Thanks for watching! Any mistakes should be posted underneath this comment. If you want to support the show and expand our budget, please consider becoming a Patron on Patreon! www.patreon.com/armchairhistory Griff
Nice job, just a few things... The year 1871 doesn't have any particular meaning in the Italian reunification process. The Kingdom of Italy was established in 1861, after the so called "Second Italian war of independence" of 1859 (Piedmont allied with France against Austria), the Garibaldi Campaign of 1860 in the South and the referendums that took place in regions involved in this events. 1861 is considered in Italy to be the year of the "Unità d'Italia". In 1866 the "Third Italian war of independance" was fought (Italy allied with Prussia against Austria), which gained Italy Veneto and most of the Friuli region. In 1870 the Capture of Rome is the event that ended the Italian Risorgimento (Italy taking Rome and ending the State of the Church while France and Prussia are too busy fighting the Franco-Prussian war to really care about what's going on with the Pope). On the other hand 1871 is the year of the founding of the German Empire. Confusion between Italian and German reunification dates is actually a pretty common mistake on UA-cam! In the first map showed in the video Italy's missing Veneto and Friuli (an area roughly the size of Massachusetts). Since that's presumably related to the Giolitti years, that's not correct. That would also be wrong in relation to the signing of the Triple Alliance in 1882, as this border didn't change between 1866 and 1915. Eventually those regions are correctly included in the other map which is showed later on, when WWI is discussed. The guy on the right at 1.07 is Vittorio Emanuele II, not III. I mean... I agree that may not sound like such a big deal, but still... would you take a Lincoln for a Grant while talking about US Presidents? Fun fact: the guy eating pasta at 3.16 is Alberto Sordi in a famous scene from "Un Americano a Roma", a 1954 movie actually mocking the Americanization of Italian society in the years after WWII ua-cam.com/video/ikZgUHJys2s/v-deo.html
Couple things...the video makes it seem like Italy got the territories it was promised, but that is not the case. Italian nationalists complained that the Treaty of London was not actually fulfilled. Additionally, Italy suffered severe economic hardships after the war, which was the primary reason for the rise of Mussolini and fascism (not to mention communism). The end of the video doesn't seem to reflect the realities of the post-war period. I do enjoy your channel, though!
Correct. Communism enjoyed a surge of popularity in some European countries after the war, including Italy. Italian fascists would attack communists during protests and rallies, a scene that would be repeated in Germany a few years later.
'Italian nationalists complained that the Treaty of London was not actually fulfilled' True they did say that and then invaded the territories of current Slovenia and did what every fascist county does to a minority. Try to eliminate their culture and forcefully move them to other parts of Italy where they will serve as cheap labor.
That's when the Kingdom of Italy was officially declared, but it didn't include Venice or Rome at the time. Venice was annexed in 1866, and Rome in 1871.
This is wrong. The UK promised so much more to Italy, basically every land touching the Adriadic Sea as well as parts of Austria. In essence all the UK gave Italy was land they had took from Austria, that tyrol section. Also you understate the Animosity between Italy and Austria. THAT is the real reason Italy choose the Allies.
It would have just been smarter for Italy to have gone with the UK. At least they will have their colonies for a bit longer and use that oil money for something
Lol why the hell would you reward traitors, Britain did the right thing and should even had taken land from them. They were more of a nuisance rather than an ally lol
@3213232 1231223 Envy for what, the Italian army? The UK doesn't hate Italy it has only gone against it in wwii. I don't know why you think Italy wouldn't exist if it went with the UK if anything it would be stronger
@@trauko1388 royal assasination made by a private immigrants? i call that terrorism, defensive pact are used when an actuall ARMY invade your territory or a state declare war to you, i can bet my left hand the defensive agreement litteraly state "in case fo war declaration lol"
Hotenzdorf and Cadorna on the same side. Imagine Indy narrating it. I guess the Rumbles on the Isonzo would have been on some river in southeast france, and against Haig!
What means italian lands ?? Trento and Trieste have been under Austrian rule since the 16 century. Even Napoleons Fantasy Italy has none of these territories. There is no legitimate claim on these. All this is made up by nationalists and fascists. All italy have brought these territories is economical downfall and the wipeout of ethnical minorities in these regions.
@tiglath pileser There is no former kingdom of Italy ?? Trentino was Always part of Tyrol and Trieste was Part of Austria since 1382. A Kingdom of Italy was non-existent until 1812. and Croatia and Bosnia Herzogwina were freed of Ottoman rule. The Crown of Croatia is connected to the Crown of Hungary since the 14 Century. All slavs volks have extrem autonomy and were not supressed. Croatia had even their own Parlament in Agram. You only search exuses for the nationalists and Fascist behaviour of Italy. There are no ethnics only different languages. Ethnic is the "Family friendly" Version of race
Gabriele D'Annunzio called it "the wounded victory" because the italian kingom didnt obtained all the territories, that was the cause of the raise of fascism, plus, keep in mind how much northern italians hated the austrians at that time, if you look back at the various indipendence and unification wars~
Matteo Soffietto so millions of deaths due to a useless war lead to the rise of an ideology that supports another useless war that would claim the lives of millions? Smart
Mick Mickymick It was ruined by Napoleonic wars and even before was shadow of his former self. And in 19th century constant switching of government and unrest made it really weak.
isolated colonization became burden for spanish empire to maintain its power because of poor city connections which british empire, its rival, won naval supremacy against spanish armada and made blockade rendering spanish to make connect to its colonies through water. and alot of revolution during spanish colonization happened and it tooks heavy burden for spanish military to enforce law in its colonies thats why they sold its colonies to US
Incompetence in administration, it is better to have a small country with few to almost no resources but a good administration than have a big heavy empire economy but with a shitty administration. Spain monarchy was famous for the bloody persecution of rivals, not paying debts, corruption, inquisition, pointless wars, prevalence of medieval isntitutions,, excess burocracy and other things. Holland was almost the opposite of it, and the reason why they could easely surpass them at the XVII century.
There's a quote (presumably) from Otto Von Bismarck that defines it pretty well, and it's still valid today: ‘I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success’
Thank you for clarifying that the alliance was defensive. People seem to forget it. Plus, Austria didn't consult Italy before declaring war. Important to consider the fact that Fascism and Nationalism took over thanks to the fact that many of the promised land was then NOT given to Italy (due to the fact that America opposed it, as a non-signatory of the Treaty of London", creating the myth of the "Mutilated Victory")
you declared war on the witch country had a devensive pakt with you..... how on can you say that this isnt betraying someone and take yourself seroisly???
@@user-et6cr6qd8v I can say it because it was explicitly specified that any country could denounce and leave the alliance in case a war would be declared without consulting the other two. Simple.
@@user-et6cr6qd8v well, still. Can be "unnice", or whatever, but it's not a betrayal. It happened one year after. Plus, don't forget that the Austrian generls were also always waiting for a chance to "punish" Italy after the unification (for example, being the only ones who proposed to attack Italy after the Messina earthquake, when all the world was sending help)...
It was a good description about events happened before war, but during war there were many more stuff. Treaty of London actually said Italy would have go, actual Croatian coast and actually greek islands in front of Turky (none of them as well as Tirol and Total control of Istrian peninsula) has been given, this caused a huge dislike of France and England in Italy. Many on every social level thought they have fought for nothing, this in Italy is called "vittoria mutilata" (amputee victory) as we actually won but didn't get what promised, this caused the rise of totalitarisms, as well as Mussolini (who was a socialist before being fascist). Greek islands has been gifted to greece and all territories in Balcanic area had been given to newly created Jugoslavia. This has been made because of France who feared an aggressive expansion of Italy in balcanic area and fear of England of rising marittime power of italy and control of eastern borders and eventually threatening Egypt (english colony). As last i wish to point out: none betrayed Germany or Austro-Hungarians (to be precise you should have written Austr-hungarians as they began the war), treaties talked about defensive pact, the Kaiser declared war on Serbia, it was an obvious offensive war. At last considering Italy intervention made war much less expensive (this is why Entente pushed italy into war) and thanks to victory of italy agaunst Austro-hungarian empire war lasted a year and a half less, listening to what italian historics says.
Time traveler from 1915: So how is Earth after the great war?? Is there peace?? People from 2018: You mean WW1??? Time traveler: Wait a minute.... Hold up....
Actually it was austria who betrayed italy, they did not respect the treaty attacking without consulting its allies, when asked for the promised territories with a majority of italian speakers they refused. The only goal of italy was to unificate.
Because these comments will invariably lead to WWII discussions I'd like to present a few things: 1) It's commonly said that Italy left the war wholesale in 1943 - this isn't true. How do armies of occupation in the Balkans just disappear? They didn't, they (and most of the Italian forces) were left with a very confused situation and a very tough choice. Fight for the Germany, surrender your arms and get force-marched Bataan-style into a POW camp in Germany (without a POW designation, making you right about slightly better than Soviet-level mistreatment, depending on how resentful your German guards happen to be), some had the option of doing localized forced-labor wherever they happen to be, and fight it out with your former-allies. The Acqui Division on Cephalonia chose the absolute latter, and though they fought well for about three days the Germans had air-support and reinforcements and the resulting massacre was one of the largest of the entire war, dwarfed only by Katyn and (likely, though I know of no singular instance which surpasses) the executions of Soviet prisoners. As many as 5,000 were killed outright, and just to add insult to injury nearly the rest of the division found itself on improperly-marked ships and promptly schwacked by Allied anti-shipping efforts. Others in the Balkans joined the Partisans, most became POWs and refused to fight for the Germans. Those Italian units that fought were mainly on the Italian peninsula and seeing the Germans as hostile occupiers they fought back, most of these being reconstituted into the "Italian Co-Belligerent Army" and from the Battle of San Pietro Infine onward (supposedly they did well enough to earn some trust with the Allies, idk much about that, though) fought with the Allies. On the other hand, Mussolini soon escaped captivity (more like plucked from captivity by Otto Skorzeny and his merry band of miscreants) and was put at the head of the "Italian Social Republic" - which was largely a German rump-state but it did have its own industry (which is how we end up with those sexy, but under-produced fighters towards the end of the war) and an armed component that (*supposedly*) numbered in the hundreds of thousands (find it dubious but there were a decent amount of the douchebags either way) including elements of the infamously cool "Decima Flotigglia MAS, which leads me to my next point. 2) "Italy changed sides" - this is basically true, but it's much more nuanced than can really be covered in such a short phrase. There was a coup, Mussolini gets a 'vote of no confidence' in the form of a polite imprisonment and King Victor Emmanuel and (Cadorna look-alike) Badoglio go running to the Allies (which they apparently had been meaning to do for a bit but just never got around to it). Mussolini is freed and now we have two opposing sides - one still very much in bed with Germany - and what's known as the "Italian Civil War" ensues. In between both sides we have a veritable smorgasbord of militias and partisans comprised of everything from Communists, returned exiles, and good-ole fashioned Catholic Democrats to hardcore blackshirts, Germanophiles, and people who just happen to be on the wrong side of the Gothic line, with the obligatory banditry in play as well. So, my point is that about half of Italy changed sides. 3) Concerning the righteous indignation felt by people concerning Italy changing sides - that's not just an 'Italy' kinda thing. Not a lot of people remember but a couple Axis 'allies' turned-coat. For one, Finland in the Lapland War - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War Two - Good ole Romania - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_in_World_War_II#Campaign_against_the_Axis And since all good things come in threes (or fours or fives if you count Thailand or Spain - which didn't even bother to really pick a fucking side and just went with the whomever won) - there's one more Axis power with a perfidious diplomatic streak - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact - GERMANY. Germany changed sides, too. As it turns out, States will usually go with whichever option is most expedient for them - who knew!? It was a fucking weird time for international relations and this is reflected in the extreme bi-polarity of the allegiances of the time. This continued into the open stages of the Cold War. It was a really fucking weird time to be alive.
