Alternate causes of WWI

rather interesting indeed...

Conrad get his way and attack Italy during the Italo-Turkish War, this precipite a Balkan war and soon all other powers are involved in a convoluted conflict.

hmmm...interesting, do you know for a fact he wanted to do so? perhaps a surprise attack gives Italy a heavy knock off its ass...considering Italy's performance against the Abyssinians IOTL would maybe unite the empire as an "ideal, splendid little war" (à la Spanish-American War of 1898) to win back Venice, wipe the Empire back into shape. Or yes, a world war can break out but its its not so easy as Austria can argue it is "controlling unprovoked Italian aggression against the helpless Turks/Abyssinians" or secretly signing a defense treaty (finding and/or dusting off an ancient one as an excuse or bending/modifying an existing treaty of some kind (if one exists but i'm sure most of the powers had some kind of diplomatic literature whether meaningful or not connecting them...Also, this Hapsburg surprise attack might possibly accepting as many people in Europe (and America/Japan/Russia/the World) probably would see little reason for Austria in particular to play nice-nice their southern neighbor considering after all, barely a generation ago, Italy most gracelessly stole Venice by opportunistically (some would argue "cowardly") only waiting until Austria was preoccupied by a much better prepared foe in 1866 (Prussia) and even then, didn't for the most part, the Austrians basically hold their ground or at least until Sadowa and basically when it became clear that it was a done deal for Austria, (and yes, i know it could have been a much more worse outcome for them)? While i'm not a 100% sure on the land battles between Italy and Austria i do know that at the end of the war the Italian Fleet tried to seize an Adriantic Island (Lissa) quickly before the War would have ended to have more legit claims to (more and/or existing) claims on Austrian territory, but the Italian action turned into an epic fail when like half of it was destroyed by a smaller Austrian one? Also, looking at that naval battle, i do believe that at some point the Austrian Admiral was talking admirally about how the Venetians were proud to serve in their fleet and that they saw themselves as primarily Venetians above anything else and (possibly) that they didn't try to take advantage of an opportunistic time declare loyalty to Italy or for express any desire for independence from either Italy or Austria...just thoughts lol please people i humbly as yall to please correct me if i am wrong in any way!
 
hmmm...interesting, do you know for a fact he wanted to do so? perhaps a surprise attack gives Italy a heavy knock off its ass...considering Italy's performance against the Abyssinians IOTL would maybe unite the empire as an "ideal, splendid little war" (à la Spanish-American War of 1898) to win back Venice, wipe the Empire back into shape. Or yes, a world war can break out but its its not so easy as Austria can argue it is "controlling unprovoked Italian aggression against the helpless Turks/Abyssinians" or secretly signing a defense treaty (finding and/or dusting off an ancient one as an excuse or bending/modifying an existing treaty of some kind (if one exists but i'm sure most of the powers had some kind of diplomatic literature whether meaningful or not connecting them...Also, this Hapsburg surprise attack might possibly accepting as many people in Europe (and America/Japan/Russia/the World) probably would see little reason for Austria in particular to play nice-nice their southern neighbor considering after all, barely a generation ago, Italy most gracelessly stole Venice by opportunistically (some would argue "cowardly") only waiting until Austria was preoccupied by a much better prepared foe in 1866 (Prussia) and even then, didn't for the most part, the Austrians basically hold their ground or at least until Sadowa and basically when it became clear that it was a done deal for Austria, (and yes, i know it could have been a much more worse outcome for them)? While i'm not a 100% sure on the land battles between Italy and Austria i do know that at the end of the war the Italian Fleet tried to seize an Adriantic Island (Lissa) quickly before the War would have ended to have more legit claims to (more and/or existing) claims on Austrian territory, but the Italian action turned into an epic fail when like half of it was destroyed by a smaller Austrian one? Also, looking at that naval battle, i do believe that at some point the Austrian Admiral was talking admirally about how the Venetians were proud to serve in their fleet and that they saw themselves as primarily Venetians above anything else and (possibly) that they didn't try to take advantage of an opportunistic time declare loyalty to Italy or for express any desire for independence from either Italy or Austria...just thoughts lol please people i humbly as yall to please correct me if i am wrong in any way!

