|
Prism posted:I don't know much about WW1 naval operations. What was so weird about the Italian navy? It wasn't that weird really, rather both Italy and Austria-Hungary were reluctant to risk their capital ships in direct confrontations, in Italy's case because they'd just recently modernized the fleet and didn't want to risk such a considerable investment, in Austria-Hungary's because they didn't have that many dreadnoughts to begin with. As such, you saw a lot more raiding and smaller-ship actions, and as Disinterested mentions, the Italians did some groundbreaking work with torpedo-boats/harbor infiltration which they'd perfect in the next war.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Prism posted:I don't know much about WW1 naval operations. What was so weird about the Italian navy? Well they lost two dreadnoughts to magazine explosions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
HMS Bulwark, which blew itself up for no readily apparent reason while lying at anchor, thinks it belongs in this conversation... Recent posts at 100 Years Ago that might be of interest: From Christmas Day, an attempt to put the truce into context with everything else that happened that day (and there was a lot of it), including my nomination for what I think the great shared experience of the truce was. From the 29th, an attempt to explain why histories of 1914 and 1915 are full of "The Allies were very short of artillery shells..." From New Year's Eve, a review of the situation as it stands, with an eye to explaining why the big nobs weren't inclined to go "look, we're all copping it badly, none of us are really prepared for this, let's just shake hands and call it a draw".
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Well they lost two dreadnoughts to magazine explosions. While not common, that wasn't entirely unheard of and not exclusive to the Italian fleet. The British lost ships to internal explosions as well, which last I checked was thought to be the result of poor cordite handling/proximity to the boilers (for gently caress's sake). In addition to the Bulwark, HMS Vanguard managed to blow itself up in 1917 while at anchor at Scapa Flow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Hey, the US was pioneering self exploding battleships since the Span-Am war
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Hey, the US was pioneering self exploding battleships since the Span-Am war Mr. President, we cannot tolerate an exploding-warship gap!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Im curious would Italy joining the central powers make a significant change in how the war went? Or would their mountain misadventures instead just happen on the French border. Well Italy decreeing neutrality at the onset let the French move another 4 divisions to the north, so Germany's advance wouldn't have been stopped as soon as they were, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
As the political situation stood, Italy was never going to join the Central Powers. The irredentists were hell-bent on gaining territory (which of course was totally territory that rightfully belonged to them and full of ethnic Italians straining under the imperialist yoke and yadda yadda yadda) at the expense of Austria-Hungary. If they join the war on the same side as Austria-Hungary, they're getting involved in a war to defend their biggest enemy, and it's a war that they could do very little to affect either way. To make it work for them, two things would then have to happen, neither of which they have much control over. First, they had to hope that Germany and A-H could have won the war. Second, in the ensuing diplomacy, they'd have to somehow wangle the territory they wanted from A-H, to be offset by Austrian conquests elsewhere. (The A-H response to this suggestion when it was brought up in autumn 1914 was similar to that which would later be given the plaintiff in Arkell v Pressdram.) Add to this that they have a perfectly sound reason for staying out initially; the Triple Alliance only obliges them to join Germany and A-H in a defensive war against another Great Power, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what A-H did in Serbia. And if Germany and A-H lose the war, now Italy too ends up on the wrong end of any peace settlement. On the other hand, Italy could just sit it out, which would save them a lot of war dead, and leave them in an excellent position to capitalise should A-H be somehow destabilised by the war, even if they finished up on the winning side. Or they could cuddle up to the Entente and have their support in invading A-H and seizing the territories by force; even if the Entente gets cold feet, or if France somehow contrives to get defeated by Germany, it's a lot easier to put an army somewhere than it is to make it go away again. Sure, their ability to affect the major direction of the war is still limited fighting with the Entente, but at least this way they can directly work towards their goal instead of marching their army in literally the exact opposite direction from Trieste.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
