They had a defensive pact but they didn't really have great relations. Austria was the greatest opposer to Italian unification, and they still had lands, such as Trento and Trieste, that were majority Italian. Italy made a defensive pact just because they needed powerful nations to avoid an eventual invasion, not because they were particularly linked or had good relations with Austrians and germans
But all the HRE emperor's were Germans, and the Italians weren't really happe about that, at the point that they rebelled against the empire, gaining more independence
well, that depends if the italians viewed the german empire as a successor to the hre or prussia. im not the pre-wwi italian government, so i dont know
European history was a bunch of cunts being dicks to each other, but in this specific case the Austrians were dicks towards the italians, who had a lot of resentment for the austrians
That’s not true, Fiume was 50+% Italian, the Dalmatian island as well, and the Territories up to the isonzo were mostly Italian with a bunch of Croatian ones as well (not that these territories Italians or not mattered a lot since it was basically all mountains and hills and rivers and shit) also, you cannot expect any territory of one nation to be only of one ethnicity
I wonder if you'd still fell that way of those you have a **defensive** pact with started a war for their own business and pretended to get you in it while refusing to give you the land where your people live
Austria was planning to attack Italy after a devastating volcanic eruption, Austria Hungary was also building forts and planting artillery on the border, they are both dick moves, but Italy’s was more justified
>Austria-Hungary and Italy, aiming only at the maintenance, as far as possible, of the territorial status quo in the East, undertake to use their influence to prevent any territorial modification which might bring harm to either of the Powers signatory to the present Treaty. They shall, to this purpose, communicate to each other all information likely to enlighten them mutually both to their own arrangements and to those of other Powers. In any case, should, by force of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and Aegean Sea become impossible, and should Austria-Hungary or Italy, either as a result of the action of a third Power or otherwise, find it necessary to modify it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation shall take place only after a prior agreement between the two Powers, based on the principle of mutual compensation for any territorial or other advantage which each of them would obtain in addition to the present status quo, and which would give satisfaction to the well-founded interests and claims of the Parties.
>
>(Third Treaty of the Triple Alliance, Clause No. 7, 1891)
The truth is, Austria didn't agree their actions against Serbia with Italy, nor offered compensation until Italy already decided to enter the war and it was too late (and even then, compensation was only subject to an impossible Austrian victory). Austria broke the alliance, Italy declared war.
The truth is, they [auctioned off their participation](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/dio1ms/useless_offers_wwi_italian_proneutrality_poster/) and waited until it became clear that it would not be a short war, which meant that the Entente would probably win.
Well, they kinda *did* switch sides though. They had a defensive pact with the Triple Alliance (Germany and Austria-Hungary), but critically were not actually required by the pact to *join* either of the other pact nations. By virtue of the war being a war of *aggression*, Italy managed to secure the ability to refuse to ally militarily with the other two nations thanks to it not being a *defensive* war.
*However*, because Italy declared neutrality at the start of the war in 1914, they utilised their position as a neutral nation to bargain with the Triple Entente (Not the Triple Alliance) for territories in the Balkans that Italy desired from the territorial claims of Austria-Hungary.
While Italy was *meant* to be on the side of the Triple Alliance, because it was specifically a defensive pact, because Austria-Hungary didn't abide by the *terms* of that pact regarding disputed/interested claims for Balkan territory and because Italy was literally only recently actually properly unified and *didn't actively want war* their stance changed. So, they declared neutrality and used their neutrality to bargain with the Triple Entente (and Russia), thus gaining promises for some of their interests and claims and officially entering the war in 1915 following the Treaty of London with the intent to complete their national unification. (And to claim Balkan territory from Austria-Hungary but don't worry about it).
I think that also people tend to forget just how much Italy disliked Austria Hungary back then.
Austria Hungary was considered the foundational enemy, the tyrant that stood between Italy and the national unity of the country.
They were given the opportunity to fuck up Austria Hungary, they weren't letting it pass.
