much?. The issue is, in 1917, the Italian army's morale was on the floor. the horrors of war combined with objectively the worst high command in history, made the soldiers revolt. The Italian government, desperate to avoid a full collapse, made a promise to the soldiers: "the land and the vote". Vote, that Italy would become a parliamentary monarchy with an effective body of representation. And land, that all Italian soldiers would get a piece of land, old Roman soldier veterans style. Now obviously, the promise of land was physically impossible. There wasn't enough land for all this soldiers, at least not fertile land. So when the war ended, the Italian monarchy desperately decried the "Vittoria mutilata" the mutilated victory, claiming that the failed promise of the land was the fault of the entente, not an impossible promise they didn't plan to fulfill anyways.
Fun fact: when Vittorio Emanuele III got to choose between the two sides, it came out that he had never wanted to be king, and was about to abdicate. But at this point Gabriele D'Annunzio came back from his exile in France, and started a big propaganda against Giolitti and the CP, and convinced the Parliament to agree to the entrance in the Entente. So, if we joined the war, it's thank to him
Well that would’ve been impossible. Victor Emmanuel III’s only son Umberto was already 11 years old when the war broke out. VEIII would’ve had to abdicate in 1903 or sooner if he want the Duke of Aosta to get the job
1:17 on the question of "why is Rhodes green like Italy" in 1912 Italy seized Rhodes from the Ottoman Empire in the italo-turkish war, Rhodes and the rest of the Dodecanese islands were assigned to Italy in the Treat of Ouchy, Turkey officially ceded these islands to Italy in 1923's Treaty of Lausanne, in Italy this region became known as the Isole italiane dell'Egeo, it came under Italy's control for more then 30 years, after the second world war, at the Paris Peace Treaties, Rhodes and the other Dodecanese islands where united with Greece, 6000 Italian colonists where forced to abandon the island and return to Italy.
@@NIDELLANEUM I'm an American but I love world history. Especially when it comes to domestic/foreign policy. Italy (with it being such a young new state during the late 19th century) always interested me since it was surrounded by old existing powers and new states just like itself. All just, wonderful knowledge
Always liked the part where that one Romulus guy kidnapped a bunch of women and the other tribe just kinda went along with it so long as they got to be Romans too.
Given the number of videos in which you talk about how Austria-Hungary's decision to annex Bosnia annoyed basically everyone in Europe, I think a good video idea would be to answer why they did so (and why they didn't consult any other European power when doing so)
@@roguenetwork27 Austria was getting a bit drunk with the territorial expansion at that time. Franz Ferdinand’s assassination was a Godsend for them, as Franz Josef didn’t even like him, but could use it as a pretext for war,
Nice works, but there are a couple of blights: 1) there was an economic part also in the decision: Italy needed a LOT fo carbon and steel for its industries, and the Entente (specifically: England) was their principal supplier; Germany and Austria-Hungary had no possibility of taking over that burden; 2) Giolitti was a neutralist, more than a supporter of the Empires.
Thanks for being a history teacher and cramming more history in my brain, your one of the people who has inspired me to learn history and be a history teacher on the college level
This is crazy, it's like you read my mind, I was actually contemplating this question yesterday (even though I've known the basic offers both sides made to Italy to convince them to join). I still think had Italy joined the Central Powers in WW1 in 1915, the result would have been much different, and the Central Powers might have actually won before 1917 prior to when the U.S. could actually join.
@@thecolorblue9609 But it would have helped Austria, as they wouldn't have their troops tied up fighting Italians, but instead the Balkans, Russia and maybe France. And at the same time France would have had to divert resources to the Italian front, helping the Germans. The extent of the impact still would be unclear, as with all things alt history, but those are the things we could pretty much guarantee in that case.
@@thecolorblue9609 its not about italy power its about its location it would open up another front on france and the austro-italian navy could cause trouble for the british with german support and mostly for the french and the austrians and the germans would had 2 millon troops ready to be deployed in Russia and it would probably lose much earlier than they did without sending Lenin to russia and italy could also help the austrians and the bulgarians fight Venziolsts and the Entente and convince Greece to join the Central powers and italy could help the ottomans in Gallipoli
@@thecolorblue9609 it isn't a matter of being stronger, it's a matter of existence. Franco British forces were stretched thin in northern France, they wouldn't have been able to withstand an attack on the south
The guy who decided he would resign to see how the king leaned was what we in the meme community call a pro-gamer move. Makes one wonder how things might have gone down if the king decided to let him quit and Italy joined the central powers.
italy joining the central powers would have probably spelled doom for the british. not that italy was some huge player but it was big enough that having to all of a sudden deal with a front, even a weak front, in southeast france, would have pushed the british and french to the breaking point. not to mention german troops could have marched through to supply the italians. also the austrio hungarian empire would not be pre-occupied fighting italy so it could focus on the south sea, or even helping the eastern/western front. this would have left the allies in a real bad way and could have ended the war before the americans even had a chance to get involved.
@@metalswifty23 they were kinda biggest player here Once AH fell over 2 milion italians walked across alps to reach germany, war ended before that but if germany somehow kept western front in stalemate they would have been obliterated from the south by italians
Well, according to the treaty art.1 the states "mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States." - which Italy broke by joining the Entente. And also, while not obliged to join the war, Italy was obliged according Art.4 to "bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally." - which Italy also didn't do
@@devilhard66 But initial part of art. 4 says that "n case a Great Power non-signatory to the present Treaty should threaten the security of the states of one of the High Contracting Parties, and the threatened Party should find itself forced on that account to make war against it," So the neutrality is NOT ensured if the agressor is one of the three members of the alliance.
Short answer to this answer: If the defensive ally is a historical enemy of your country rest assured that it will happen, because the alliance is mutually sham. It is as long as there is no war. This is particularly true in the case where one side forcibly holds culturally ally's cities and territories, while the ally does not hold your cities and territories.
@@devilhard66 well, according to the treaty art.25 the states "youre dumbass and a meme historian who cant read history throught book but instead choose to be 1 braincell"
King Victor's main worry when he heard of archduke Franz's assassination was that now he was obligated to buy villa d'Este in Tivoli, it was owned by Franz and now that he was dead the italian state was morally obligated to make an offer for its purchase due to the palace's historical value. The problem was that it was also expensive.
One of the main things that made Italy not join the Central Powers is that the Triple Alliance was a Defensive pact, meaning that they would only aid the other in case of being invaded, and in this case, both Germany and Austria were the ones Who started the aggression, meaning that Italy didn't have to join in with them and therefore could declare itself as neutral
That's the technical reason, it only answers why they didn't join the war immediately. Not why they went to war against their former defensive alliance partners.
Half right. It Was a defensive pakt yes, but also a peace pakt. According to the treaty art.1 the states "mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States." - which Italy broke by joining the Entente. And also, while not obliged to join the war, Italy was obliged according Art.4 to "bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally." - which Italy also didn't do
@@devilhard66 Italy asked Austria-Hungary if they were to upheld the terms of the pakt both after the annexation of Bosnia and, later, the occupation of Serbia. The austrian response was something along the line of: "better load your guns before coming to us with those demands".
italy ask AH territories in exchange to join the war with the central powers but entente promise more lands than them (but after they war they denied all their promises) so italy join the entente
At this point, I don't believe James Bisonette exists. He seems to be an enigma, a phantom created to find solace from the helplessness of our everyday life. He seems to be our damnation and our redemption while being none of those things. Great video as always!