I have heard some people say that the Italians staying neutral until close to the end of the war would have meant the French and British spending a lot less money on helping to supply the Italian armies being wasted in the mountains, thus meaning a lot less debt involved when the war ended. Is there any truth to that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I have heard some people say that the Italians staying neutral until close to the end of the war would have meant the French and British spending a lot less money on helping to supply the Italian armies being wasted in the mountains, thus meaning a lot less debt involved when the war ended. Is there any truth to that? I don't know how much specifically, but the other Allies did end up dumping quite a bit of cash and resources into Italy to keep it equipped and in the field, as they also did with several more minor participants like Portugal, incidentally. After the Caporetto disaster in particular, they were more or less directly underwriting the Italian war effort, largely on borrowed (chiefly American) money, so I have to think there's something to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
The latest Blueprint to Armageddon has some terrible passages about Passchendaele. What a godawful war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Also Britain and France wouldn't have been quite so supportive of Italy's hopes of carving off a(nother) slice of the Ottoman empire if they didn't get involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:On the other hand, Italy could just sit it out, which would save them a lot of war dead, and leave them in an excellent position to capitalise should A-H be somehow destabilised by the war, even if they finished up on the winning side. And keep the rest of the world from knowing they were a bunch of inept, bumbling morons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Hey, the US was pioneering self exploding battleships since the Span-Am war Hey we got Puerto Rico and the Phillipines out of the deal. I'd say a pretty good trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The irredentists were hell-bent on gaining territory (which of course was totally territory that rightfully belonged to them and full of ethnic Italians straining under the imperialist yoke and yadda yadda yadda) at the expense of Austria-Hungary. I'm reasonably confident that Savoy was arguably still "Italian" at that point, with some other nearby areas , as was Corsica (kinda). France was always a multi-ethnic empire, and most of its citizens couldn't read or write in French in 1900, but the Revolution (which was cosmopolitan in nature) had the effect of binding them together. When you think about it, is the relationship of someone from Provence with someone from Brittany that much closer than an Austrian from a Hungarian? e: pre-1789, I mean. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I'm reasonably confident that Savoy was arguably still "Italian" at that point, with some other nearby areas , as was Corsica (kinda). France was always a multi-ethnic empire, and most of its citizens couldn't read or write in French in 1900, but the Revolution (which was cosmopolitan in nature) had the effect of binding them together. When you think about it, is the relationship of someone from Provence with someone from Brittany that much closer than an Austrian from a Hungarian? Yeah, but the Italian government's primary strategic goal pre-WW1 was to turn the adriatic into an Italian pond. Sure, the hardcore irredentists made noise about Nice, Savoy and Corsica, but the dudes in power wanted Trieste, Dalmatia and Trentino far more. And since that too was in the interests of the irredentists, they happily went along with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
Ever heard of John Chilembwe? He's a national hero in Malawi, with his own public holiday and everything. Right now, 100 years ago, he's gathering followers for a revolt against British rule in Nyasaland (as-was) and the plantation owners who are basically running their own private feudal state within the British Empire. Do remember him when some revisionist historian tries to tell you that Britain went to war in 1914 to protect liberal democracy from the villainous Hun and his pernicious empire-building, won't you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Giving this a bump since I just remembered about https://makersley.com/ Last month (plus 100 years) began the ANZAC landings.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
As long as we're bumping this thread, here's a reminder that the final episode of Blueprint for Armageddon has been posted and the entire series is currently available for download gratis.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 07:01
|
|
GulMadred posted:As long as we're bumping this thread, here's a reminder that the final episode of Blueprint for Armageddon has been posted and the entire series is currently available for download gratis. there should be an extra (paid) episode with another couple hours of content coming out soon with the stuff he cut for narrative reasons. it's almost certainly going to cover the growth of air power and poetry/literature of the war, and will probably also touch on post-war ramifications wrt wiping out the male population of europe and widespread mental trauma amongst those who did survive
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Someone ITT recommended a WW1 comic series that sounded really great, but try as I might, I can't find it. I'm probably just an idiot, but can someone tell me what it was called and/or who wrote it?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 09:12
|
|