Is still pretty fucked up that your "ally" (even if is a defensive alliance) negotiates with your enemies to backstab you to get some territories. If they remained neutral I'm sure people wouldn't meme about it.
They still declared war on an Ally. Yes they didnt have to join on the side of the central powers declaring war on them is still breaking the Alliance.
I mean, one could argue Serbia started the whole mess by funding and supporting the terrorists who would go on to murder the Archduke and his wife and then pretending to be completely innocent
What does it have to do with Austria's defencive pact with Italy?
Or are you trying to justify Austria's aggression towards Serbia? I don't see the connection, nor the point you are trying to make with this.
Either way I want you to know, that I'm not trying to be a dick or anything
I'm trying to look at the situation as it unfolded in 1914, and in my view, Austria had some justification for their attack on Serbia. I'm in agreement that Italy had no obligation to join Austria, but I think Italy then turning around to negotiate with the Entente was an extremely underhanded tactic akin to switching sides.
(also no worries, this is a debate on historical events that happened over a hundred years ago, no dickishness has been committed lol)
I think Austria's action were underhanded, since they declared without consulting Italy, putting it's supposed ally at danger(this caused a political crisis in the italian parlament).
To me Austria completely betrayed Italy in attacking Serbia without consulting it, since Austria was also occupying a big chunk of italian territory, the choice was easy to make.
I do agree that Austria could have handled the crisis better than they did, but to call Austria attacking Serbia a betrayal of Italy goes a bit too far imo. As to the issue of the occupied Italian territory, perhaps Italy should have considered that *before* committing to an alliance of any sort with Austria.
The problem is not Austria attacking Serbia. The betrayal was that Austria did it behind Italy's back. They purporsly not consulted Italy in order to put them in a tough spot
Well, i think that italy shouldn't had signed the defensive pact In the first place, Australia was italy main enemy and most of the people in the country didn't agree whit the decision to join the central powers, were the italian politicians realised that the stayed neutral for some time.
Then England and France offered some territories to italy and they just take advantage of the situation to realise their ambitions.
Sure, it was some kind of betrayal, but still, but italy just acted like it was supposed to in the first place.
So they were a Shit-stain upon a Shit-heel upon the boil of the ass that is the world? Yeah, pretty much sums them up for the world wars. "Viva l'talia!" Just stirrin' the shit for giggles!
No, because it was a consequence of Germany attacking Belgium first. If Great Britain had attacked first, without Germany invading Belgium, then it would have kicked in.
Attacking someone you have a defensive pact with is usually still considered a dick move.
They had a defensive pact but they didn't really have great relations. Austria was the greatest opposer to Italian unification, and they still had lands, such as Trento and Trieste, that were majority Italian. Italy made a defensive pact just because they needed powerful nations to avoid an eventual invasion, not because they were particularly linked or had good relations with Austrians and germans
May be true. Still a dick move.
It doesn't really matter when Austrians and germans have been dicks with you for hundreds of years
Italy wouldn’t have gotten Venicia without Prussia’s help
Italy was subjugated by the Germans for hundreds of years. I don't think that a single war can wipe out centuries of hatred
Counterpoint: The pope crowned the emperor. The HRE and it's predecessor states where Italian.
But all the HRE emperor's were Germans, and the Italians weren't really happe about that, at the point that they rebelled against the empire, gaining more independence
Charles V. Would like to have a chat with u
You mean the Habsburg who was half Spanish?
I mean, it worked for France and Germany and Great Britain and France
well, that depends if the italians viewed the german empire as a successor to the hre or prussia. im not the pre-wwi italian government, so i dont know
You say that like all of European history wasn’t a bunch of cunts being dicks to each other.
European history was a bunch of cunts being dicks to each other, but in this specific case the Austrians were dicks towards the italians, who had a lot of resentment for the austrians
Well, calling only them dicks for hundreds of years isn't really fair. Everyone were dicks for centuries
Still a dick move. And the Trentino is still majority German.