Yes, until it was in Finland's national interest to change sides - you're missing my point, my point is that it's NOT some unbelievable betrayal that should be condemned for all eternity. It was a strange time, it was a dire time, and people had to do what was best for themselves at the end of the day - be it on an individual level or at a National or international level. My point isn't saying "See, they were all just as bad as Italy! HA!" - that's not it at all, it's to give more context to the situation in order to help people remove the narrow blinders they otherwise wear, to highlight the terrifying absurdity of that time. That said, Germany obviously felt betrayed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War#/media/File:LapinSota.jpeg - but Germany was destroyed and dismembered after the war, Finland survived. There are no real winners in history, only survivors.
Blabla Rech wait, we oppress people who want their independence? Exactly who?????? Our empire at his largest only occupied 4 foreign nations, so not really much to oppress there
im actually Iranian myself and since we didn't fight in either of the two world wars i have a completely neutral point of view. Let's begin with the title which i think is wrong. why? cuz Italy did not betray anyone in fact it were the allies who betrayed Italy. Italy's pact with Germany was a DEFENSIVE ONE and even though morally speaking it WAS a defensive war for the German empire it was a DE JURE offensive one since the Germans declared war on France first after Russia declared war on Austro-Hungary and thus Italy was not obliged to join the war and they decided not to because the failures in the colonial wars had taught them that their military cannot compete with that of the other European nations which is to be expected from a young nation such as Italy which lacked the experience of older super powers such as France and the UK in terms of colonialism and general warfare and then after years of suffering severe causalities fighting the Austrians to a stalemate suddenly the Allies refused to give them the territory they had promised to Italy in London and THIS is the reason why the fascists took power in Italy because the people of Italy felt betrayed by their allies. Also Italy had claims on those territories since the formation of the country whether a just claim or not, i lack the historical knowledge to say but the Austrians KNEW this and they had promised that in case of a defensive war territories will be ceded to Italy should they honor their defensive pact and the Austrians too betrayed that pact.
I would consider the secret pact between italy and france in 1902 betrayal of the germans and Austrians. As it means they kind of did switch sides secrectly. The territories offered by the central powers: those weren't initally part of the "Dreibund" this was a last ditch try to keep them from switching sides and entering the war. (Looks like italy was blackmailing Austria and they tried to negotiate a bit to me) So the Austrians did not betray this pact. The territories promised by the Allies: well it was easy to promise them everything they wanted because this weren't brittish, french or russian territories. It would be like the central powers promising the italians southern france. This pact (the "Dreibund") was created with the same goal as the Entent: to bind former enemies together and thus avoid war between them. In fact if you take the point of view of all the mainly involved nations of WW1 Italy is kind of the only country who cannot reason its entry as to defend itself.
Thank you, i just want to add one thing, that even the defensive pact was void when Austria started gaining more lands in the Balcans, but refused to give both us and Germany the lands that they owed us, as stated in one of the points of the pact, making it void, the Germans remained at Austria's side only because they had more to gain from her
@Alfa&Omega 00000 This territory had not belonged to italy as the Country Italy as a whole did not exist when these areas came to Austria. And the former many states were independent from another, most didn't really like each other and from time to tme waged war against each other. When the mentioned territories came to Austria they identified as Triestines, People from the Trento (no idea how the english word for them is) etc. not as italians. So techically no freeing territory just adding territory. And could you reference the pacts you mentioned? (a link or book) because at the moment i can't think of which or what packts you are refferring to. Additionally where did you learn that Austria wanted to attack Italy in 1908? Because that also isn't ringing any bell in my brain. I checked the Bosnian crisis which happend in 1908 and there was no intention to attack Italy. Conrad v. Hötzendorf wanted to attack Serbia but he was the only one (and he called for war often and was usually ignored). I remember Italy threatening to invade Albania and then not doing it because they would have risked war in doing so, but i don't think that was in 1908.
@@mtlicq Italy, agreed to join the war, if Britain would give to Italy, Dalmatia, the city of il fiume, and trentino, they only gave trentino, so obviously the Italians were pretty mad that britain didn't respect the agreement, and that led to a rise of nationalism and fascism
How interesting was thus to read? Not at all. If you wanted to get the info as quickly as possible you’d look it up, not watch an animated video which took days to make.
Belg What? The entire war started because the nazis attacked Poland,which indipendence was guaranteed by France and UK, so they joined the war to protect Poland. But at the end of the war they let the Soviets take territories from Poland and put in power a communist dictatorship. This was the Allies' manner to say "Thanks" to the Poles that fought in Poland, France, Italy, Germany.
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)?
Giovani was in some sort right I mean Libya have a lot of oil and water in the ground but for 1911 this land was shit and Italy will have to wait for at least 40 or 50 years for Libya to be profitable
Oil in libia wasnt found untill later. Also its not "alot" and it costs a ton to extract. The "libia has oiL" meme is born in 2011 because people think that Ghaddafi was toppled by an "evil US conspiracy for oiL" because you dont understand geo-politics and think that EVERYTHING ahs to do with oil ;-)
Johnny except that Libya did have oil and that US did attack it for that very reason. The fact that Ghadafi didn't wanted to sell oil for american dollar, same as iraq and some other countries was enough reason. And the reason why he didn't wan't to sell it for american dollar is because US prints more money then it has backed up in gold, thus dollar losing value. If you think Libya oil is just a meme that came in 2011, you need to learn some history. I mean basic school history books can teach you a bit about Libya in 20th century.
This was quite the informative video. Had no idea Italy had other reasons besides territorial ambitions that led it to side with the Allies in WWI. Nice job guy.
@@NovaSoldier Lol! Let me put it this way, they signed treaties with BOTH sides... they were going to screw SOMEONE no matter what. They simply waited until they thought the outcome was clear to jump in, but miscalculated.
We had 651.000 dead italian soldiers in the WWI and 589.000 civilian victims. A little bit of respect should be required. On the contrary, many comments are outrageous clichés
It sounds a little like "déjà vu" for me as we have the same problem with the "always surrender" or "cowards" comments. I don't know if you can read french but it can bring you some comfort to know that Dominique Lormier has written a book called : Les vérités cachées de la seconde guerre mondiale" (the hidden truth of the second world war), in which he sets the record straight, not only for France but also for Italy. One chapter is about "la bravoure méconnue des soldats Italiens" (the unrecongnized bravery of the Italian soldiers).
@@phlm9038 je ne parlais pas de la déuxième guerre mondiale, car l'Italie à ce temps là était une dictature. Le peuple ne décidait rien. Mais au temps de la prémière il y avait le suffrage universel et le peuple était en majorité anti-allemand. L'Autriche occupait encore une partie de l'Italie du Nord. Donc la guerre n'était pas vecue comme une trahison. Les allemands disaient que les italiens était l'anneau de conjunction entre l'homme et le singe.
@@giorgiodifrancesco4590 J'avais lu WWII, je devrais certainement changer mes verres de lunettes. Mais ils se disent aussi des choses désagréables sur la deuxième guerre mondiale.
@@VittRomani tbh I am pretty interested in european history so I know that Italy didnt "betrayed" Germany but its pretty funny cause its a meme like the French with their Baguettes and white Flags (wich is also a big meme)
I love how everyone thinks that the Italians are incompetent at warfare. In truth, the Italian soldiers suffered from a very incompetent command staff and obsolete equipment. General Edwin Rommel would stated in his reoprts that the Italian soldier was the equal to the german soldier if they were given proper leadership and equipment.
I have a suggestion : could you please make a video about why Romania switched sides in World War One? Keeping in mind the fact that the country was part of the Triple Alliance between 1883 and 1914 (initially Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia, later also Italy and Romania) under which the Central Powers operated during World War I (WWI), but it changed sides in 1916 and became a member of the Entente.
Italy is known for backstabbing it's allies .The Greeks laughed at Italian soldiers who used all 12 reverse gears in THIER italian army tanks retreating from the greeks.
@@harrys.3165 in 1943 Italy pulled out of ww2 in 1945 Italy finished fighting itself and Greece is known for winning even though its outnumbered and Greek mountains really slowed the Italians down and Italy’s godawful generals were also a problem and Italy didn’t retreat it fought when Italy surrendered in el alemain it was when it was when Italy didn’t have water food and equipment
I mean, the title is a bit misleading. For Italy to have betrayed Germany, they would have had to break a treaty which obligated them to joint Germany's side, which they never signed. They did sign a defence pace, but emphasis on the defence. It said that Italy would be called to arms and fight alongside Germany if they were attacked by a foreign power. However, that never happened. Austria started the war in an attempt to enforce dominance on Serbia after the assassination of the archduke. Serbia offered to fulfil multiple demands from the Austrians and even agreed for an international deliberation to establish future actions, but Austria invaded anyway. This turned what was a defence of Austrian sovereignty to an invasion of Serbia. Because of this, Germany was on the side of the aggressors, and therefore Italy had no legal obligation to join Germany on their side. It's for this reason why both sides negotiated with Italy, because not only were they border members of both sides, but they had the legal ability to pick whichever side they wanted to join
What you're saying is just post-war technicallities made to justify a politic treason, and even if you consider this right, the treaty itself binded the signers to keep at least a "friendly neutrality" in case of war, not join the adversary because of promises of foreign land.
it's not misleading. Siging a defence pact mean you won't attack that same pact. Aggression of austria doesn't mean italy had green light to betray the pact.
Netsaurus it was hardly a technicality. If a nation agrees to join another if they are invaded, that grants no guarantee to join the others side if they are the aggressor. If Belgium had invaded the Netherlands before WW1, would Britain be betraying Belgium by not joining their side?
I think it largely comes down to a case of the victors writing the history, if the central powers had won it would be considered by most to be a blatant betrayal, but as the entente won it is considered by most to be 'technically not' a betrayal.
Actually Germany and Austria-Hungary had already "betrayed" Italy several times. For example: the Triple Alliance recognized that both Italy and Austria-Hungary were interested in the Balkans and required both to consult each other before changing the status quo and to provide compensation for whatever advantage in that area; however Austria-Hungary did not consult Italy before issuing the ultimatum to Serbia, and refused any compensation. So the relations between these countries had deteriorated and the pact between them was purely formal
I can understand Italian having claim on the Adriatic strait but, they did realize they were asking for the entirety of the Austrian's coastline? A video on the Italian-Austrian front during WWI would be really interesting, several million men crammed on the side of mountains, using avalanches against one another.
So much ignorance from those writing comments without the minimum knowledge... Germans and Austrians didn't even consult Italy before declaring war, plus they were the aggressors, and Italy had a DEFENSIVE alliance with them, no obligation therefore of joining the war on their side...Only when Austria refused to give promised ITALIAN territories in its possession, Italy decided to join allies, that could be avoided if Austrians weren't so stubborn in keeping ITALIAN territories in change of Italy's neutrality.
"The House of Savoy has never finished a war on the same side it started on - unless the war lasted long enough to change sides twice.” - A Free French Newspaper in WW2
Tom theWonderDog Napoleonic wars : They were against France from the beginning until 1815 , Wars of Indipendence ( Risorgimento ) , they were with France in the second and Germany in the third , always against Austria , WW1 : They entered with the Entente , they won with the Entente.
Passi la seconda guerra mondiale (ma in realtà neanche quella, solo che sarebbe troppo difficile da spiegare e pure da capire per uno straniero) ma durante la prima guerra mondiale l’Italia entro in guerra con degli alleati e con quelli restò (alleati che poi tradirono l’Italia non cedendogli i territori promessi), la tripla alleanza era un patto difensivo che venne a meno quando l’impero austro-ungarico dichiarò per primo Guerra.
6:56 "and found itself in a much more stable condition" Not really :/ Mussolini was able to make his march exactly because: 1. Italy did not gain half the territory promised 2. They lost too many man 3. The economy and especially agriculture was in a dire position.