That's how the country was born. The House of Savoy (that would eventually unify Italy) slowly but steadily grew their domains over the course of centuries by switching sides whenever convenient, and up to WW2, it paid off (and arguably that too, I doubt the Allies would have spared us a full occupation like in Germany or Japan had we not flipped in '43).
@@andreascovano7742 it didn't really paid that much in WW1. Imagine fighting an incredibly expensive and bloody 3-years war that costed the life of almost 500K Italians, destroyed the economy and almost brought the country on the verge of collapse for... Alto Adige (mountainous land filled with Austrians), Dalmazia and Istria (quite poor provinces, also filled with slav population) and Trieste. Compare this with the territorial gains/war effort Italy had during the Risorgimento wars, and you can see why the population was so mad with the King and the Government after WW1, everyone felt like the Entente lied to Italy (since they promised much more land in the balkans and some of the colonies of Germany in Africa), and Mussolini and his fascists had an easy time exploiting this sentiment of distrust towards France and England.
@@andreap8343 Not really. THe shouthern half of trento was fully italian, was considered a missing province of italy. And even Bolzano is italian, at least the city. And there were a ton more italians in the east in Istria and Dalmazia. So those provinces were good. THe loss of life, whilst tragic, gave material benefits. Far more than say england who gained nothing or france who only gained alsace. If it was anger, it was because they erroneously felt cheated and looked down upon in versailles.
@@andreascovano7742 Bolzano it's only Italian because of Mussolini,Istria and Dalmatia are slav majority lands,and Italy only got Zara,other lands Dalmatia had fewer Italians,it was a dumb move.
At the time there was a widespread feeling of an incomplete Italian unification, from which the term Irredentism was born, something that did not disappear after the end of the war, because in the face of disastrous losses of human life in the trenches, the lands granted to Italy were lower than those promised, and therefore some Italians were still relegated to living in foreign states. The rancor of this "mutilated victory", as it was called, and the ingratitude of Italian society towards war veterans were two of the various reasons that fomented the growth of Fascism which was theorized by Mussolini shortly thereafter.
Between 1914 and 1915 the former German Chancellor Von Bülow came in Italy in a diplomatic mission, and tried without success to convince Austria to give Trento and Trieste to Italy. He was very angry when Austria refuesed
Yes But anti Italianism seems to be a fundamental trait of Anglo Saxon cultural identity, therefore We have to be vilified for doing exactly what the others were doing, simply because we don't sugarcoat our foreign policy.
Not sure about Britain's historical alliances but currently Americas alliance NATO is about keeping tyrants at bay rather than "getting something". I mean you would have to stretch to say the foreign policy is about who gives the most stuff, although you could say it's a trade US offers protection and supplies and the ability to use our bases and stuff in exchange for... continued free trade I guess? Not having to worry about someone invading Europe, (the main concern during the Cold War) Kinda seems one sided despite the US being the one with the power and bargaining chips. Pretty bizarre alliance when you think about it. I guess more like a coalition really.
@@giulianoilfilosofo7927 also funny for you to say racism (well not sure if you say race or culture in this case, but you get what I mean.) Against Italians is inherent in Anglo Saxons, which is kinda racist.
@@ChaffyExpert A pity that it happens to be the truth, as the anti Italian discourse still persistent in your media shows. And your view of Nato is naive at best.
@@giulianoilfilosofo7927 sounds like whining and trying to win the oppression Olympics by making a vague statement that All Anglo Saxons are anti-italian. Nobody cares about your useless little county except for taking vacations to Rome or Venice or Milan.
Tsar Alexander II himself said that he would not attempt to take away the autonomy of the Finns as they were the only people in his Empire that weren't in active revolt, too bad his successor wasn't as bright minded as he was.
Russia, whether the Empire or the USSR, always liked the idea of buffer states. Hence, Finland gets autonomy, and the Baltic states don't. Also, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and the way Eastern Europe wasn't absorbed (as such) into the USSR.
Italy asked Austria-Hungary if they were to upheld the terms of the pakt both after the annexation of Bosnia and, later, the occupation of Serbia. The austrian response was something along the line of: "better load your guns before coming to us with demands". One more thing with Salandra: he also resigned because he feared that the anti-constitutionality of his (and the king's) maneuver to enter the war bypassing the parliament would lead to prison.
Simple answer: cause Vienna nullified the defensive pact (that WASN'T an Alliance but a very different thing from an Alliance) breacing the Article 7 pact (warned by Rome to not do that) declaring war at Serbia. When the Article 7 of the defensive pact clearly stated that if any member of the pact would have become an aggressor, the pact should have been considered null and the pact members returning immediately on a neutral state.
Austria started the war, alliance was defensive pact (it mean it is valid if another nation attack one of the three nation involved on the Triplice Alliance). Austria broke the treat of the defensive alliance by declaring war on Serbia without the consent of Italy [treaty 2 1887] [ i put the treaty in the comment if you are interested]. Italy asked to join as ally of Austria but asked for territory [principle of mutual compensation (those are two words written in the treaty) [treaty 2 1887] but Austria preferred broke alliance off. This should close the talk of Italy's turncoat which is often used online by people who don't want to get informed and simply do the edgylords or racists.
[Art. 4. treaty 2 1887] [mutual compensation] [...] In the event that, as a result of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and Aegean Sea should become impossible and that, either as a consequence of the action of a third Power, whether or not Austria-Hungary or Italy should find it necessary to modify it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation will only take place after a prior agreement between the two aforementioned Powers, based on the principle of mutual compensation for any territorial or other advantage that each of them obtains in addition to the current status quo, and such as to satisfy the well-founded interests and claims of the Parties.
@@GB-ko8cv in this case is crazy, the history of "Muh Italy bad, traitors, ecc." was German propaganda during both world wars, but for some reasons French, British, American, ecc. historians still believe today in this crap
To add that Italy had opposed two times to austrian actions versus Serbia before WWI. That because it was informed, as by the triple alliance treaty. Third time Austria didn't informed Italy about their new move against Serbia.
I like the choice to strategically quit to keep his job. People could waffle back and forth and blame him indefinitely... until suddenly it was on them to choose and they couldn't blame him anymore. By quitting he forced the king to choose, and then his opponents were stuck with the awful choice of either criticizing the king or accepting the choice. That's a very clever move!
Yep, and coincidentally that was the deal breaker for Italy because South Tyrol was considered of critical strategic importance (To defend against invaders by fortifying the mountain passes). If Austria-Hungary had offered it, Italy might have even accepted to remain neutral
Austria-Hungary promised Italy all their own territory inhabited by Italians. While England promised them also even more Austrian territory inhabited by Germans (South Tyrol) and Slovenes and Croats (Istria and Dalmatia). So Italy went full imperialistic mode and was able to occupy territory with people which never wanted to be part of Italy.