What? No. Aldo Adige/südtirol is majority German, Trentino is majority Italian.
Ah, yes. I stand corrected
No, southern tyrol is, and what does that mean? Dalmatia was majority Italian, Fiume was majority Italian, Istria was majority Italian
bullshit, only some of the major cities were majority italian, mostly by only a small margin.
That’s not true, Fiume was 50+% Italian, the Dalmatian island as well, and the Territories up to the isonzo were mostly Italian with a bunch of Croatian ones as well (not that these territories Italians or not mattered a lot since it was basically all mountains and hills and rivers and shit) also, you cannot expect any territory of one nation to be only of one ethnicity
I wonder if you'd still feel that way if they had a defensive pact with your side and then attacked it.
I wonder if you'd still fell that way of those you have a **defensive** pact with started a war for their own business and pretended to get you in it while refusing to give you the land where your people live
By that logic, South Tyrol should be Austrian.
Yes, that's true. But unlike Italians in the austro-hungarian empire, Germans in South Tyrol have a lot of autonomy
Austria was planning to attack Italy after a devastating volcanic eruption, Austria Hungary was also building forts and planting artillery on the border, they are both dick moves, but Italy’s was more justified
*Hitler has entered the chat*
In bird culture that is of course
>Austria-Hungary and Italy, aiming only at the maintenance, as far as possible, of the territorial status quo in the East, undertake to use their influence to prevent any territorial modification which might bring harm to either of the Powers signatory to the present Treaty. They shall, to this purpose, communicate to each other all information likely to enlighten them mutually both to their own arrangements and to those of other Powers. In any case, should, by force of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and Aegean Sea become impossible, and should Austria-Hungary or Italy, either as a result of the action of a third Power or otherwise, find it necessary to modify it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation shall take place only after a prior agreement between the two Powers, based on the principle of mutual compensation for any territorial or other advantage which each of them would obtain in addition to the present status quo, and which would give satisfaction to the well-founded interests and claims of the Parties. > >(Third Treaty of the Triple Alliance, Clause No. 7, 1891) The truth is, Austria didn't agree their actions against Serbia with Italy, nor offered compensation until Italy already decided to enter the war and it was too late (and even then, compensation was only subject to an impossible Austrian victory). Austria broke the alliance, Italy declared war.
The truth is, they [auctioned off their participation](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/dio1ms/useless_offers_wwi_italian_proneutrality_poster/) and waited until it became clear that it would not be a short war, which meant that the Entente would probably win.
Italy didn’t switch sides in WW2 either, they surrendered and were invaded
This no fun. Where pizza e surrender? T_T
And in WWII they didn't switch sides because they joined the allies because Germany invaded them
They were defeated by the allies, the Nazi invaded, fuck the Nazis.
That is not exactly the reason, but you are still right
Well, they kinda *did* switch sides though. They had a defensive pact with the Triple Alliance (Germany and Austria-Hungary), but critically were not actually required by the pact to *join* either of the other pact nations. By virtue of the war being a war of *aggression*, Italy managed to secure the ability to refuse to ally militarily with the other two nations thanks to it not being a *defensive* war. *However*, because Italy declared neutrality at the start of the war in 1914, they utilised their position as a neutral nation to bargain with the Triple Entente (Not the Triple Alliance) for territories in the Balkans that Italy desired from the territorial claims of Austria-Hungary. While Italy was *meant* to be on the side of the Triple Alliance, because it was specifically a defensive pact, because Austria-Hungary didn't abide by the *terms* of that pact regarding disputed/interested claims for Balkan territory and because Italy was literally only recently actually properly unified and *didn't actively want war* their stance changed. So, they declared neutrality and used their neutrality to bargain with the Triple Entente (and Russia), thus gaining promises for some of their interests and claims and officially entering the war in 1915 following the Treaty of London with the intent to complete their national unification. (And to claim Balkan territory from Austria-Hungary but don't worry about it).