This fact of the """"betrayal""" it's unaccurate. at the end of WW1 Italy didn't received the promised territories, and in WW2 Italy ended up the war in 1943, No army has been led against germany, because the king and the prime minister run away from the country. The partisans try to fight the nazi-fascists in the territory. so I don't really understand why there's this wrong conception about it. I've enjoyed the channel though
Oh it's just a meme that nobody knows where it started. Also, italy never completely """"""""betrayed""""""" germany nor the austrians, actually, many regions stood loyal in both wars, so its a really inaccurate one
@@michelecastellotti9172 a me è sembrato che ha parlato in maniera abbastanza superficiale della questione di interventisti e neutralisti, accennando alla sconfitta di Adua e alla guerra in Libia
saying that italy 'switched sides' in ww1 is like saying U.S.A. switched sides during the independence war. if you ever happen to actually study history you will realize how this is the truth.
Still Italy was disappointment in result of I WW. The territory they gain was not consider worthy hundreds of thousand loses (650 000 dead, 1 000 000 wounded). Italy expected to gain entire Tyrol and Adriatic Coast, but it didn't happen. It led to discontent and sense of betrayal which ultimately led to rise of Fascist movement.
Well, part of the Triple Alliance pact implied that Austria Hungary was obliged to seek for an italian approval in case she planned to attack in the balkans, which they didn't, thus violating the treaty. That's why Italy could walk out the Triple Alliance without consequences. Obviously the cautiousness and the search for other secret alliances with the entente is correct
They really didn't "betray" anyone. Italy was deeply divided, it was not and never was as nationalistic as northern countries. people in Italy had different ideas and not all supported the war. It was easy for the Allies to find anti-war supporters both in the Socialist party and in the conservative party but EVEN in the Fascist party. You guys start from the erroneous assumption that Mussolini was as powerfull as Hitler. He was not, Fascism didn't rely only on the Dux, there were many politicians who shared the power and took part in decisions. Plus there were the old monarch and his supporters that were still important. Instead in Germany after Hindenburg's death, Hitler was the only one left. Plus the Italians never really liked the Germans, expecially after WW1.
Epir Ogni paese fa studiare la storia dal suo punto di vista. Così come noi studiamo la guerra dal nostro punto di vista (e quindi riconosciamo che ci abbiamo perso anche noi, in guerra, e non siamo stati inutili coglioni come dicono all'estero), loro la studiano dal loro e, probabilmente, vengono a conoscenza di cose che noi non studiamo.
Ma è anche vero che in guerra non siamo stati eroi o simili, eh. Per niente. Solo che la gente non capisce che la colpa non è DEGLI italiani, ma di chi li guidava.
Enemy V Però anche noi ne abbiamo avuti di soldati coraggiosi gli arditi, gli eroi del piave, gli alpini, i mas. È anche vero che gli alti ranghi erano un branco di ritardati
1:05 While it is true that Italy was lead by Victor Emmanuel III. during this time, you made a mistake in depicting his Father Victor Emmanuel II. The graphic is just wrong. (maybe you could correct that) It's a really informative video otherwise. Good job.
It is wrong though. The maps are wrong, the title is wrong and he didn't even explain why we quote on quote "betrayed" the "germans" (it was the Austro-Hungarians anyways. All krauts tho)
@Alexander Challis What's the problem? Are you completely aware of the time and resources it takes to access archives in a 'government or state library?' Does everybody have time like yourself to sift through archives in research for a specific event? It's why authors are paid to write for a masters research or Phd, right? Read a book, it's what I expressed.
1) Regarding the Treaty of London of 1839 that guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium, on 4/08/1914 to the English ambassador Goschen, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg said: "Just for a word, neutrality, a word that in time of war was often overlooked - just for a piece of paper Britain was about to wage war in a neighboring nation that wanted nothing better than to be her friend. "When the German Empire invaded Belgium in August 1914 in violation of the treaty, the British declared war on August 4. Informed by the British ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany for the violation of the latter of Belgian neutrality, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg exclaimed that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would war for a simple "piece of paper" Chifon de papier say the French. Bethmann-Hollweg, in front of the Reichstag, proclaimed: faith given, therefore, has no value before the advantage of the moment. Necessity has no law, and necessity is worth the convenience and satisfaction of own possessions of greed 2) The alliance with Italy was defensive and Germany invaded Belgium. 3) Germany in the Second World War to attack France, Belgium reverted, always neutral, and declared war on Russia, despite the pact Molotov-Ribbentrop, sometimes called the Hitler-Stalin pact, a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the 'Soviet Union. WHO TRADES WHO?
There was also the issue of Italy arguably depending on France and the United Kingdom for food and electricity, as it lacked the extent of farmland and coal the two powers had, and they wouldn't be too kind to Italy had they joined the Triple Alliance in war.
"Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line." Vizzini the Great Italian
You need to break a pact or a deal in order to betray, Italy had only a merely DEFENSIVE pact with the central powers, if they would have been attacked Italy would have join them in a defensive war, but Italy had no pact for an offensive war and since Austria started an offensive war Italy was not forced to join and was also not forced to not attack the central powers, there was no treatys in that sense. Italy betrayed no one, she was just not forced to join any side or to attack so she just choose the most convenient side without violating any deal, also don't be hypocrite, every country would have done the same in that position, every alliance was praying Italy to join their side, Italy wasn't forced to join any side so she just did the best for her.
3:16 Funny that there's Alberto Sordi's iconic photo, when in the '60s he was co-protagonist among Vittorio Gassman in the huge film "La Grande Guerra" (The Great War), a very good dramatic comedy that got a lot of rewards and was popular in other European countries too. It was cricitized at the time becuase it put WW1 in a bad light (rightfully so).
Why you not include the veneto region of Italy in the pre WW1 map? They expanded a bit after WW1 but veneto was certainly part of Italy before the war.
If Germany had won the war and the Italians sided with the central powers they would have got scraps as well. What you have to remember is that every great power in this war was a competitor even with their allies, neither Germany nor France wanted to see Italy's power expand. If the Italian army was strong it would have gained more territory but it wasn't and the rest of the entente was unwilling to give it more because a bigger Italy threatened their power.
I need to call bullshit on this logic. If Italy would be given for example french lands, it would have made Italy a stronger ally, while weakening one of their main adversaries. Ofcourse when we are talking about giving austro-hungarian lands to italy, yes the central powers wouldn't give Italy too many lands.
The central powers would've allowed Italy to take Nice, Corsica and maybe Tunisia these were the backwards unindustrialised parts of France. There is no way the Germans and the Austrians would've allowed Italy to have a massive colonial empire. They wouldn't of even been able to hold it down there failures in Ethiopia and in world war 1 proves this.
Italy could get lands up to Rhone , Nica, Savoy,Toulon, Grenoble , also Corsica, Tunis , Malta and Algiers. Also Triest and Trentino from Austria... Anyway Austrian empire would collapse after the war in case of multi nation rebellions and without intimidating France Italy could be free to act. Also Italy didnt have competition with Germans.
You should really make a video covering the Texas Revolution and period following it. It's a very complicated part of our past and has lasting impact that's felt even today in 2018
Interesting to note, there's the recurring joke that the French always surrenders and that they are weak, but couldn't we toss that gag at Italy? I mean, don't get me wrong, the Maginot line did NOT work as intended and the French were overwhelmed, but Italy's many military fails such as in the Africa and against the Austro-Hungarian are not to be overlooked, cause my god those were terrible. Not to mention that I didn't even bring up WW2, granted, the Germans in Operation Mincemeat falsely believed that the Allies would invade Greece, which means they had less help, but man the Italians were still an incompetent force! Of course, I have nothing against the French or Italians but in a way, I'm proud I was able to type a paragraph just talking about a small topic! *Italians - "I surrender!" (Edit) This was meant to be a bit satirical, so I hope I didn't offend anyone
France surrendered in 1940 after a incredible idiot called General Maurice Gamelin decided that Germany's piercing thrust through the Ardennes was a "diversion" and committed his forces northwards to aid Belgium and keep the Netherlands from surrendering. The result was the German panzers ripping through the lightly defended area, cutting west and outflanking the main French army, cutting off supplies and pinning it down against the English channel. This meant the allied army was forced to evacuate at Dunkirk and Paris was now almost defenseless against the incoming German army. The French are not weak, but they made some stupid decisions that REALLY did not work out!!
SirReepicheep Rules indeed, France doesn't fit the bill. In fact, for the most part France has been very good with military tactics but they have had a few events such as your mentioning and the invasion of russia.
Rob DeAbreu I understand what you mean. This was mostly a satirical post, however, I appreciate your articulate response. Italy was not by any means a world power back then, and should have probably stayed neutral, but forced their hand in both world wars and paid the price for it.
Because we didn't surrender? As much as we sucked we still tried the hardest. We tried innovating warfare and we kind of did, we also didn't have the marshy plains that the French front had in WW1, we had the fucking alps. We didn't have the easy scrumble for Africa, we arrived last and had to deal with a united empire armed by the russian, again, in the mountains.
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.
unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief Actually France had twice less soldiers in 1914 than Germany...So Schlieffen Plan could work well if there was italian soldiers on south French border...than Paris would fall... And everything could go another way.
One minor thing about Italy choosing the Entente side on the war, Italy was reliant on English food imports and if she had gone to war against England, the ability to eat in the country would have been very much challenged in a very short time.
In All this 7 1/2 minutes of video you didn't mention even once the real reason why Italy didn't join the war with Germany, which is that the pact between the two nations was a defensive one, and since Austria started the war, Italy wasn't forced to stay with them
The point is Italy and Austria were allies and then Italy invaded Austria while they were busy fighting Russia. Italy wanted some of that sweet sweet Austrian land. And they got it cheaply.
Italy was right! Austria-Hungary acted as the agressor. According to the treaty, all border changes at the Balkans had had to be approved by both Italy and Austria-Hungary. Austria declared war on Serbia with the goal of annexing it, without discussing it with Italy. So Austria violated the treaty. Also, in the case of Austria-Russia war, Italy, according to treaty, had had only stay neutral, and in the case of Franco-German war Italy was obligated to join Germany only if Germany was attacked without any provocation. So when the war broke out in 1914, Italy had no obligations to join the war on the side of Central powers.
the austrians didn't invade to annex. this was cause the Hungarian part of the country and their representatives (who were mostly anti-war) only agreed to support the war if not a single piece of serbian land was annexed. the other minorities were very pro-war cuz the archduke was planning on giving them more rights so him being assasinated by a serb when he was so close to becoming emperor really pissed them off, especially the Croats who he was really popular with. in fact some of the more violent protests for war were made in Zagreb and Croatia just giving my 2 cents
As said above to get Hungarian approval Austria had to promise they wouldn't annex Serbian land, and it's one thing to screw over a foreign entity but the Austrians absolutely could not and would not betray a promise to the Hungarians. They needed them to keep the empire together
Devil of War: Serbia would be annexed, because Austrians and especially Conrad von Hotzendorf, who started the whole war, was worried about rising national identities inside the empire and that Slavs would be united in one country. To quote The First World War by Martin Gilbert: " ‘The unication of the South Slav race’, Conrad told Franz Ferdinand, ‘is one of the powerful national movements which can neither be ignored nor kept down. The question can only be, whether that unication will take place within the boundaries of the Monarchy-that is, at the expense of Serbia’s independence -or under Serbia’s leadership at the expense of the Monarchy.’ Were Serbia to be the leader of Slav unication, Conrad warned, it would be at the cost to Austria of all its south Slav provinces, and thus of almost its entire coastline. The loss of territory and prestige involved in Serbia’s ascendancy ‘would relegate the Monarchy to the status of a small power’. " So in order to keep Austria-Hungary strong and to eliminate this threat, Serbia would be annexed OR puppet government would be installed.