@@devilhard66 No, actually Austria Hungary refused to give away Trieste because it was the most important port in the empire. Also the western part of Istria, Pola (Pula), Fiume (Rijeka) and Zara (Zadar) were inhabited by Italians. You are right about the rest of Dalmatia though.
@@devilhard66 Austria-Hungary had territories inhabitanted by Romanians, Serbs, Croatians, Slovenians, Italians, Poles, Czechs, Slovakians, Ukrainians and Bosnians... With this perspective, Italian territorial demands almost look sane in comparison...
@@devilhard66 Not really. They refused the idea of give Trentino to Italy, even less for Trieste since their main port on Adriatic sea. It was the german ambassador Bülow that was suggesting to give Trentino to Italy and some "autonomy" to Trieste. He wanted Italy to be neutral since major economic-financial interest of Germany in Italy, but also to have continue to have Italy as source of food and military supplies. Only in march 2015 the austrians offered part of Trentino, including the city of Trento, but to be negotiated after the war.
Thank You For This Video. It was really very Nice & Informative. May God Bless You & Your Channel. We wish you all the Beat. Thank You. 🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸💐💐💐💐💐🪷🪷🪷🪷🪷❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻👍👍👍👍👍🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂.
I see many comments of people surprised that the Italian government considered the Entente offer in terms of territorial gains "better" than the Central Powers counterpart. In fact, the land offered by the Central Power wasn't that interesting. Tunisia was nice, but the Entente offered Italy to give them the german colonies in East Africa (spoiler: they didn't). Corsica was inhabited by Italians, but it was also a rocky island, underdeveloped and mostly inhabited. Not that useful really. On the other side, the Entente offer was much better: south Tyrol (very important, because it allowed to finally "close" Italy's borders and locking it to the Alps, look at a geography map to understand better), Trieste (most important port in the Adriatic sea, inhabited by a majority of Italians), Istria and Dalmatia (also filled with Italians, although not the majority) and finally the aforementioned German colonies in East Africa. When you see it this way, you realize why the Italian government decided to side with the Entente, along with a very important factor that's not mentioned in this (otherwise very good) video: that the combined UK and French Navy would have absolutely scrapped the Italian + Austrian navy, meaning that Italian ports would have been completely blockaded since 1916, and the entire country left to starve. Imagine what happened in Germany in 1918, but way worse. The Italian government and the king perfectly knew that, and also knew that all the industry and armaments factories would have codes very fast without the coal and ore imported from the UK, our main supplier at the time. Joining the war with the Central Power was a very very remote possibility, the choice at the time wasn't "Entente or Central Power", but more "Entente, or we just stay neutral while we trade with everyone else, like Spain and Portugal".
The same thing happened in Romania. We were allies of the Central Powers but didn't enter the war in 1914, but waited till 1916 to join the Allies. The reason is that King Carol 1st was ethnically german and didn't enjoy going to war against his own people, as the Government wanted in the 1914. After his death, King Ferdinand, his nephew, decided that Romania is going into war against the Central Powers.
0:48 the biggest reason why it allied with the Austro-Hungarian empire, because the Austrians had promised the region of Trentino Alto Adige and the province of Trieste
0:23 I like how Italy "coming into existence" is depicted as it suddenly appearing on the map instead of, you know, the existing Italian peninsula being transformed from a patchwork of rival kingdoms and dutchies into a unified state.
Also, you should have stressed that the triple alliance was a DEFENSIVE pact: being Germany and Austria attackers, we had no obligation of backing them up.
Amazing video as always! I don't suppose you have plans to do a video about America's reaction/role to the Napoleonic wars? (Sorry if it's already been done, I've just been super curious about it for a while)
The short answer is we were kind of busy building our own country at the time so didn't really get involved. Purchasing Louisiana is, at best tangentially related. You could say that our War of 1812 with Britain was a distraction (and it was, kind of) but we did that for our own reasons that had little if anything to do with European politics.
Great video but one wrong detail. As Italian parliament and the people were anti war, they first sought to strike a deal with Austria Hungary where Italy would get Trento, Trieste, Istria and some of Dalmatia, but Austria responded that any agreed border change would have to wait until the end of the war, Italy didn't trust them so the treaty of London happened and Salandra convinced the public with propaganda to pressure parliament into accepting the treaty and declaring war
James Bissonette was the one funding the war my guy. He's responsible for all the great wars throughout history. Who do you think Palpatine was working for?
it was so confusing for the military that they were preparing to fight france and had to change all of their plans and move all of their armies to the other side of the country.
~ 531,000 Italians died in World War I. And in exchange, the country got South Tyrol, and the city of Triest and the area around it. The Italians were not happy. And soon the Fez Wearing Italian Man began to rise.
Also, the treaty of the triple alliance, in its 1891 version, insinuated that no country involved could count on the help of the others in case of War with Great Britain. That, and the fact that the UK declared War on Germany as a défensive action over belgian neutrality, meant that technically, italy wasn't obliged to do anything.
Are you sure? I find no mention of the UK in the Pakt? Which article do you refer to? According to the treaty art.1 the states "mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States." - which Italy broke by joining the Entente. And also, while not obliged to join the war, Italy was obliged according Art.4 to "bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally." - which Italy also didn't do
The whole pact was secret, like most pacts back then, also the London treaty of Italy after ward (Therefor Wilson also wanted to forbid such secret treaties in the future in his 14 points, as he saw them as a reason for why the World war started / became a WorldWar) But thanks if you can find something :)
Actually the pact was defensive and Austria was clearly the aggressor. The real question is not why Italy didn't join its archenemy Austria but why the Germans so foolisly signed the blank check?
@@devilhard66 It should better if You report the complete articles, not a part of them. ARTICLE 4. In case a Great Power non-signatory to the present Treaty should threaten the security of the states of one of the High Contracting Parties, and the threatened Party should find itself forced on that account to make war against it, the two others bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally. And ARTICLE 1. The High Contracting Parties mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States. They engage to proceed to an exchange of ideas on political and economic questions of a general nature which may arise, and they further promise one another mutual support within the limits of their own interests.
“A bad economy, and weak government meant that the Italian people are a little unhappy.” And “Churchill began to describe Italy as Europe’s soft underbelly.”
@@andreascovano7742 Italy compared to Germany and France? D-Day and the occupation of Germany cost the allies way more than Italy did. Churchill wasn't saying that Italy was trash, nor that it would be easy. He was alluding to the fact that compared to ALL the other potential fronts, attacking the very south where Anglo/French/American naval dominance is more useful far away from a very powerful Germany that it was indeed the soft underbelly. I.e if you need to open up a new front, open it there. Considering that Italy flipped in '43 and began helping the allies after that point I'd say his assessment is correct. Another extension, I actually love Italy and Italian history. I think as a whole it's a giant of Culture and I'm British lol
@@princeofdaemons7344 I disagree. Whilst casualty wise, they are comparable, time and resource wise they are not. Germany managed to have a masterful use of the terrain to constantly slow down the allied advance to a crawl. Hell, the north of italy wasnt even liberated by the time the crossing of the rhine happened. The campaign really did not hurt the germans and it distracted a bunch of allied troops
I could stand to learn more about Italian history. I know little about Italy from after the fall of Rome to the formation of the nation-state of Italy proper. Thank you for another comical and informative video! Merry Christmas out there everybody! ✝️🎄
"We recommend attacking the same place 12 times at a horrendous cost"- Still good every time.