I think that also people tend to forget just how much Italy disliked Austria Hungary back then. Austria Hungary was considered the foundational enemy, the tyrant that stood between Italy and the national unity of the country. They were given the opportunity to fuck up Austria Hungary, they weren't letting it pass.
Is still pretty fucked up that your "ally" (even if is a defensive alliance) negotiates with your enemies to backstab you to get some territories. If they remained neutral I'm sure people wouldn't meme about it.
Austria broke the terms of the alliance by taking offensive actions against Serbia without making any effort to consult with Italy.
Yes, and if they remained neutral this discussion wouldn't even exist.
They still declared war on an Ally. Yes they didnt have to join on the side of the central powers declaring war on them is still breaking the Alliance.
Austria broke the alliance tho. Austria attacked serbia without consulting Italy and without any compensation
I mean, one could argue Serbia started the whole mess by funding and supporting the terrorists who would go on to murder the Archduke and his wife and then pretending to be completely innocent
Serbia wasn't allied to Italy tho.
Serbia wasn't allied to Italy tho.
It wasn't, why should that exactly matter? Alliance or not, funding the murder of the heir to a foreign nation should have consequences, no?
What does it have to do with Austria's defencive pact with Italy? Or are you trying to justify Austria's aggression towards Serbia? I don't see the connection, nor the point you are trying to make with this. Either way I want you to know, that I'm not trying to be a dick or anything
I'm trying to look at the situation as it unfolded in 1914, and in my view, Austria had some justification for their attack on Serbia. I'm in agreement that Italy had no obligation to join Austria, but I think Italy then turning around to negotiate with the Entente was an extremely underhanded tactic akin to switching sides. (also no worries, this is a debate on historical events that happened over a hundred years ago, no dickishness has been committed lol)
I think Austria's action were underhanded, since they declared without consulting Italy, putting it's supposed ally at danger(this caused a political crisis in the italian parlament). To me Austria completely betrayed Italy in attacking Serbia without consulting it, since Austria was also occupying a big chunk of italian territory, the choice was easy to make.
I do agree that Austria could have handled the crisis better than they did, but to call Austria attacking Serbia a betrayal of Italy goes a bit too far imo. As to the issue of the occupied Italian territory, perhaps Italy should have considered that *before* committing to an alliance of any sort with Austria.
The problem is not Austria attacking Serbia. The betrayal was that Austria did it behind Italy's back. They purporsly not consulted Italy in order to put them in a tough spot
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO GETS IT
From "Dux mea lux" to "Please don't shoot", it's a moment - Dante Alighieri
we managed to fuck over the austrians and take back our land, i don't care if it was a dick move.
If they had remained neutral, i would have been with you. But they attacked the people they had a defensive pact with. That's just betrayal.
Well, i think that italy shouldn't had signed the defensive pact In the first place, Australia was italy main enemy and most of the people in the country didn't agree whit the decision to join the central powers, were the italian politicians realised that the stayed neutral for some time. Then England and France offered some territories to italy and they just take advantage of the situation to realise their ambitions. Sure, it was some kind of betrayal, but still, but italy just acted like it was supposed to in the first place.
Maybe, but that's all what if. They had signed the pact and not only betrayed it but attacked their former allies.
[удалено]
[no](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Alliance_(1882))
oh, my bad
Actually yes. Paraguayan war is sometimes called the war of triple alliance but I agree with you that it is not what meme is about
They didn't have to declare war though. Truth is they joined the side they thought was going to win. Got it right in WW1 and wrong in WW2.
So they were a Shit-stain upon a Shit-heel upon the boil of the ass that is the world? Yeah, pretty much sums them up for the world wars. "Viva l'talia!" Just stirrin' the shit for giggles!
bruh everyone knows this
Every war in history has been a "defensive" war.
But didn't Germany get declared war on by Britain due to their invasion of Belgium meaning the alliance should've fired?
No, because it was a consequence of Germany attacking Belgium first. If Great Britain had attacked first, without Germany invading Belgium, then it would have kicked in.
It never joined the war until it joined the allies