+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).
Italy was almost a main protagonist and antagonist in both World Wars. But the goverment and the people we're seriously crazy. Now WE learned from our mistakes. (Maybe)
In the beginning, you said italy was ruled by Victor Emmanuel III in 1870, but the king at the time was the similarly named, Victor Emmanuel II. i just wanted to respectfully point that out. Great video either way!
Honestly I would watch the video but the comments make it really look like this video underestimate and bypass the rightfully Italian territories that Italians never actually got. I don’t want to suffer anymore by hearing someone neglect the mutilated victory inflicted to Italy
Perché voi stranieri pensate che sia un tradimento? Alla fine nella triplice alleanza noi italiani eravamo vincolati più come stato allineato per un patto difensivo che per una vera e propria alleanza. Un altro punto: questa alleanza si basava sulla CONVENIENZA: all'italia per legittimarsi in Europa e non rimanere isolata, alla Germania sempre per legittimarsi quanto per rafforzare una posizione di equilibrio, all'Austria per difendersi da eventuali mire russe.
Un'altra cosa: avete completamente dimenticato un aspetto ideologico fondamentale, il Risorgimento. L'Italia venne fatta perché gli italiani furono riuniti da un forte disprezzo per l'Austria. Quindi voi non considerate neanche in minima parte i discorsi che intellettuali come D'Annunzio facevano per entrare in guerra contro l'Austria. Non è un caso che secondo gli storici questa guerra può essere considerata una sorta di quarta guerra d'Indipendenza.
@@thecommentaryking oltre a quello anche la complessità di certi concetti che purtroppo sono molto tipici del nostro Paese. Per carità comprendo che la storia che studiamo in Italia è molto focalizzata su di noi, ma un fenomeno così celebre come il Risorgimento è difficile da escludere...
It always pains me a bit to see Italy not succeed, after their many contributions to Europe _(intentional and unintentional)._ I can't speak for every Italian in the world, but I think they deserve a little bit more than they have now.
We are the third economy of the EU and its second industry, with a financial sector with more economic savings and availability than France and Germany. We also have a comparable population to France. We lack growth, reforms and need to tackle tax evasion, but we're still one of the richest countries worldwide, producing excellent products and know-how.
Our sacrifice in the Great War was noble and we unified the country. WW2 is a different story, but we surrendered in '43 to spare our country. Though, the Germans invaded and attacked, so we responded.
4:40 neither South Tyrol nor Dalmatia had been under italian rule, South Tyrol was part of Tyrol (a Monarch Family) which ruled over those territories for more than 500 years. Dalmatia was under Hungarian rule for almost the same amount of time, Italy didn't even exist in those times and had never set foot there (execpt under roman times)
Bernhard Jordan I think, the Central Powers offered Italy a few times the territories of Savoy and Corsica (and perhaps some colonies) if they join the war on their side. And Italian Nationalists also wanted these parts. Well, at the end they picked the Entente and their offer. But in ww2 Italy pushed for the Annexation of Savoy and Corsica after the failed promises of the Entente after ww1.
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.
Italy did not want South Tyrol initially because it knew that German speaking population was the largest majority in that land. Though Italians considered the fact that South Tyrol is geographically in Italy to justify its annexation. As for Dalmatia, yet it is not geographically in the italian peninsula, it was considered historically italian by the fact that for centuries it was dominated by Venetians until Venice lost its indipendence being conquered by Napoleon and then its territories given to Austrian Empire by himself. Moreover, unlike South Tyrol, Dalmatia had a strongest italian presence. In fact the major political institutions were occupied by Venetians and urban population spoke italian (venetian isn't different from italian, I personally speak it). Indeed slavic pupulation at that time inhabitated mainly in the inland and they were mostly farmers. During the austrian domination, slowly the slavic presence increased at the expense of Italians, considered by Austrians dangerous for the region; in fact during the secon half of the 19th century Reign of Italy born and Italian irridentists in Austria rebelled and because of that they decided to prefer slavs over italians. After WW1 italians in Yugoslavia became less and less important and now there are very few there. For this reason Italy in WW1 wanted Dalmatia.
+Nicolas Novel dalmatia was always croatian ( which was a part of austria at the time ) venetians only managed to ocupy it as the croatians were on the front with the otomans and could not fight on 2 sides ( croatians had many fights with venetia over dalmatia as it was the starting point of the croatian kingdom and a important teritory for venetian trade)
Armchair Historian, I'm thinking about making a history channel of my own because channels like yours are inspiring, I have a personal interest in history and I'm doing history in my GCSE's. Would you recommend it?
Go for it! If nothing else, you'll learn a lot from it, from interaction with commenters, doing your own research, etc. If you do start making videos, pop the name of the channel here and I'll give it a watch!
@john vento GREECE? LOL. Italy hardly won that one (with lots help from Germany who had to finish the job), in fact it was a disaster for Italy, read your History. And why don't you mention Ethiopia or the Desert War where Italians surrendered and even outnumbered Montgomery's own troops lol. At least the Free French army won at Bir-Hakheim (and were praised by Hitler himself). Italy's never been a major force in post-Napoleonic warfare, period. Great culture though.
I wonder how WW1 would have gone if Austro-Hungary empire had given Italy the territories it lusted for. Italian front on France would have been quite successful and diverted troops from Northern France, making the Maginot weaker.
Thanks for watching! Any mistakes should be posted underneath this comment. If you want to support the show and expand our budget, please consider becoming a Patron on Patreon! www.patreon.com/armchairhistory
Griff
The Armchair Historian i thought this was about the second world war
The Armchair Historian Thank you for the video
Nice job, just a few things...
The year 1871 doesn't have any particular meaning in the Italian reunification process. The Kingdom of Italy was established in 1861, after the so called "Second Italian war of independence" of 1859 (Piedmont allied with France against Austria), the Garibaldi Campaign of 1860 in the South and the referendums that took place in regions involved in this events. 1861 is considered in Italy to be the year of the "Unità d'Italia". In 1866 the "Third Italian war of independance" was fought (Italy allied with Prussia against Austria), which gained Italy Veneto and most of the Friuli region. In 1870 the Capture of Rome is the event that ended the Italian Risorgimento (Italy taking Rome and ending the State of the Church while France and Prussia are too busy fighting the Franco-Prussian war to really care about what's going on with the Pope). On the other hand 1871 is the year of the founding of the German Empire. Confusion between Italian and German reunification dates is actually a pretty common mistake on UA-cam!
In the first map showed in the video Italy's missing Veneto and Friuli (an area roughly the size of Massachusetts). Since that's presumably related to the Giolitti years, that's not correct. That would also be wrong in relation to the signing of the Triple Alliance in 1882, as this border didn't change between 1866 and 1915. Eventually those regions are correctly included in the other map which is showed later on, when WWI is discussed.
The guy on the right at 1.07 is Vittorio Emanuele II, not III. I mean... I agree that may not sound like such a big deal, but still... would you take a Lincoln for a Grant while talking about US Presidents?
Fun fact: the guy eating pasta at 3.16 is Alberto Sordi in a famous scene from "Un Americano a Roma", a 1954 movie actually mocking the Americanization of Italian society in the years after WWII ua-cam.com/video/ikZgUHJys2s/v-deo.html
Why doesn’t Italy have Venice under Giolitti?
The Armchair Historian slow down dude, spoke way too fast
"Italy was led by Victor Emmanuel III"
*shows Victor Emmanuel II*
_Jesus_
We all make mistakes
And then mussolini yay. (Kill me)
Mussolini was prime minister and then dictator and italy was still a monarchy.
Please dont take Lord's Name in Vain
Victor Emmanuel II >>> Victor Emmanuel III
Beautifully presented, great work! Love the illustrations. Literally can't wait for the History of Venice video!!
Really it's a trollish title followed by grossly uninformed content.
He put ' ' for a reason
@@rucian_lussell It's insufficient.
@@neutronalchemist3241 lol
Couple things...the video makes it seem like Italy got the territories it was promised, but that is not the case. Italian nationalists complained that the Treaty of London was not actually fulfilled. Additionally, Italy suffered severe economic hardships after the war, which was the primary reason for the rise of Mussolini and fascism (not to mention communism). The end of the video doesn't seem to reflect the realities of the post-war period. I do enjoy your channel, though!
J H You’re totally correct, that was a point I neglected to make.
Griff
What? rise of fascism and not to mention communism in italy?
Correct. Communism enjoyed a surge of popularity in some European countries after the war, including Italy. Italian fascists would attack communists during protests and rallies, a scene that would be repeated in Germany a few years later.
'Italian nationalists complained that the Treaty of London was not actually fulfilled' True they did say that and then invaded the territories of current Slovenia and did what every fascist county does to a minority. Try to eliminate their culture and forcefully move them to other parts of Italy where they will serve as cheap labor.
That happened after Mussolini came to power, but isn’t pertinent to the topic at hand...
Now the funny part of the story.
The allies betrayed Italy after the war and didnt give them the promist territory.
They did, but not everything.
Emil Joseph stop. Really. Stop. You're not funny, by writing that you seem like a fucking badass. You stupid.
You think I'd stop just because a small dumb moron told me so?
Fuck you bitch.
Emil Joseph no, fuck you, you can't even comment without insulti gli Italy. Sei una capra
Emil Joseph ok, now, cause I'm more mature than you, I'll quit this conversation.
Italy was unified in 1861, not 1871, that was Germany
That's when the Kingdom of Italy was officially declared, but it didn't include Venice or Rome at the time. Venice was annexed in 1866, and Rome in 1871.
@@darreljones8645 If you go to Italy, the official date of the Italian unification is in 1861.
No you are forgot ! Roma and the state of Vatican
@Undiscovered Nacho actually 1860
@Undiscovered Nacho and it doesnt matter if it was the same year.
This is wrong. The UK promised so much more to Italy, basically every land touching the Adriadic Sea as well as parts of Austria. In essence all the UK gave Italy was land they had took from Austria, that tyrol section.
Also you understate the Animosity between Italy and Austria. THAT is the real reason Italy choose the Allies.
Also, with its long coastline, it feared an attack by the Ryal Navy.
It would have just been smarter for Italy to have gone with the UK. At least they will have their colonies for a bit longer and use that oil money for something
Lol why the hell would you reward traitors, Britain did the right thing and should even had taken land from them. They were more of a nuisance rather than an ally lol
@3213232 1231223 Envy for what, the Italian army?
The UK doesn't hate Italy it has only gone against it in wwii. I don't know why you think Italy wouldn't exist if it went with the UK if anything it would be stronger
@3213232 1231223 it is because Italy has a very bad military record in WWII and Ethiopia
someone:"italy betray"
me: someone dosent know the difference between defensive alliance and military alliance.
yeah, pretty much.
@Großösterreichisches Reich the great war, in the second war there was a surrender, and a civil war but no atk from italy into german territory.
@Großösterreichisches Reich all good
LOL!!! Sure, as if a royal assassination is not an attack... Italy stabbed its allies in the back por a bribe, good luck trying to erase that.
@@trauko1388 royal assasination made by a private immigrants? i call that terrorism, defensive pact are used when an actuall ARMY invade your territory or a state declare war to you, i can bet my left hand the defensive agreement litteraly state "in case fo war declaration lol"
Hotenzdorf and Cadorna on the same side. Imagine Indy narrating it. I guess the Rumbles on the Isonzo would have been on some river in southeast france, and against Haig!
Colin Wolf just the thought of that made me moist
That would have been...
...a modern war.
CRO guys interesting
What means italian lands ?? Trento and Trieste have been under Austrian rule since the 16 century. Even Napoleons Fantasy Italy has none of these territories. There is no
legitimate claim on these. All this is made up by nationalists and fascists. All italy have brought these territories is economical downfall and the wipeout of ethnical minorities in these regions.