Is this somehow related?
@@laff__8821 i think it's a refrence for the austerian/italian battles that was fought in the alps
@@laff__8821 Italy fought 12 battles on the Isozo River to make marginal gains at absolutely horrendous cost.
a left hook like a skoda howiter!
And they would have done it 12 times more if it wasn't for those pesky Germans.
Man that prime minister pulled a pro gamer move.
Real smart politicing
"pro gamer move" that costed the life of 560 000 Italian folks...
Edit: after checking it might actually be 650000
@@doktorkapok8633 Italy would have been dragged in at some point or another, he just happened to choose the winning side
And he wasn't cannibalized too
@@ethanhatcher5533 Probably not. If Italy stayed neutral, why would anyone drag it in? What use would the French have for opening a second front when the one against the Germans was only barely tenable? And why would the Austrians push into Italy while they were busy tied up in the Balkans and getting their asses saved by the Germans in Russia? No one wanted another enemy, so Italy could have probably kept safe and neutral.
Simple animation, questions everybody’s asked but nobody’s answered, right amount of light humor, Consistent uploads. This is why this channel is one of the best history channels on UA-cam.
Come for the dry comedy and obscure history, stay for the endless list of patrons.
draw a line through the part where you said "one of" because fun fact,
*no*
I remember when this channel was 10 Minute History and I'm sure when they transitioned video styles it must have got backlash. I can't give enough credit to whoever made that decision because it's meant we got way more consistent uploads across a wider range of topics. Your comment made me think of that and I just feel like it doesn't get enough appreciation.
All of that plus it is concise. Something many channels can learn from.
These could easily be stretched out to 10 minutes for that sweet ad money, but they aren't and it earns my respect.
It's worth remembering that the German/Austrian/Italian alliance was so "sound" and sincere that when Italy was struck by the Messina earthquake in 1908 (100,000 plus dead), Austria seriously thought about profiting of it by declaring war on Italy.
Tbf, it was mainly one nutjub general in Austria, Conrad von Hötzendorf who had always been calling for a preventive war against Italy. That said, Italy had wanted an alliance with the German Empire, but ended up in a package deal with Austria-Hungary added. The whole thing would have worked out a lot better had Germany picked Russia instead of Austria-Hungary as their main ally, because Germany-Russia-Italy have a legit chance to win the whole war early.
Even in our timeline Russia almost managed to overrun Austria in 1914 and without Germany saving them they'd have collapsed.
afaik Conrad von Hötzendorf advocated for war no less 30 times while being in military stuff. Dude was a fucking warmonger.
btw. his family name is Conrad and "von Hötzendorf" was only his second family name. He even announed that in a newspaper that people should adress him with "Conrad" as this was his preferred family name and people mixed it up even back then.
@@znalniaskas Bismarck left two warnings for Germany. One was that there are always 5 major powers in Europe, and to be on the side with the most. The other was to always be on the same side as Russia. Germany did *neither* of those things, and to make matters worse picked the single worst power on the continent to align itself with.
With friends like that…
@@hirocheeto7795 it's hilarious that it's not easy to tell which war you could be referring to as it is applicable to both times lol
It's also worth pointing out that the relations between Austria-Hungary and Italy were at an all time low by the time of the beginning of WW1.
The video explains the issue with AH annexing land in the Balkans, but it's also worth remembering that AH was also repressing the Italian population in Dalmatia, then during the 1908 Messina earthquake (Literally the most devastating earthquake by loss of life in European history) Hötzendorf, chief of the general staff of the Austro-Hungarian army and navy, called it a good occasion to invade Italy because its army was busy helping the population. Relations were so bad, that the Italians and Austro-Hungarians were literally building fortifications on the border despite being allies because neither trusted the other
Hotzendorf was such a bell end.
Thanks
Plus the competition of influence in Albania towards its Catholic population in the north. Both contested and made up their own alphabets for the Albanian Franciscans to shore up support
Well, Austria-Hungary was right to not trust Italy in the end.
@@devilhard66 …because it did things to warrant Italy not viewing AH as trustworthy
Most of the italians: "War sucks, we prefer peace"
Salandra: "Let me just force the king to declare war, I'm not even sure on which side we'll end up fighting but this move will result in war 100% of the time"
Neutrality wasn't even an option here, you failed to understand the situation. The guy only had 2 choices, choose a side or have someone choose it for him.
@@Tiwack01 You fail to understand Italian politics, Neutrality was indeed an option.
As an italian I can say that Italy could've certainty been kept neutral, as the majority of people wanted peace and they didn't want Italy to join in, no matter on wether the Allies or the Central Powers. But Italy wanted Trento and Trieste at all costs, and Austro-Hungary couldn't give them.
Then Britain arrived and could give all the territories Italy wanted to own, but at one condition: *joining the war on the side of the Allies*.
But yeah, Italy could've been kept neutral for sure and if Austro-Hungary still lost Italy could take the territories easily, but no: I guess we had to be hot heads.
@@Nick-gy6ed you want to know the sad part ? We could have easly take this territory, right at the start, if not for the most retarded, useless general my country ever bread who was so determined to fight the same battle for 12 times, with the same tactics
@@potato88872 Yup. I live next to a street called Cadorna, everytime I hear or see that name I just facepalm for remembering who we're talking about.
The fact that such informative content is free is truly a blessing
It's all thanks to James Bissonate, Kelly Moneymaker, Sky Shapel, et al. Dunno how to spell their names.
It's ALWAYS been free though. You were just never taught how to look for it. Which is not your fault.
It can get quite hard to garner such information when that means that you need to master dozens of languages to read the respective sources.
Don't give him ideas
it always was, it's called a public library
"The Entente recommends to attack the same place 12 times at a horrendous cost" This one had me crying from laughter
Note the "I can’t read" signature from Salandra. X)
The Au-It front was very tiny compared ti the others, with lots of rivers and the Alps line. Isn't so simple to find better battlefields.
Putin: "Write this down, Write this down!!!"
*After the war...*
Italy: We won! Now can I get the stuff you guys promised?
Allies: Yeah... About that...
Mussolini time.
*Willson on it's way to fuck up the borders of europe*
They got what was promised. The mutilated victory is a myth created by the Italian government as a scapegoat of their own impossible promises during the war.
See, the treaty of 1915 promised Italy that France and Britain would push on the peace negotiations with the AUH to get Italy dalmatia.
Issue is, by 1917, it was clear the AUH would not reach the peace table. As such the 1915 was basically null and void. Furthermore, with the USA joining the war, a new treaty had to be written. And in this, still, most Italian territorial claims were respected, and Italy indeed gained a lot of territory from the war.
So if the war did give them so much territory, why then do they complain so much?.
The issue is, in 1917, the Italian army's morale was on the floor. the horrors of war combined with objectively the worst high command in history, made the soldiers revolt. The Italian government, desperate to avoid a full collapse, made a promise to the soldiers: "the land and the vote". Vote, that Italy would become a parliamentary monarchy with an effective body of representation. And land, that all Italian soldiers would get a piece of land, old Roman soldier veterans style.
Now obviously, the promise of land was physically impossible. There wasn't enough land for all this soldiers, at least not fertile land. So when the war ended, the Italian monarchy desperately decried the "Vittoria mutilata" the mutilated victory, claiming that the failed promise of the land was the fault of the entente, not an impossible promise they didn't plan to fulfill anyways.
@@spaceduck2130It's their fault for joining war so late.
@@falconeshield late? Dude we joined way before the US. Win is a win
Fun fact: when Vittorio Emanuele III got to choose between the two sides, it came out that he had never wanted to be king, and was about to abdicate.
But at this point Gabriele D'Annunzio came back from his exile in France, and started a big propaganda against Giolitti and the CP, and convinced the Parliament to agree to the entrance in the Entente.
So, if we joined the war, it's thank to him
Not the last thing D'Annunzio did
Based D'Annunzio as always.
Oh wow that cousin dude was king of Spain for a bit, imagine if the two were ruled in a person union
What about Mussolini and Poppolo Di Italia? He was less popular than D Annuzio?
Well that would’ve been impossible. Victor Emmanuel III’s only son Umberto was already 11 years old when the war broke out. VEIII would’ve had to abdicate in 1903 or sooner if he want the Duke of Aosta to get the job
Franz Joseph running off with a pilfered Bosnia is one of the funniest scenes ever. This content is terrific!
I agree, it gave me a chuckle
1:17 on the question of "why is Rhodes green like Italy" in 1912 Italy seized Rhodes from the Ottoman Empire in the italo-turkish war, Rhodes and the rest of the Dodecanese islands were assigned to Italy in the Treat of Ouchy, Turkey officially ceded these islands to Italy in 1923's Treaty of Lausanne, in Italy this region became known as the Isole italiane dell'Egeo, it came under Italy's control for more then 30 years, after the second world war, at the Paris Peace Treaties, Rhodes and the other Dodecanese islands where united with Greece, 6000 Italian colonists where forced to abandon the island and return to Italy.
Oofy ouchy owy my Greek islands
Italian domestic history is just so fascinating to me
Yeah, it's weird how I keep learning new things about my country every time I look into it
@@NIDELLANEUM you're Italian ?
@@NIDELLANEUM I'm an American but I love world history. Especially when it comes to domestic/foreign policy. Italy (with it being such a young new state during the late 19th century) always interested me since it was surrounded by old existing powers and new states just like itself. All just, wonderful knowledge
"italian domestic history" sounds like a clusterfuck to me. :D but it is certainly interesting
Always liked the part where that one Romulus guy kidnapped a bunch of women and the other tribe just kinda went along with it so long as they got to be Romans too.
Germany and Austria: hey the war started we need help
Italy: damn that’s crazy, good luck tho
Italy: hey guys i sacrificed a bunch of troops in the war like i was supposed to, can i have the land i was promised
britian: damn that crazy, get out
@@sovietunion7643 fascism: It's time
Italy don't worry, I'll be back guys
(WW2 incoming)
@@sovietunion7643 damn, I never thought that 651.000 deaths were just a bunch of deaths
@@thomascattelani7625 according to the british they were, why do you think the italians were so pissed after the first world war
Given the number of videos in which you talk about how Austria-Hungary's decision to annex Bosnia annoyed basically everyone in Europe, I think a good video idea would be to answer why they did so (and why they didn't consult any other European power when doing so)
Because they could.
Simple as that.
@@ИльяЗаболотный-е5м that's just an ignorant reply, don't you want to understand more of the specifics?
@@roguenetwork27 That’s how empires work (especially back there).
They expand if they could.
@@roguenetwork27 Austria was getting a bit drunk with the territorial expansion at that time. Franz Ferdinand’s assassination was a Godsend for them, as Franz Josef didn’t even like him, but could use it as a pretext for war,
Nice works, but there are a couple of blights:
1) there was an economic part also in the decision: Italy needed a LOT fo carbon and steel for its industries, and the Entente (specifically: England) was their principal supplier; Germany and Austria-Hungary had no possibility of taking over that burden;
2) Giolitti was a neutralist, more than a supporter of the Empires.
1:29
”Dear Germany and the other one”
Ouch but true.
James Bissonette could’ve brokered peace between Austria and Italy. What a chad 🥸
Nah
@@jamesbissonette8002 ye
Only if he'd brought Kelly Moneymaker, Skye Chappell.....
@@jamesbissonette8002 Don’t undersell yourself James
Giacomo bisonetti was there
Thanks for being a history teacher and cramming more history in my brain, your one of the people who has inspired me to learn history and be a history teacher on the college level
Oh man I really love this channel. So much fun learning about my favourite subjects in history.
This is crazy, it's like you read my mind, I was actually contemplating this question yesterday (even though I've known the basic offers both sides made to Italy to convince them to join).
I still think had Italy joined the Central Powers in WW1 in 1915, the result would have been much different, and the Central Powers might have actually won before 1917 prior to when the U.S. could actually join.
Idk Italy wasn’t the strongest in WW1
@@thecolorblue9609 But it would have helped Austria, as they wouldn't have their troops tied up fighting Italians, but instead the Balkans, Russia and maybe France. And at the same time France would have had to divert resources to the Italian front, helping the Germans. The extent of the impact still would be unclear, as with all things alt history, but those are the things we could pretty much guarantee in that case.
@@artemis_fowl44hd92 yep thats all they would need. Germany was super close to winning in our timeline.
@@thecolorblue9609 its not about italy power its about its location it would open up another front on france and the austro-italian navy could cause trouble for the british with german support and mostly for the french and the austrians and the germans would had 2 millon troops ready to be deployed in Russia and it would probably lose much earlier than they did without sending Lenin to russia and italy could also help the austrians and the bulgarians fight Venziolsts and the Entente and convince Greece to join the Central powers and italy could help the ottomans in Gallipoli
@@thecolorblue9609 it isn't a matter of being stronger, it's a matter of existence. Franco British forces were stretched thin in northern France, they wouldn't have been able to withstand an attack on the south
Okay the subtle eye movement at 1:30 made me smile. I am onto you now!!
The guy who decided he would resign to see how the king leaned was what we in the meme community call a pro-gamer move. Makes one wonder how things might have gone down if the king decided to let him quit and Italy joined the central powers.
italy joining the central powers would have probably spelled doom for the british. not that italy was some huge player but it was big enough that having to all of a sudden deal with a front, even a weak front, in southeast france, would have pushed the british and french to the breaking point. not to mention german troops could have marched through to supply the italians. also the austrio hungarian empire would not be pre-occupied fighting italy so it could focus on the south sea, or even helping the eastern/western front. this would have left the allies in a real bad way and could have ended the war before the americans even had a chance to get involved.
@@sovietunion7643 So what you're saying is that Italy were the ones who won the war? Nice.