@tiglath pileser There is no former kingdom of Italy ?? Trentino was Always part of Tyrol and Trieste was Part of Austria since 1382. A Kingdom of Italy was non-existent until 1812. and Croatia and Bosnia Herzogwina were freed of Ottoman rule. The Crown of Croatia is connected to the Crown of Hungary since the 14 Century. All slavs volks have extrem autonomy and were not supressed. Croatia had even their own Parlament in Agram. You only search exuses for the nationalists and Fascist behaviour of Italy. There are no ethnics only different languages. Ethnic is the "Family friendly" Version of race
Gabriele D'Annunzio called it "the wounded victory" because the italian kingom didnt obtained all the territories, that was the cause of the raise of fascism, plus, keep in mind how much northern italians hated the austrians at that time, if you look back at the various indipendence and unification wars~
LuigiN64 grande Luigi, ancora che vedi sti video degli albionici
@@StoriaDItalia Questo è americano, non albionico.
Vittoria mutilata. Austria siempre hizo todo lo que pudo para evitar que Italia se unificara.
Why is Italy great at football?
Because they switch sides at half time
I'm italian but this is genius
You are awesome!
Hahahahaha
@@dani.zephir lol your name "Danyks Van Helsing" is not Italian. Stop pretending you rat
I guess we switched side in 1934, 1938, 1982 and 2006 too
Was half a million deaths really worth the captured territories for Italy?
El Bandito No, and that's one of the reasons why fascism born
Matteo Soffietto so millions of deaths due to a useless war lead to the rise of an ideology that supports another useless war that would claim the lives of millions? Smart
No,it wasn't.
People don't care how many others die if it makes them feel their imaginary group is a bit more powerful.
I agree with you Mick, and I'll tell you a thing: the people of south tyrol don' t feel italian.They feel austrian.
"Siding with the Entente proved to be a safer and more valuable action". Tell that to the men under Cadorna.
@Bernhard Jordan and this would have led to central powers winning the war
Why did Spain never become a power again after the initial seizure of its colonies?
Mick Mickymick It was ruined by Napoleonic wars and even before was shadow of his former self. And in 19th century constant switching of government and unrest made it really weak.
isolated colonization became burden for spanish empire to maintain its power because of poor city connections which british empire, its rival, won naval supremacy against spanish armada and made blockade rendering spanish to make connect to its colonies through water. and alot of revolution during spanish colonization happened and it tooks heavy burden for spanish military to enforce law in its colonies thats why they sold its colonies to US
Zei Marc Or USA took like half of Spain's remaining colonies.
Incompetence in administration, it is better to have a small country with few to almost no resources but a good administration than have a big heavy empire economy but with a shitty administration.
Spain monarchy was famous for the bloody persecution of rivals, not paying debts, corruption, inquisition, pointless wars, prevalence of medieval isntitutions,, excess burocracy and other things. Holland was almost the opposite of it, and the reason why they could easely surpass them at the XVII century.
There's a quote (presumably) from Otto Von Bismarck that defines it pretty well, and it's still valid today: ‘I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success’
Thank you for clarifying that the alliance was defensive. People seem to forget it. Plus, Austria didn't consult Italy before declaring war.
Important to consider the fact that Fascism and Nationalism took over thanks to the fact that many of the promised land was then NOT given to Italy (due to the fact that America opposed it, as a non-signatory of the Treaty of London", creating the myth of the "Mutilated Victory")
you declared war on the witch country had a devensive pakt with you.....
how on can you say that this isnt betraying someone and take yourself seroisly???
@@user-et6cr6qd8v I can say it because it was explicitly specified that any country could denounce and leave the alliance in case a war would be declared without consulting the other two. Simple.
@@giacomomercandelli4035 leavin the aliance would have been kind of ok but you declared war
@@user-et6cr6qd8v well, still. Can be "unnice", or whatever, but it's not a betrayal. It happened one year after. Plus, don't forget that the Austrian generls were also always waiting for a chance to "punish" Italy after the unification (for example, being the only ones who proposed to attack Italy after the Messina earthquake, when all the world was sending help)...
Don’t forget that Italy and Austria Hungary had some tense relations before ww1
It was a good description about events happened before war, but during war there were many more stuff.
Treaty of London actually said Italy would have go, actual Croatian coast and actually greek islands in front of Turky (none of them as well as Tirol and Total control of Istrian peninsula) has been given, this caused a huge dislike of France and England in Italy.
Many on every social level thought they have fought for nothing, this in Italy is called "vittoria mutilata" (amputee victory) as we actually won but didn't get what promised, this caused the rise of totalitarisms, as well as Mussolini (who was a socialist before being fascist).
Greek islands has been gifted to greece and all territories in Balcanic area had been given to newly created Jugoslavia. This has been made because of France who feared an aggressive expansion of Italy in balcanic area and fear of England of rising marittime power of italy and control of eastern borders and eventually threatening Egypt (english colony).
As last i wish to point out: none betrayed Germany or Austro-Hungarians (to be precise you should have written Austr-hungarians as they began the war), treaties talked about defensive pact, the Kaiser declared war on Serbia, it was an obvious offensive war.
At last considering Italy intervention made war much less expensive (this is why Entente pushed italy into war) and thanks to victory of italy agaunst Austro-hungarian empire war lasted a year and a half less, listening to what italian historics says.
Time traveler from 1915: So how is Earth after the great war?? Is there peace??
People from 2018:
You mean WW1???
Time traveler: Wait a minute.... Hold up....
People so hesitant. Those are just some retarded bitches that were just a bunch of clowns during school
What the hell is happening here
@Z.Z. S.R. who are you, and why are you?
Actually it was austria who betrayed italy, they did not respect the treaty attacking without consulting its allies, when asked for the promised territories with a majority of italian speakers they refused. The only goal of italy was to unificate.
Because these comments will invariably lead to WWII discussions I'd like to present a few things:
1) It's commonly said that Italy left the war wholesale in 1943 - this isn't true. How do armies of occupation in the Balkans just disappear? They didn't, they (and most of the Italian forces) were left with a very confused situation and a very tough choice. Fight for the Germany, surrender your arms and get force-marched Bataan-style into a POW camp in Germany (without a POW designation, making you right about slightly better than Soviet-level mistreatment, depending on how resentful your German guards happen to be), some had the option of doing localized forced-labor wherever they happen to be, and fight it out with your former-allies. The Acqui Division on Cephalonia chose the absolute latter, and though they fought well for about three days the Germans had air-support and reinforcements and the resulting massacre was one of the largest of the entire war, dwarfed only by Katyn and (likely, though I know of no singular instance which surpasses) the executions of Soviet prisoners. As many as 5,000 were killed outright, and just to add insult to injury nearly the rest of the division found itself on improperly-marked ships and promptly schwacked by Allied anti-shipping efforts. Others in the Balkans joined the Partisans, most became POWs and refused to fight for the Germans.
Those Italian units that fought were mainly on the Italian peninsula and seeing the Germans as hostile occupiers they fought back, most of these being reconstituted into the "Italian Co-Belligerent Army" and from the Battle of San Pietro Infine onward (supposedly they did well enough to earn some trust with the Allies, idk much about that, though) fought with the Allies. On the other hand, Mussolini soon escaped captivity (more like plucked from captivity by Otto Skorzeny and his merry band of miscreants) and was put at the head of the "Italian Social Republic" - which was largely a German rump-state but it did have its own industry (which is how we end up with those sexy, but under-produced fighters towards the end of the war) and an armed component that (*supposedly*) numbered in the hundreds of thousands (find it dubious but there were a decent amount of the douchebags either way) including elements of the infamously cool "Decima Flotigglia MAS, which leads me to my next point.
2) "Italy changed sides" - this is basically true, but it's much more nuanced than can really be covered in such a short phrase. There was a coup, Mussolini gets a 'vote of no confidence' in the form of a polite imprisonment and King Victor Emmanuel and (Cadorna look-alike) Badoglio go running to the Allies (which they apparently had been meaning to do for a bit but just never got around to it). Mussolini is freed and now we have two opposing sides - one still very much in bed with Germany - and what's known as the "Italian Civil War" ensues. In between both sides we have a veritable smorgasbord of militias and partisans comprised of everything from Communists, returned exiles, and good-ole fashioned Catholic Democrats to hardcore blackshirts, Germanophiles, and people who just happen to be on the wrong side of the Gothic line, with the obligatory banditry in play as well. So, my point is that about half of Italy changed sides.
3) Concerning the righteous indignation felt by people concerning Italy changing sides - that's not just an 'Italy' kinda thing. Not a lot of people remember but a couple Axis 'allies' turned-coat.
For one, Finland in the Lapland War - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War
Two - Good ole Romania - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_in_World_War_II#Campaign_against_the_Axis
And since all good things come in threes (or fours or fives if you count Thailand or Spain - which didn't even bother to really pick a fucking side and just went with the whomever won) - there's one more Axis power with a perfidious diplomatic streak -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact - GERMANY. Germany changed sides, too. As it turns out, States will usually go with whichever option is most expedient for them - who knew!? It was a fucking weird time for international relations and this is reflected in the extreme bi-polarity of the allegiances of the time. This continued into the open stages of the Cold War. It was a really fucking weird time to be alive.
Finally a comment who isn't based on stereotipes or common misleading,good job
Yes, until it was in Finland's national interest to change sides - you're missing my point, my point is that it's NOT some unbelievable betrayal that should be condemned for all eternity. It was a strange time, it was a dire time, and people had to do what was best for themselves at the end of the day - be it on an individual level or at a National or international level. My point isn't saying "See, they were all just as bad as Italy! HA!" - that's not it at all, it's to give more context to the situation in order to help people remove the narrow blinders they otherwise wear, to highlight the terrifying absurdity of that time. That said, Germany obviously felt betrayed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War#/media/File:LapinSota.jpeg - but Germany was destroyed and dismembered after the war, Finland survived. There are no real winners in history, only survivors.
Blabla Rech wait, we oppress people who want their independence? Exactly who?????? Our empire at his largest only occupied 4 foreign nations, so not really much to oppress there
Blabla Rech just use the word "Germans" or "US citizens" instead of Italians, k? U stupid dumbfuck obese yank
im actually Iranian myself and since we didn't fight in either of the two world wars i have a completely neutral point of view. Let's begin with the title which i think is wrong. why? cuz Italy did not betray anyone in fact it were the allies who betrayed Italy. Italy's pact with Germany was a DEFENSIVE ONE and even though morally speaking it WAS a defensive war for the German empire it was a DE JURE offensive one since the Germans declared war on France first after Russia declared war on Austro-Hungary and thus Italy was not obliged to join the war and they decided not to because the failures in the colonial wars had taught them that their military cannot compete with that of the other European nations which is to be expected from a young nation such as Italy which lacked the experience of older super powers such as France and the UK in terms of colonialism and general warfare and then after years of suffering severe causalities fighting the Austrians to a stalemate suddenly the Allies refused to give them the territory they had promised to Italy in London and THIS is the reason why the fascists took power in Italy because the people of Italy felt betrayed by their allies. Also Italy had claims on those territories since the formation of the country whether a just claim or not, i lack the historical knowledge to say but the Austrians KNEW this and they had promised that in case of a defensive war territories will be ceded to Italy should they honor their defensive pact and the Austrians too betrayed that pact.
I would consider the secret pact between italy and france in 1902 betrayal of the germans and Austrians. As it means they kind of did switch sides secrectly. The territories offered by the central powers: those weren't initally part of the "Dreibund" this was a last ditch try to keep them from switching sides and entering the war. (Looks like italy was blackmailing Austria and they tried to negotiate a bit to me) So the Austrians did not betray this pact. The territories promised by the Allies: well it was easy to promise them everything they wanted because this weren't brittish, french or russian territories. It would be like the central powers promising the italians southern france. This pact (the "Dreibund") was created with the same goal as the Entent: to bind former enemies together and thus avoid war between them. In fact if you take the point of view of all the mainly involved nations of WW1 Italy is kind of the only country who cannot reason its entry as to defend itself.