I dont think that would've been the best in the long term for Italy
Entente would lose, all those soldiers freed up from fighting each other could go to other fronts and shift balance of power quiet quickly
@@metalswifty23 they were kinda biggest player here
Once AH fell over 2 milion italians walked across alps to reach germany, war ended before that but if germany somehow kept western front in stalemate they would have been obliterated from the south by italians
Short answer: never expect a defensive alliance to translate into offensive action.
Well, according to the treaty art.1 the states "mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States." - which Italy broke by joining the Entente. And also, while not obliged to join the war, Italy was obliged according Art.4 to "bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally." - which Italy also didn't do
@@devilhard66 But initial part of art. 4 says that "n case a Great Power non-signatory to the present Treaty should threaten the security of the states of one of the High Contracting Parties, and the threatened Party should find itself forced on that account to make war against it,"
So the neutrality is NOT ensured if the agressor is one of the three members of the alliance.
@@donkeymarco That's how one responds to a meme historian
Short answer to this answer: If the defensive ally is a historical enemy of your country rest assured that it will happen, because the alliance is mutually sham. It is as long as there is no war.
This is particularly true in the case where one side forcibly holds culturally ally's cities and territories, while the ally does not hold your cities and territories.
@@devilhard66 well, according to the treaty art.25 the states "youre dumbass and a meme historian who cant read history throught book but instead choose to be 1 braincell"
King Victor's main worry when he heard of archduke Franz's assassination was that now he was obligated to buy villa d'Este in Tivoli, it was owned by Franz and now that he was dead the italian state was morally obligated to make an offer for its purchase due to the palace's historical value. The problem was that it was also expensive.
I'm from Tivoli, didn't know that. Thanks a lot!
One of the main things that made Italy not join the Central Powers is that the Triple Alliance was a Defensive pact, meaning that they would only aid the other in case of being invaded, and in this case, both Germany and Austria were the ones Who started the aggression, meaning that Italy didn't have to join in with them and therefore could declare itself as neutral
That's the technical reason, it only answers why they didn't join the war immediately. Not why they went to war against their former defensive alliance partners.
Same strategy applied by Romania
Half right. It Was a defensive pakt yes, but also a peace pakt. According to the treaty art.1 the states "mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States." - which Italy broke by joining the Entente. And also, while not obliged to join the war, Italy was obliged according Art.4 to "bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally." - which Italy also didn't do
@@devilhard66 Italy asked Austria-Hungary if they were to upheld the terms of the pakt both after the annexation of Bosnia and, later, the occupation of Serbia. The austrian response was something along the line of: "better load your guns before coming to us with those demands".
italy ask AH territories in exchange to join the war with the central powers but entente promise more lands than them (but after they war they denied all their promises) so italy join the entente
Your channel is the reason I ace every social studies quiz without studying in a honours class. Love your vids so much
Italy: You'll support our claims on Austrian territory, right?
Entente: *Awkward silence*
Italy: Right?
I have been wanting this for A YEAR!
At this point, I don't believe James Bisonette exists. He seems to be an enigma, a phantom created to find solace from the helplessness of our everyday life. He seems to be our damnation and our redemption while being none of those things. Great video as always!
Many claim to be James Bisonette, including a famous chef in Boston USA, but they are all traitorous pretenders.
He is the spirit of History
James Bissonette is not the hero we deserve but the hero we need!
That was a more complex situation than I realized.
Never knew the details of the that particular decision. Very enlightening.
One of my favorite things about your videos is your attention to firearms throughout history. 👍
Among the reasons Giolitti was pro Central Powers (actually pro Germany), there was:"the war will last more than three months". Well, he wasn't wrong
I'm glad that such a channel exists.
Italy has always had a very pragmatic foreign policy. It served the country best to not get too attached to a single side in conflicts.
Which actually gave dividends. It gained pretty big territorial possesions in ww1 and lost almost nothing in ww2.
That's how the country was born. The House of Savoy (that would eventually unify Italy) slowly but steadily grew their domains over the course of centuries by switching sides whenever convenient, and up to WW2, it paid off (and arguably that too, I doubt the Allies would have spared us a full occupation like in Germany or Japan had we not flipped in '43).
@@andreascovano7742 it didn't really paid that much in WW1. Imagine fighting an incredibly expensive and bloody 3-years war that costed the life of almost 500K Italians, destroyed the economy and almost brought the country on the verge of collapse for... Alto Adige (mountainous land filled with Austrians), Dalmazia and Istria (quite poor provinces, also filled with slav population) and Trieste. Compare this with the territorial gains/war effort Italy had during the Risorgimento wars, and you can see why the population was so mad with the King and the Government after WW1, everyone felt like the Entente lied to Italy (since they promised much more land in the balkans and some of the colonies of Germany in Africa), and Mussolini and his fascists had an easy time exploiting this sentiment of distrust towards France and England.
@@andreap8343 Not really. THe shouthern half of trento was fully italian, was considered a missing province of italy. And even Bolzano is italian, at least the city. And there were a ton more italians in the east in Istria and Dalmazia. So those provinces were good. THe loss of life, whilst tragic, gave material benefits. Far more than say england who gained nothing or france who only gained alsace. If it was anger, it was because they erroneously felt cheated and looked down upon in versailles.
@@andreascovano7742 Bolzano it's only Italian because of Mussolini,Istria and Dalmatia are slav majority lands,and Italy only got Zara,other lands Dalmatia had fewer Italians,it was a dumb move.
I love your animations and also how informative and funny they are. You are a really good content creator
At the time there was a widespread feeling of an incomplete Italian unification, from which the term Irredentism was born, something that did not disappear after the end of the war, because in the face of disastrous losses of human life in the trenches, the lands granted to Italy were lower than those promised, and therefore some Italians were still relegated to living in foreign states. The rancor of this "mutilated victory", as it was called, and the ingratitude of Italian society towards war veterans were two of the various reasons that fomented the growth of Fascism which was theorized by Mussolini shortly thereafter.
Mr. Salandra gets an A+ for situational awareness!
Between 1914 and 1915 the former German Chancellor Von Bülow came in Italy in a diplomatic mission, and tried without success to convince Austria to give Trento and Trieste to Italy. He was very angry when Austria refuesed
I'm always impressed at the keen likenesses in your animation. Fun AND informative
Look at that german and austro-hungarian soldier drip, as well as the Italian soldier uniform, man it looks fantastic
Amazing video as always!
“Who can give us the most?”
Hasn’t that been the guiding principle of every alliance for every country, ever, really?
Yes But anti Italianism seems to be a fundamental trait of Anglo Saxon cultural identity, therefore We have to be vilified for doing exactly what the others were doing, simply because we don't sugarcoat our foreign policy.
Not sure about Britain's historical alliances but currently Americas alliance NATO is about keeping tyrants at bay rather than "getting something".
I mean you would have to stretch to say the foreign policy is about who gives the most stuff, although you could say it's a trade US offers protection and supplies and the ability to use our bases and stuff in exchange for... continued free trade I guess? Not having to worry about someone invading Europe, (the main concern during the Cold War) Kinda seems one sided despite the US being the one with the power and bargaining chips. Pretty bizarre alliance when you think about it. I guess more like a coalition really.
@@giulianoilfilosofo7927 also funny for you to say racism (well not sure if you say race or culture in this case, but you get what I mean.) Against Italians is inherent in Anglo Saxons, which is kinda racist.
@@ChaffyExpert A pity that it happens to be the truth, as the anti Italian discourse still persistent in your media shows. And your view of Nato is naive at best.
@@giulianoilfilosofo7927 sounds like whining and trying to win the oppression Olympics by making a vague statement that All Anglo Saxons are anti-italian. Nobody cares about your useless little county except for taking vacations to Rome or Venice or Milan.
Awesome, we were just learning this in history class
Finally someone pointing out the Balkan clause in the defensive pact
Many thanks to James Bissonette for providing us with so many years of these wonderful videos.
Props to Kelly Moneymaker as well
That's a pretty genius level move by the PM.
Gonna be a good day when this channel uploads a new video
0:24 i love the pop sound
Great vid, would love to see a vid on the Boer war
Video idea as a loyal Patreon supporter: Why was Finland 🇫🇮 given autonomy in the Russian Empire?
-$4.99
Great question
Tsar Alexander II himself said that he would not attempt to take away the autonomy of the Finns as they were the only people in his Empire that weren't in active revolt, too bad his successor wasn't as bright minded as he was.
Russia, whether the Empire or the USSR, always liked the idea of buffer states. Hence, Finland gets autonomy, and the Baltic states don't. Also, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and the way Eastern Europe wasn't absorbed (as such) into the USSR.
A UA-cam channel you never knew you needed.
Your “secret friendship” animation was so funny
Italy asked Austria-Hungary if they were to upheld the terms of the pakt both after the annexation of Bosnia and, later, the occupation of Serbia. The austrian response was something along the line of: "better load your guns before coming to us with demands".
One more thing with Salandra: he also resigned because he feared that the anti-constitutionality of his (and the king's) maneuver to enter the war bypassing the parliament would lead to prison.
I knew little of this before.
Thank you.
☮
That 'welcome to Belgium, no Dutch allowed' is just the best meme.
Unity is strength; stroopwaffles are delicious.
Everyone's talking about the Isonzo joke, but I love that Salandra signed the treaty with an X, implying he couldn't read.
Simple answer: cause Vienna nullified the defensive pact (that WASN'T an Alliance but a very different thing from an Alliance) breacing the Article 7 pact (warned by Rome to not do that) declaring war at Serbia. When the Article 7 of the defensive pact clearly stated that if any member of the pact would have become an aggressor, the pact should have been considered null and the pact members returning immediately on a neutral state.
That is some brilliant political maneuvering by Salandra.
Austria started the war, alliance was defensive pact (it mean it is valid if another nation attack one of the three nation involved on the Triplice Alliance).
Austria broke the treat of the defensive alliance by declaring war on Serbia without the consent of Italy [treaty 2 1887] [ i put the treaty in the comment if you are interested].
Italy asked to join as ally of Austria but asked for territory [principle of mutual compensation (those are two words written in the treaty) [treaty 2 1887] but Austria preferred broke alliance off.
This should close the talk of Italy's turncoat which is often used online by people who don't want to get informed and simply do the edgylords or racists.
[Art. 4. treaty 2 1887] [mutual compensation]
[...] In the event that, as a result of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and Aegean Sea should become impossible and that, either as a consequence of the action of a third Power, whether or not Austria-Hungary or Italy should find it necessary to modify it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation will only take place after a prior agreement between the two aforementioned Powers, based on the principle of mutual compensation for any territorial or other advantage that each of them obtains in addition to the current status quo, and such as to satisfy the well-founded interests and claims of the Parties.
Great comment! Its very annoying that many calls Italy "traitor" or "change side" without know the reality
@@poghos633 thanks man, unfortunately history is written from the winners
@@GB-ko8cv in this case is crazy, the history of "Muh Italy bad, traitors, ecc." was German propaganda during both world wars, but for some reasons French, British, American, ecc. historians still believe today in this crap
To add that Italy had opposed two times to austrian actions versus Serbia before WWI. That because it was informed, as by the triple alliance treaty.
Third time Austria didn't informed Italy about their new move against Serbia.
"Will legislate for food". That cracked me up
I like the choice to strategically quit to keep his job. People could waffle back and forth and blame him indefinitely... until suddenly it was on them to choose and they couldn't blame him anymore. By quitting he forced the king to choose, and then his opponents were stuck with the awful choice of either criticizing the king or accepting the choice. That's a very clever move!
and the bit about stroopwafels, priceless
2:05 Austria actually offered Trentino only, not South Tyrol.
Yep, and coincidentally that was the deal breaker for Italy because South Tyrol was considered of critical strategic importance (To defend against invaders by fortifying the mountain passes).
If Austria-Hungary had offered it, Italy might have even accepted to remain neutral
Austria-Hungary promised Italy all their own territory inhabited by Italians. While England promised them also even more Austrian territory inhabited by Germans (South Tyrol) and Slovenes and Croats (Istria and Dalmatia). So Italy went full imperialistic mode and was able to occupy territory with people which never wanted to be part of Italy.
@@devilhard66 No, actually Austria Hungary refused to give away Trieste because it was the most important port in the empire. Also the western part of Istria, Pola (Pula), Fiume (Rijeka) and Zara (Zadar) were inhabited by Italians.
You are right about the rest of Dalmatia though.
@@devilhard66 Austria-Hungary had territories inhabitanted by Romanians, Serbs, Croatians, Slovenians, Italians, Poles, Czechs, Slovakians, Ukrainians and Bosnians... With this perspective, Italian territorial demands almost look sane in comparison...
@@devilhard66 Not really. They refused the idea of give Trentino to Italy, even less for Trieste since their main port on Adriatic sea.
It was the german ambassador Bülow that was suggesting to give Trentino to Italy and some "autonomy" to Trieste. He wanted Italy to be neutral since major economic-financial interest of Germany in Italy, but also to have continue to have Italy as source of food and military supplies.
Only in march 2015 the austrians offered part of Trentino, including the city of Trento, but to be negotiated after the war.
The King of Italy: Literally the red superhero guy sweating profusely over which red button to choose.
Perfect timing! I just finished the Italian campaign in Battlefield 1 last night, RIP Matteo...
Another amazing video
Weird how "one side offered more stuff" can be so complicated.
Thank You For This Video. It was really very Nice & Informative. May God Bless You & Your Channel. We wish you all the Beat. Thank You. 🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸💐💐💐💐💐🪷🪷🪷🪷🪷❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻👍👍👍👍👍🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂.
Big brain move at the end there
I see many comments of people surprised that the Italian government considered the Entente offer in terms of territorial gains "better" than the Central Powers counterpart. In fact, the land offered by the Central Power wasn't that interesting. Tunisia was nice, but the Entente offered Italy to give them the german colonies in East Africa (spoiler: they didn't). Corsica was inhabited by Italians, but it was also a rocky island, underdeveloped and mostly inhabited. Not that useful really.
On the other side, the Entente offer was much better: south Tyrol (very important, because it allowed to finally "close" Italy's borders and locking it to the Alps, look at a geography map to understand better), Trieste (most important port in the Adriatic sea, inhabited by a majority of Italians), Istria and Dalmatia (also filled with Italians, although not the majority) and finally the aforementioned German colonies in East Africa.