Well technically you fought in WW2 when Iran was invaded by a joint force from the UK and the Soviet Union.
Thank you, i just want to add one thing, that even the defensive pact was void when Austria started gaining more lands in the Balcans, but refused to give both us and Germany the lands that they owed us, as stated in one of the points of the pact, making it void, the Germans remained at Austria's side only because they had more to gain from her
@Alfa&Omega 00000 This territory had not belonged to italy as the Country Italy as a whole did not exist when these areas came to Austria. And the former many states were independent from another, most didn't really like each other and from time to tme waged war against each other. When the mentioned territories came to Austria they identified as Triestines, People from the Trento (no idea how the english word for them is) etc. not as italians. So techically no freeing territory just adding territory. And could you reference the pacts you mentioned? (a link or book) because at the moment i can't think of which or what packts you are refferring to. Additionally where did you learn that Austria wanted to attack Italy in 1908? Because that also isn't ringing any bell in my brain. I checked the Bosnian crisis which happend in 1908 and there was no intention to attack Italy. Conrad v. Hötzendorf wanted to attack Serbia but he was the only one (and he called for war often and was usually ignored). I remember Italy threatening to invade Albania and then not doing it because they would have risked war in doing so, but i don't think that was in 1908.
To save you 8 minutes, Britain promised the whole coast of the Adriatic to Italy
WTF with Britain giving that to Italy ?
@r marky go search Italian irredentism moron
@@mtlicq Italy, agreed to join the war, if Britain would give to Italy, Dalmatia, the city of il fiume, and trentino, they only gave trentino, so obviously the Italians were pretty mad that britain didn't respect the agreement, and that led to a rise of nationalism and fascism
How interesting was thus to read? Not at all. If you wanted to get the info as quickly as possible you’d look it up, not watch an animated video which took days to make.
Why France and UK betrayed Poland, before and after war?
Because Russia did signed an agreement with Germany.
VvLastHopeV: Did France and the UK have an alliance with Poland?
Google Sucks Yes, Poland was part of the allies and so UK and France joined the war.
Because it was never reallly about saving Poland
Belg What? The entire war started because the nazis attacked Poland,which indipendence was guaranteed by France and UK, so they joined the war to protect Poland. But at the end of the war they let the Soviets take territories from Poland and put in power a communist dictatorship. This was the Allies' manner to say "Thanks" to the Poles that fought in Poland, France, Italy, Germany.
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)?
Excellent comment. We didn't betray shit, and wanted our lands back. Honor to my countrymen who shed blood to have their rightful lands back!
Dude, stick to italian history. All you said about the german empire was bullshit
Giovani was in some sort right I mean Libya have a lot of oil and water in the ground but for 1911 this land was shit and Italy will have to wait for at least 40 or 50 years for Libya to be profitable
gavi deem it wont but is really expensive..Back at the days oil wasn't used bcs nobody used oil for anything.Now it is worth
You forgot to mention that Italy also had to fight against the Libyans for some two decades.
Oil in libia wasnt found untill later. Also its not "alot" and it costs a ton to extract.
The "libia has oiL" meme is born in 2011 because people think that Ghaddafi was toppled by an "evil US conspiracy for oiL" because you dont understand geo-politics and think that EVERYTHING ahs to do with oil ;-)
Johnny except that Libya did have oil and that US did attack it for that very reason. The fact that Ghadafi didn't wanted to sell oil for american dollar, same as iraq and some other countries was enough reason. And the reason why he didn't wan't to sell it for american dollar is because US prints more money then it has backed up in gold, thus dollar losing value. If you think Libya oil is just a meme that came in 2011, you need to learn some history. I mean basic school history books can teach you a bit about Libya in 20th century.
@Ahmad Omar they didnt know in the 1940s. It was found later.
This was quite the informative video. Had no idea Italy had other reasons besides territorial ambitions that led it to side with the Allies in WWI. Nice job guy.
"No guerra" is not italian. Maybe "Nessuna guerra" is better
"No Guerra" is Spanish.
No, "nessuna guerra" it's the correct one.
"why italy betrayed germany(ww1)?" the video hasnt even started and it has already mistakes
Why Italy betrayed the German empire, meaning the second reich
@@jahavan8552 Incorrect, read a book on WW1. There is your answer.
LOL!!! So funny the Italians trying to pretend they didnt stab their allies in the back...
@@trauko1388 dont need to pretend when it never happened
@@NovaSoldier Lol! Let me put it this way, they signed treaties with BOTH sides... they were going to screw SOMEONE no matter what.
They simply waited until they thought the outcome was clear to jump in, but miscalculated.
We had 651.000 dead italian soldiers in the WWI and 589.000 civilian victims. A little bit of respect should be required. On the contrary, many comments are outrageous clichés
It sounds a little like "déjà vu" for me as we have the same problem with the "always surrender" or "cowards" comments. I don't know if you can read french but it can bring you some comfort to know that Dominique Lormier has written a book called : Les vérités cachées de la seconde guerre mondiale" (the hidden truth of the second world war), in which he sets the record straight, not only for France but also for Italy. One chapter is about "la bravoure méconnue des soldats Italiens" (the unrecongnized bravery of the Italian soldiers).
@@phlm9038 je ne parlais pas de la déuxième guerre mondiale, car l'Italie à ce temps là était une dictature. Le peuple ne décidait rien. Mais au temps de la prémière il y avait le suffrage universel et le peuple était en majorité anti-allemand. L'Autriche occupait encore une partie de l'Italie du Nord. Donc la guerre n'était pas vecue comme une trahison. Les allemands disaient que les italiens était l'anneau de conjunction entre l'homme et le singe.
@@giorgiodifrancesco4590 J'avais lu WWII, je devrais certainement changer mes verres de lunettes. Mais ils se disent aussi des choses désagréables sur la deuxième guerre mondiale.
@@phlm9038 Mais ça c'est normal, quand on pert. C'est la vie. De toute façon c'est mieux que la dictature aille terminée.
@@giorgiodifrancesco4590 Oui, c'est vrai, mais beaucoup trop d'insultes non justifiées, par des gens qui n'y connaissent rien.
Only one word for those who say: "hahah Italy betrayed hahaha":
STUDY.
Only one word for you: MEMES
@@timon8347 2 words:
ignorant memes
@@VittRomani tbh I am pretty interested in european history so I know that Italy didnt "betrayed" Germany but its pretty funny cause its a meme like the French with their Baguettes and white Flags (wich is also a big meme)
@@timon8347 and to me it's pretty funny to define ignorant those who make and like those memes
@@VittRomani and I am not ignorant but I still like these memes lol
I love how everyone thinks that the Italians are incompetent at warfare. In truth, the Italian soldiers suffered from a very incompetent command staff and obsolete equipment. General Edwin Rommel would stated in his reoprts that the Italian soldier was the equal to the german soldier if they were given proper leadership and equipment.
I have a suggestion : could you please make a video about why Romania switched sides in World War One? Keeping in mind the fact that the country was part of the Triple Alliance between 1883 and 1914 (initially Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia, later also Italy and Romania) under which the Central Powers operated during World War I (WWI), but it changed sides in 1916 and became a member of the Entente.
Italy is known for loyalty. In fact, the blue colour on their flag stands for loyalty.
Loyalty? Somebody should have told Italy to be loyal in ww2 !!!!!
@@harrys.3165 ah yes it’s definitely not like Italy had a civil war
@@harrys.3165 hey read a book please
Italy is known for backstabbing it's allies .The Greeks laughed at Italian soldiers who used all 12 reverse gears in THIER italian army tanks retreating from the greeks.
@@harrys.3165 in 1943 Italy pulled out of ww2 in 1945 Italy finished fighting itself and Greece is known for winning even though its outnumbered and Greek mountains really slowed the Italians down and Italy’s godawful generals were also a problem and Italy didn’t retreat it fought when Italy surrendered in el alemain it was when it was when Italy didn’t have water food and equipment
Actually, Serbia did have a hand in the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand. This makes the entente the aggressor.
Serbia, Belgium...the two most annoying nations of Europe 😄😄
2:41 "Only guarded by a poultry force." Very interesting.
I mean, the title is a bit misleading. For Italy to have betrayed Germany, they would have had to break a treaty which obligated them to joint Germany's side, which they never signed.
They did sign a defence pace, but emphasis on the defence. It said that Italy would be called to arms and fight alongside Germany if they were attacked by a foreign power. However, that never happened. Austria started the war in an attempt to enforce dominance on Serbia after the assassination of the archduke. Serbia offered to fulfil multiple demands from the Austrians and even agreed for an international deliberation to establish future actions, but Austria invaded anyway. This turned what was a defence of Austrian sovereignty to an invasion of Serbia. Because of this, Germany was on the side of the aggressors, and therefore Italy had no legal obligation to join Germany on their side. It's for this reason why both sides negotiated with Italy, because not only were they border members of both sides, but they had the legal ability to pick whichever side they wanted to join
What you're saying is just post-war technicallities made to justify a politic treason, and even if you consider this right, the treaty itself binded the signers to keep at least a "friendly neutrality" in case of war, not join the adversary because of promises of foreign land.
it's not misleading. Siging a defence pact mean you won't attack that same pact. Aggression of austria doesn't mean italy had green light to betray the pact.
Netsaurus it was hardly a technicality. If a nation agrees to join another if they are invaded, that grants no guarantee to join the others side if they are the aggressor.
If Belgium had invaded the Netherlands before WW1, would Britain be betraying Belgium by not joining their side?
Toby Black They would if they then attacked Belgium not to protect the Netherlands, but to gain land.
I think it largely comes down to a case of the victors writing the history, if the central powers had won it would be considered by most to be a blatant betrayal, but as the entente won it is considered by most to be 'technically not' a betrayal.
Actually Germany and Austria-Hungary had already "betrayed" Italy several times. For example: the Triple Alliance recognized that both Italy and Austria-Hungary were interested in the Balkans and required both to consult each other before changing the status quo and to provide compensation for whatever advantage in that area; however Austria-Hungary did not consult Italy before issuing the ultimatum to Serbia, and refused any compensation. So the relations between these countries had deteriorated and the pact between them was purely formal
I can understand Italian having claim on the Adriatic strait but, they did realize they were asking for the entirety of the Austrian's coastline?
A video on the Italian-Austrian front during WWI would be really interesting, several million men crammed on the side of mountains, using avalanches against one another.
So much ignorance from those writing comments without the minimum knowledge... Germans and Austrians didn't even consult Italy before declaring war, plus they were the aggressors, and Italy had a DEFENSIVE alliance with them, no obligation therefore of joining the war on their side...Only when Austria refused to give promised ITALIAN territories in its possession, Italy decided to join allies, that could be avoided if Austrians weren't so stubborn in keeping ITALIAN territories in change of Italy's neutrality.
yeah right all those "italian" territories like south tyrol and dalmatia right?
Indeed, they only contacted Germany to help them if war broke out.
Yeah, sure "italian territories"
er la Heard of Trentino, Istria and Dalmatia? At the time the majority of population was Italian and still today Trentino is Italian
"The House of Savoy has never finished a war on the same side it started on - unless the war lasted long enough to change sides twice.” - A Free French Newspaper in WW2
Tom theWonderDog War propaganda, what a reliable source...
Tom theWonderDog
Napoleonic wars : They were against France from the beginning until 1815 , Wars of Indipendence ( Risorgimento ) , they were with France in the second and Germany in the third , always against Austria , WW1 : They entered with the Entente , they won with the Entente.