When you see it this way, you realize why the Italian government decided to side with the Entente, along with a very important factor that's not mentioned in this (otherwise very good) video: that the combined UK and French Navy would have absolutely scrapped the Italian + Austrian navy, meaning that Italian ports would have been completely blockaded since 1916, and the entire country left to starve. Imagine what happened in Germany in 1918, but way worse.
The Italian government and the king perfectly knew that, and also knew that all the industry and armaments factories would have codes very fast without the coal and ore imported from the UK, our main supplier at the time. Joining the war with the Central Power was a very very remote possibility, the choice at the time wasn't "Entente or Central Power", but more "Entente, or we just stay neutral while we trade with everyone else, like Spain and Portugal".
The same thing happened in Romania. We were allies of the Central Powers but didn't enter the war in 1914, but waited till 1916 to join the Allies. The reason is that King Carol 1st was ethnically german and didn't enjoy going to war against his own people, as the Government wanted in the 1914. After his death, King Ferdinand, his nephew, decided that Romania is going into war against the Central Powers.
0:04 How did Italy possess those Greek islands? I never knew that before.
It took them from the Ottomans in the 1911 war
That’s a pretty dope move from the prime minister there
0:48 the biggest reason why it allied with the Austro-Hungarian empire, because the Austrians had promised the region of Trentino Alto Adige and the province of Trieste
Man I love your videos.
0:23 I like how Italy "coming into existence" is depicted as it suddenly appearing on the map instead of, you know, the existing Italian peninsula being transformed from a patchwork of rival kingdoms and dutchies into a unified state.
Oh man that Treaty of London is a gem.
These videos are always Phenomenal. And rather well timed, might I add.
Kind of a chad move forcing the king's hand like that.
Also, you should have stressed that the triple alliance was a DEFENSIVE pact: being Germany and Austria attackers, we had no obligation of backing them up.
Lmao, didnt expect to see a 'Stroopwafels zijn heerlijk' halfway through the video
It's also important to point out that Britian was the source of a large amount of Italian coal and iron at the time.
Both Britain and France were their main trading partner.
Amazing video as always!
I don't suppose you have plans to do a video about America's reaction/role to the Napoleonic wars? (Sorry if it's already been done, I've just been super curious about it for a while)
The short answer is we were kind of busy building our own country at the time so didn't really get involved. Purchasing Louisiana is, at best tangentially related. You could say that our War of 1812 with Britain was a distraction (and it was, kind of) but we did that for our own reasons that had little if anything to do with European politics.
I shall immediately begin making "Will Legislate for Food." sandwich boards.
Great video but one wrong detail. As Italian parliament and the people were anti war, they first sought to strike a deal with Austria Hungary where Italy would get Trento, Trieste, Istria and some of Dalmatia, but Austria responded that any agreed border change would have to wait until the end of the war, Italy didn't trust them so the treaty of London happened and Salandra convinced the public with propaganda to pressure parliament into accepting the treaty and declaring war
Because James Bissonette was a diehard Italian politician who influenced the nation to join the Entente
No he bribed them
James Bissonette was the one funding the war my guy. He's responsible for all the great wars throughout history.
Who do you think Palpatine was working for?
Sounds plausible
@@jamesbissonette8002haha
it was so confusing for the military that they were preparing to fight france and had to change all of their plans and move all of their armies to the other side of the country.
~ 531,000 Italians died in World War I. And in exchange, the country got South Tyrol, and the city of Triest and the area around it. The Italians were not happy. And soon the Fez Wearing Italian Man began to rise.
Also, the treaty of the triple alliance, in its 1891 version, insinuated that no country involved could count on the help of the others in case of War with Great Britain. That, and the fact that the UK declared War on Germany as a défensive action over belgian neutrality, meant that technically, italy wasn't obliged to do anything.
Are you sure? I find no mention of the UK in the Pakt? Which article do you refer to? According to the treaty art.1 the states "mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States." - which Italy broke by joining the Entente. And also, while not obliged to join the war, Italy was obliged according Art.4 to "bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally." - which Italy also didn't do
@@devilhard66 it was a secret clause, but 100% sure it existed, i'll try to find it and i'll go back to you.
The whole pact was secret, like most pacts back then, also the London treaty of Italy after ward (Therefor Wilson also wanted to forbid such secret treaties in the future in his 14 points, as he saw them as a reason for why the World war started / became a WorldWar) But thanks if you can find something :)
Actually the pact was defensive and Austria was clearly the aggressor. The real question is not why Italy didn't join its archenemy Austria but why the Germans so foolisly signed the blank check?
@@devilhard66 It should better if You report the complete articles, not a part of them.
ARTICLE 4. In case a Great Power non-signatory to the present Treaty should threaten the security of the states of one of the High Contracting Parties, and the threatened Party should find itself forced on that account to make war against it, the two others bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally.
And
ARTICLE 1. The High Contracting Parties mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States.
They engage to proceed to an exchange of ideas on political and economic questions of a general nature which may arise, and they further promise one another mutual support within the limits of their own interests.
Very important to mention, is that Italy was economically dependent on England.
Italy literally got scammed by the Entente
One of the reasons of the rise of Mussolini and for his alliance with Hitler
A lot of countries did.
They gave italy too much actually
No the situation changed since austria collapsed
Bring back 10 minute history once a month or once every 3 months or something
Even im Italian and this is something i always hear about but never considered why
When James Bissonette tells Italy to go Entente...Italy goes Entente.
And Entente we went. Thanks James
That was a pro gamer move from the Italian prime minister.
Good job
“A bad economy, and weak government meant that the Italian people are a little unhappy.” And “Churchill began to describe Italy as Europe’s soft underbelly.”
And really nothing has changed in Italy since
Well considering how horrible the Italian campaign in ww2 was, we can put this in the gallipoli category of churchill's assesments
@@andreascovano7742
Italy compared to Germany and France?
D-Day and the occupation of Germany cost the allies way more than Italy did.
Churchill wasn't saying that Italy was trash, nor that it would be easy.
He was alluding to the fact that compared to ALL the other potential fronts, attacking the very south where Anglo/French/American naval dominance is more useful far away from a very powerful Germany that it was indeed the soft underbelly.
I.e if you need to open up a new front, open it there.
Considering that Italy flipped in '43 and began helping the allies after that point I'd say his assessment is correct.
Another extension, I actually love Italy and Italian history. I think as a whole it's a giant of Culture and I'm British lol
@@princeofdaemons7344 I disagree. Whilst casualty wise, they are comparable, time and resource wise they are not. Germany managed to have a masterful use of the terrain to constantly slow down the allied advance to a crawl. Hell, the north of italy wasnt even liberated by the time the crossing of the rhine happened. The campaign really did not hurt the germans and it distracted a bunch of allied troops
@@andreascovano7742 bruh france fell faster than italy. france is the europe soft underbully not italy.
I could stand to learn more about Italian history. I know little about Italy from after the fall of Rome to the formation of the nation-state of Italy proper. Thank you for another comical and informative video!
Merry Christmas out there everybody! ✝️🎄