Passi la seconda guerra mondiale (ma in realtà neanche quella, solo che sarebbe troppo difficile da spiegare e pure da capire per uno straniero) ma durante la prima guerra mondiale l’Italia entro in guerra con degli alleati e con quelli restò (alleati che poi tradirono l’Italia non cedendogli i territori promessi), la tripla alleanza era un patto difensivo che venne a meno quando l’impero austro-ungarico dichiarò per primo Guerra.
Comunque fa ridere detto da una nazione che se non era per Americani e Inglesi sarebbe ancora Germania adesso
Savoy is in France lol
You deserve more subscribers man love your videos
They ran out of marinara sauce to drown the enemies in.
And they ran out of meatballs to fire at the enemy.
Apart from getting Libya, Italy was also given the Dodecanese- some small islands of the Anatolian coast.
that was already in the Italo-Ottoman War of 1912
Italy already conquered those lands...
6:56 "and found itself in a much more stable condition"
Not really :/
Mussolini was able to make his march exactly because:
1. Italy did not gain half the territory promised
2. They lost too many man
3. The economy and especially agriculture was in a dire position.
And it was hard for returning soldiers to find jobs, leading to many joining either the far- right or far- left.
El rey podria haber evitado el ascenso de Musolini, pero en vez de eso lo puso a cargo de Italia. Lamentable.
And finally: Italy deserved to be cheated by England. They played a dirty game against Austria and Germany. Karma is a bitch!
HOLY JESUS, SO MANY ERRORS 😣😣😣😣
These History videos make me wish I paid more attention in school ngl
I’m pretty sure Armchair History advertised his channel on ROBLOX a couple years ago
This fact of the """"betrayal""" it's unaccurate. at the end of WW1 Italy didn't received the promised territories, and in WW2 Italy ended up the war in 1943, No army has been led against germany, because the king and the prime minister run away from the country. The partisans try to fight the nazi-fascists in the territory. so I don't really understand why there's this wrong conception about it. I've enjoyed the channel though
Oh it's just a meme that nobody knows where it started.
Also, italy never completely """"""""betrayed""""""" germany nor the austrians, actually, many regions stood loyal in both wars, so its a really inaccurate one
Guarda che sta parlando della prima guerra mondiale
@@riccardoflorio2800 parla anche della seconda
@@michelecastellotti9172 a me è sembrato che ha parlato in maniera abbastanza superficiale della questione di interventisti e neutralisti, accennando alla sconfitta di Adua e alla guerra in Libia
@@riccardoflorio2800 su questo hai ragione
saying that italy 'switched sides' in ww1 is like saying U.S.A. switched sides during the independence war. if you ever happen to actually study history you will realize how this is the truth.
Italy literally switched sides from the triple alliance to the triple entente
Ask Arminius
He was loyal to HIS people. So technically he was loyal. He would have been a betrayer if he would have let the Romans conquer HIS homeland.
@@larsonpartisan2855 he was raised by romans, he late found his germanic pride.
@@titfortat5727 Had he not been raised by the Roman military, he would not have been able to defeat the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest.
@@generalripper7528 what?
@@larsonpartisan2855 he was a traitor, he didn't honor his word.
A very good video covering an area rarely covered.
Still Italy was disappointment in result of I WW. The territory they gain was not consider worthy hundreds of thousand loses (650 000 dead, 1 000 000 wounded). Italy expected to gain entire Tyrol and Adriatic Coast, but it didn't happen. It led to discontent and sense of betrayal which ultimately led to rise of Fascist movement.
Well, part of the Triple Alliance pact implied that Austria Hungary was obliged to seek for an italian approval in case she planned to attack in the balkans, which they didn't, thus violating the treaty. That's why Italy could walk out the Triple Alliance without consequences. Obviously the cautiousness and the search for other secret alliances with the entente is correct
They really didn't "betray" anyone. Italy was deeply divided, it was not and never was as nationalistic as northern countries. people in Italy had different ideas and not all supported the war. It was easy for the Allies to find anti-war supporters both in the Socialist party and in the conservative party but EVEN in the Fascist party. You guys start from the erroneous assumption that Mussolini was as powerfull as Hitler. He was not, Fascism didn't rely only on the Dux, there were many politicians who shared the power and took part in decisions. Plus there were the old monarch and his supporters that were still important. Instead in Germany after Hindenburg's death, Hitler was the only one left.
Plus the Italians never really liked the Germans, expecially after WW1.
Mario Rossi tldr; Italy was in a national schism and was divided internally.
Quanto odio gli stranieri che dicono che siamo traditori
Epir Ogni paese fa studiare la storia dal suo punto di vista. Così come noi studiamo la guerra dal nostro punto di vista (e quindi riconosciamo che ci abbiamo perso anche noi, in guerra, e non siamo stati inutili coglioni come dicono all'estero), loro la studiano dal loro e, probabilmente, vengono a conoscenza di cose che noi non studiamo.
Ma è anche vero che in guerra non siamo stati eroi o simili, eh. Per niente.
Solo che la gente non capisce che la colpa non è DEGLI italiani, ma di chi li guidava.
Enemy V Però anche noi ne abbiamo avuti di soldati coraggiosi gli arditi, gli eroi del piave, gli alpini, i mas. È anche vero che gli alti ranghi erano un branco di ritardati
Epir That's true. Ma è stato così ovunque: c'erano i coraggiosi in Italia, in Germania, in Francia e così via e i ritardati allo stesso modo.
Ma veramente sempre lì a dire "oh your army sucks" "couldn't even beat Ethiopia", rompono le palle
I’m just watching this now lol but I’ve been watching for awhile XD love your content so much there’s nothing like it I tell my friends all the time
Don't exist other nations, the world is one nation: Italian civilization. Period.
Alphabet and Roman law are the world. We are the world.
Veneto and venetia were already italian in 1900
1:05 While it is true that Italy was lead by Victor Emmanuel III. during this time, you made a mistake in depicting his Father Victor Emmanuel II. The graphic is just wrong. (maybe you could correct that) It's a really informative video otherwise. Good job.
His father was Umberto I, Vittorio Emanuele II was his grandfather
there was one guy from libya that resist italy until his death and that earned him the nickname "lion of the desert"..
i forgot his name..
His name is Ömer Muhtar.
that's him! thanks man..
Sidi Omar Mukhtar
I chuckled.
Muammar Gaddafi?
These videos are so well made and I absolutely love them!
"Well made"
Galaxy yes that is what I said
It is wrong though. The maps are wrong, the title is wrong and he didn't even explain why we quote on quote "betrayed" the "germans" (it was the Austro-Hungarians anyways. All krauts tho)
Galaxy “we” oh so I’m guessing your italian hmmmm....as an Italian myself I can’t say that I see anything wrong with this video but that’s my opinion
@@Jordan-cs6bn An italian with a catalan name. Jajajajajajajajajajajaja
Italy: Loses men in the 100,000s area to gain a little bit of land from Austria Hungary.
King Victor Emmanuel III: That's a number I can live with.
Because Britain, France, Belgium, Russia got "significant" land in spite loosing more man than Italy...
Why did the ARMCHAIR HISTORIAN 'betray' historical ACCURACY? too many inaccuracies and mistakes, this video should be corrected and amended.
What are the mistakes
@@Wes-g2l Mistakes? Do your own research, read a book. Stooge!
@@TimeTraveller010 I am asking Stefano what the mistakes are in the video, think before you speak.
@@Wes-g2l Think before I 'text'. I did think before I spoke, don't attempt self-aggrandisement you will fail.
@Alexander Challis What's the problem? Are you completely aware of the time and resources it takes to access archives in a 'government or state library?' Does everybody have time like yourself to sift through archives in research for a specific event? It's why authors are paid to write for a masters research or Phd, right? Read a book, it's what I expressed.
Italo-Turkish war 💪🏻🇮🇹❤️
summary: because they are italian
Summary because you are an a**hole.
1) Regarding the Treaty of London of 1839 that guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium, on 4/08/1914 to the English ambassador Goschen, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg said: "Just for a word, neutrality, a word that in time of war was often overlooked - just for a piece of paper Britain was about to wage war in a neighboring nation that wanted nothing better than to be her friend. "When the German Empire invaded Belgium in August 1914 in violation of the treaty, the British declared war on August 4. Informed by the British ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany for the violation of the latter of Belgian neutrality, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg exclaimed that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would war for a simple "piece of paper" Chifon de papier say the French. Bethmann-Hollweg, in front of the Reichstag, proclaimed: faith given, therefore, has no value before the advantage of the moment. Necessity has no law, and necessity is worth the convenience and satisfaction of own possessions of greed
2) The alliance with Italy was defensive and Germany invaded Belgium.
3) Germany in the Second World War to attack France, Belgium reverted, always neutral, and declared war on Russia, despite the pact Molotov-Ribbentrop, sometimes called the Hitler-Stalin pact, a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the 'Soviet Union.
WHO TRADES WHO?
There was also the issue of Italy arguably depending on France and the United Kingdom for food and electricity, as it lacked the extent of farmland and coal the two powers had, and they wouldn't be too kind to Italy had they joined the Triple Alliance in war.
"Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line." Vizzini the Great Italian
You need to break a pact or a deal in order to betray, Italy had only a merely DEFENSIVE pact with the central powers, if they would have been attacked Italy would have join them in a defensive war, but Italy had no pact for an offensive war and since Austria started an offensive war Italy was not forced to join and was also not forced to not attack the central powers, there was no treatys in that sense.
Italy betrayed no one, she was just not forced to join any side or to attack so she just choose the most convenient side without violating any deal, also don't be hypocrite, every country would have done the same in that position, every alliance was praying Italy to join their side, Italy wasn't forced to join any side so she just did the best for her.
>Betray germany for the allies
>the allies betrayed italy by not giving italy the promised lands
Congratulations, you played yourself
""Betray"".
And Italy did get Trentino Alto Adige and Trieste.
Bad ally - incompetent
Worst ally - betrayal
3:16 Funny that there's Alberto Sordi's iconic photo, when in the '60s he was co-protagonist among Vittorio Gassman in the huge film "La Grande Guerra" (The Great War), a very good dramatic comedy that got a lot of rewards and was popular in other European countries too. It was cricitized at the time becuase it put WW1 in a bad light (rightfully so).
VIVA L' ITALIA!
Why you not include the veneto region of Italy in the pre WW1 map? They expanded a bit after WW1 but veneto was certainly part of Italy before the war.
If Germany had won the war and the Italians sided with the central powers they would have got scraps as well. What you have to remember is that every great power in this war was a competitor even with their allies, neither Germany nor France wanted to see Italy's power expand. If the Italian army was strong it would have gained more territory but it wasn't and the rest of the entente was unwilling to give it more because a bigger Italy threatened their power.
No matter which side Italy choose end result would have been the rise of Fascism and minimal territorial gains with high price in manpower.
I need to call bullshit on this logic. If Italy would be given for example french lands, it would have made Italy a stronger ally, while weakening one of their main adversaries. Ofcourse when we are talking about giving austro-hungarian lands to italy, yes the central powers wouldn't give Italy too many lands.
The central powers would've allowed Italy to take Nice, Corsica and maybe Tunisia these were the backwards unindustrialised parts of France. There is no way the Germans and the Austrians would've allowed Italy to have a massive colonial empire. They wouldn't of even been able to hold it down there failures in Ethiopia and in world war 1 proves this.
probably savoy too to restore the west border of serdinia-piedmont.... man i love that border
Italy could get lands up to Rhone , Nica, Savoy,Toulon, Grenoble , also Corsica, Tunis , Malta and Algiers. Also Triest and Trentino from Austria...
Anyway Austrian empire would collapse after the war in case of multi nation rebellions and without intimidating France Italy could be free to act.
Also Italy didnt have competition with Germans.
What a well put together video. Subscribed!
You should really make a video covering the Texas Revolution and period following it. It's a very complicated part of our past and has lasting impact that's felt even today in 2018
Interesting to note, there's the recurring joke that the French always surrenders and that they are weak, but couldn't we toss that gag at Italy? I mean, don't get me wrong, the Maginot line did NOT work as intended and the French were overwhelmed, but Italy's many military fails such as in the Africa and against the Austro-Hungarian are not to be overlooked, cause my god those were terrible. Not to mention that I didn't even bring up WW2, granted, the Germans in Operation Mincemeat falsely believed that the Allies would invade Greece, which means they had less help, but man the Italians were still an incompetent force! Of course, I have nothing against the French or Italians but in a way, I'm proud I was able to type a paragraph just talking about a small topic!
*Italians - "I surrender!"
(Edit) This was meant to be a bit satirical, so I hope I didn't offend anyone
France surrendered in 1940 after a incredible idiot called General Maurice Gamelin decided that Germany's piercing thrust through the Ardennes was a "diversion" and committed his forces northwards to aid Belgium and keep the Netherlands from surrendering. The result was the German panzers ripping through the lightly defended area, cutting west and outflanking the main French army, cutting off supplies and pinning it down against the English channel. This meant the allied army was forced to evacuate at Dunkirk and Paris was now almost defenseless against the incoming German army. The French are not weak, but they made some stupid decisions that REALLY did not work out!!
SirReepicheep Rules indeed, France doesn't fit the bill. In fact, for the most part France has been very good with military tactics but they have had a few events such as your mentioning and the invasion of russia.
Rob DeAbreu I understand what you mean. This was mostly a satirical post, however, I appreciate your articulate response. Italy was not by any means a world power back then, and should have probably stayed neutral, but forced their hand in both world wars and paid the price for it.
Memestiff Gaming go say that to the italian soldier died in the alpes or at Stalingrad.... They were no coward in these war except the nazi
Because we didn't surrender? As much as we sucked we still tried the hardest. We tried innovating warfare and we kind of did, we also didn't have the marshy plains that the French front had in WW1, we had the fucking alps. We didn't have the easy scrumble for Africa, we arrived last and had to deal with a united empire armed by the russian, again, in the mountains.
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.
unilaterally declared war on France and Belgium in the strange belief
Actually France had twice less soldiers in 1914 than Germany...So Schlieffen Plan could work well if there was italian soldiers on south French border...than Paris would fall...
And everything could go another way.
Do not write the truth, you only want visualizations creating controversy. Historical amateurs or the written history of winners?
One minor thing about Italy choosing the Entente side on the war, Italy was reliant on English food imports and if she had gone to war against England, the ability to eat in the country would have been very much challenged in a very short time.
In All this 7 1/2 minutes of video you didn't mention even once the real reason why Italy didn't join the war with Germany, which is that the pact between the two nations was a defensive one, and since Austria started the war, Italy wasn't forced to stay with them
The point is Italy and Austria were allies and then Italy invaded Austria while they were busy fighting Russia. Italy wanted some of that sweet sweet Austrian land. And they got it cheaply.
@@ivanbregar1646 because the alliance ended?
As an Italian, this hits really close to my gameplay, I always surrender at the first sign of aggression
You are not italian: you are a Brokkolino guy :-)
Italy was right! Austria-Hungary acted as the agressor. According to the treaty, all border changes at the Balkans had had to be approved by both Italy and Austria-Hungary. Austria declared war on Serbia with the goal of annexing it, without discussing it with Italy. So Austria violated the treaty. Also, in the case of Austria-Russia war, Italy, according to treaty, had had only stay neutral, and in the case of Franco-German war Italy was obligated to join Germany only if Germany was attacked without any provocation. So when the war broke out in 1914, Italy had no obligations to join the war on the side of Central powers.
the austrians didn't invade to annex. this was cause the Hungarian part of the country and their representatives (who were mostly anti-war) only agreed to support the war if not a single piece of serbian land was annexed. the other minorities were very pro-war cuz the archduke was planning on giving them more rights so him being assasinated by a serb when he was so close to becoming emperor really pissed them off, especially the Croats who he was really popular with. in fact some of the more violent protests for war were made in Zagreb and Croatia
just giving my 2 cents
As said above to get Hungarian approval Austria had to promise they wouldn't annex Serbian land, and it's one thing to screw over a foreign entity but the Austrians absolutely could not and would not betray a promise to the Hungarians. They needed them to keep the empire together
To stay neutral and to attack your ally, are to different thinks
Devil of War: Serbia would be annexed, because Austrians and especially Conrad von Hotzendorf, who started the whole war, was worried about rising national identities inside the empire and that Slavs would be united in one country. To quote The First World War by Martin Gilbert:
" ‘The unication of the South Slav race’, Conrad told Franz Ferdinand, ‘is one of the powerful national movements which can neither be ignored nor kept down. The question can only be, whether that unication will take place within the boundaries of the Monarchy-that is, at the expense of Serbia’s independence -or under Serbia’s leadership at the expense of the Monarchy.’ Were Serbia to be the leader of Slav unication, Conrad warned, it would be at the cost to Austria of all its south Slav provinces, and thus of almost its entire coastline. The loss of territory and prestige involved in Serbia’s ascendancy ‘would relegate the Monarchy to the status of a small power’. "
So in order to keep Austria-Hungary strong and to eliminate this threat, Serbia would be annexed OR puppet government would be installed.
+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).
Italy was almost a main protagonist and antagonist in both World Wars. But the goverment and the people we're seriously crazy. Now WE learned from our mistakes. (Maybe)
In the beginning, you said italy was ruled by Victor Emmanuel III in 1870, but the king at the time was the similarly named, Victor Emmanuel II. i just wanted to respectfully point that out.
Great video either way!
Ok Roy, halt die fresse
Honestly I would watch the video but the comments make it really look like this video underestimate and bypass the rightfully Italian territories that Italians never actually got. I don’t want to suffer anymore by hearing someone neglect the mutilated victory inflicted to Italy
Nvm I’m gonna watch it I’m curious
Nvm again, it was a good video
Answer is simple. « Ah, me get-a one-a over on Austria! »
Lorenzo M Take a joke.
Geneva Mapping nice joke of shit
Lorenzo M Nice english of shit
idcaf it's right his english
idcaf My English is correct lmao what is wrong with you
Italy (🇮🇹) have good relationship with France (🇨🇵)
What comes next? About 6,000 battles for the Isonzo.
Perché voi stranieri pensate che sia un tradimento? Alla fine nella triplice alleanza noi italiani eravamo vincolati più come stato allineato per un patto difensivo che per una vera e propria alleanza. Un altro punto: questa alleanza si basava sulla CONVENIENZA: all'italia per legittimarsi in Europa e non rimanere isolata, alla Germania sempre per legittimarsi quanto per rafforzare una posizione di equilibrio, all'Austria per difendersi da eventuali mire russe.
Un'altra cosa: avete completamente dimenticato un aspetto ideologico fondamentale, il Risorgimento. L'Italia venne fatta perché gli italiani furono riuniti da un forte disprezzo per l'Austria. Quindi voi non considerate neanche in minima parte i discorsi che intellettuali come D'Annunzio facevano per entrare in guerra contro l'Austria. Non è un caso che secondo gli storici questa guerra può essere considerata una sorta di quarta guerra d'Indipendenza.
@@alboboni5478 Anche se glielo spieghi così bene, non capiranno mai. Certa gente non riesce a afferrare la realtà dei fatti
@@thecommentaryking oltre a quello anche la complessità di certi concetti che purtroppo sono molto tipici del nostro Paese. Per carità comprendo che la storia che studiamo in Italia è molto focalizzata su di noi, ma un fenomeno così celebre come il Risorgimento è difficile da escludere...
It always pains me a bit to see Italy not succeed, after their many contributions to Europe _(intentional and unintentional)._ I can't speak for every Italian in the world, but I think they deserve a little bit more than they have now.
We are the third economy of the EU and its second industry, with a financial sector with more economic savings and availability than France and Germany. We also have a comparable population to France. We lack growth, reforms and need to tackle tax evasion, but we're still one of the richest countries worldwide, producing excellent products and know-how.
Our sacrifice in the Great War was noble and we unified the country. WW2 is a different story, but we surrendered in '43 to spare our country. Though, the Germans invaded and attacked, so we responded.
4:40 neither South Tyrol nor Dalmatia had been under italian rule, South Tyrol was part of Tyrol (a Monarch Family) which ruled over those territories for more than 500 years. Dalmatia was under Hungarian rule for almost the same amount of time, Italy didn't even exist in those times and had never set foot there (execpt under roman times)
Bernhard Jordan
I think, the Central Powers offered Italy a few times the territories of Savoy and Corsica (and perhaps some colonies) if they join the war on their side. And Italian Nationalists also wanted these parts. Well, at the end they picked the Entente and their offer. But in ww2 Italy pushed for the Annexation of Savoy and Corsica after the failed promises of the Entente after ww1.
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.
Wrong, Dalmatia had been under venetian rule for hundreds of years. You are right on South tyrol though
Italy did not want South Tyrol initially because it knew that German speaking population was the largest majority in that land. Though Italians considered the fact that South Tyrol is geographically in Italy to justify its annexation. As for Dalmatia, yet it is not geographically in the italian peninsula, it was considered historically italian by the fact that for centuries it was dominated by Venetians until Venice lost its indipendence being conquered by Napoleon and then its territories given to Austrian Empire by himself. Moreover, unlike South Tyrol, Dalmatia had a strongest italian presence. In fact the major political institutions were occupied by Venetians and urban population spoke italian (venetian isn't different from italian, I personally speak it). Indeed slavic pupulation at that time inhabitated mainly in the inland and they were mostly farmers. During the austrian domination, slowly the slavic presence increased at the expense of Italians, considered by Austrians dangerous for the region; in fact during the secon half of the 19th century Reign of Italy born and Italian irridentists in Austria rebelled and because of that they decided to prefer slavs over italians. After WW1 italians in Yugoslavia became less and less important and now there are very few there. For this reason Italy in WW1 wanted Dalmatia.
+Nicolas Novel dalmatia was always croatian ( which was a part of austria at the time ) venetians only managed to ocupy it as the croatians were on the front with the otomans and could not fight on 2 sides ( croatians had many fights with venetia over dalmatia as it was the starting point of the croatian kingdom and a important teritory for venetian trade)
Armchair Historian, I'm thinking about making a history channel of my own because channels like yours are inspiring, I have a personal interest in history and I'm doing history in my GCSE's. Would you recommend it?
If you've got the time and dedication!
Griff
JackOps
Very relatable! I’d love to do my own however u do not have the time or animations skills, however if you do go ahead!
Go for it! If nothing else, you'll learn a lot from it, from interaction with commenters, doing your own research, etc. If you do start making videos, pop the name of the channel here and I'll give it a watch!
Good thing you specified WWI or it would’ve been a long ass video. Also cant believe we were afraid of the french.
I am going to be sarcastic. Regarding Italy's military mishaps like my dad always said "Italians aren't fighters they're lovers."
I am half Greek and half Scottish. Dude it's a joke. Lighten up. I have had Italian-American girlfriends too.
@john vento GREECE? LOL. Italy hardly won that one (with lots help from Germany who had to finish the job), in fact it was a disaster for Italy, read your History. And why don't you mention Ethiopia or the Desert War where Italians surrendered and even outnumbered Montgomery's own troops lol. At least the Free French army won at Bir-Hakheim (and were praised by Hitler himself). Italy's never been a major force in post-Napoleonic warfare, period. Great culture though.
The real answer is: They remember Teutoburg, and they knew how to wait XD
Awesome video. European history doesn't cover Italy enough compared to the histories of nations like England and France.
Top ten anime betrayals
1:25 but Veneto was a part of Italy since 1866
I wonder how WW1 would have gone if Austro-Hungary empire had given Italy the territories it lusted for.
Italian front on France would have been quite successful and diverted troops from Northern France, making the Maginot weaker.