Conrad even try to convince the emperor during the earthquake of Messina to attack Italy (he don't like us very much). Nevertheless Austria-Hungary acted more as an Ottoman ally during the Italo-Turkhis war, even openly menacing war if Italy has done some attack in Albania, so things exalating is a real possibility. Regarding Venice (and the rest of Veneto) being 'cowardly stolen' by Austria (who btw simply and unceremenosuly absorbed the Republic of Venice after the Post-napoleon congress without any of the locals have the right to say anything), well it was a war where we were official ally of Prussia and basically the entire plan of war intented to occupy A-H with a two front war so...none as stabbed A-H in the back. Regarding taking back Venetia, well FF and FJ desired to undo the italian unification, unfortunely it was a little too late, there are never existed a serious autonomous movement in Veneto, at lest till the 90's of 10th century, and even at the time was little more than a fringe groups.
Regarding military perfomance, well an attack by Austria will simply be like the OTL WWI italian front only with role reversed, the territory openly favor the defender.
 
Conrad even try to convince the emperor during the earthquake of Messina to attack Italy (he don't like us very much). Nevertheless Austria-Hungary acted more as an Ottoman ally during the Italo-Turkhis war, even openly menacing war if Italy has done some attack in Albania, so things exalating is a real possibility. Regarding Venice (and the rest of Veneto) being 'cowardly stolen' by Austria (who btw simply and unceremenosuly absorbed the Republic of Venice after the Post-napoleon congress without any of the locals have the right to say anything), well it was a war where we were official ally of Prussia and basically the entire plan of war intented to occupy A-H with a two front war so...none as stabbed A-H in the back. Regarding taking back Venetia, well FF and FJ desired to undo the italian unification, unfortunely it was a little too late, there are never existed a serious autonomous movement in Veneto, at lest till the 90's of 10th century, and even at the time was little more than a fringe groups.
Regarding military perfomance, well an attack by Austria will simply be like the OTL WWI italian front only with role reversed, the territory openly favor the defender.

Oh geeze didn't mean to get carried away, i was simply speaking from how an Austrian General/Archduke/Emperor/Politician probably would have seen the events of the day from THIER PROSPECTIVE, i didn't mean to insult Italy at all please i hope you know that. 9.999999999999999999999999999/10 wars in history (especially in the past), are usually petty, built on petty excuses to begin with, and use petty dishonesty to paint the enemy(ies) in a dishonest, insulting way, thus most were fought over, (and ppl died for) seemingly petty goals haha but yeah if your italian my bad bud! :cool: Believe me, i'm American, and from New Orleans, (if your not familiar) that makes me a Southerner, and while proud of my heritage/home/culture otherwise, i'm assuming since your on this forum, you should you know we (the Deep South) doesn't exactly have the brightest, most dazzlingly white conscience when it comes to History! :eek:
Honestly, I just thought this would be both an interesting scenario to consider and a fresh/new one that i never thought of (and Thankfully, not, yet a another, pathetic, absurdly boring Nazi-wank/CSA-ass-kisser either lol ahahahahaha).

And no, I do not find war "splendid" i just was quoting that American Official (or was it a British?) who said that in reaction to the Spanish-American War who was describing how everything seemed (at least on the surface) to go incredibly well for 'States (no fiascos, no pyhric victories or defeats, no awkward questions being asked about America's justification(s) to start the War to begin with, Europe ditching Spain, the War definably united the Nation and help to heal old wounds/foster growth in the first Conflict since the (at the time) recent lest than 30-years old, horrid Civil War had ended.

My interest sparks in states like Austria, Imperial Germany, and others that don't exist in todays world, like how would things be different if X event went differently or Y event even would have been allowed to happen at all. I don't think that the Italian army is inferior (in its people, bravery and will to defend its homeland) than any other army in any time in history, however, since it seemed like they were really focused their attention to seizing (future) Libya and their moves against Ethiopia that they wouldn't be expecting a quick (if the word "blitz" is appropriate :p) attack, ([which i see that "cruel cycle of pettiness" just as much in this hypothetical conflict just like (IMHO) that i saw Italy did in 1867 and Austria (not that either is "better") when they originally took Venice to begin with, and so on and so on, or 9.99/10 of History's Conflicts/Wars]), that would if pulled off right, be able to catch Italy with it's pants down and maybe without allies be able to bypass most of that"defense-favoring terrain" that your talking about, especially since in WWI of OTL Italy had the benefit of being able to immediatly go on the offensive but you see Austria was able to respond, with German help no doubt, considering the entire Austro-Hungarian Army was in Europe and not Africa (as Italy's would, i imagine would be, in Africa or in the in the Med., possibly in preparation for the landing at Rhodes, ect. After all, the Ottomans had some sort of an army, as much of sad state of affairs it may have been it, a man with a gun and a sense of loyalty is and always is that, no matter what the other side has, may be easier for Italy to overcome than say a better trained army but if the Turk could shoot and Italian dead, he'll damn well try. Also, considering its 1911 Italy, not Germany, England, or a World Power, its resources may be (significantly?) better than Turkey, but still limited.). And i'm not saying Germany joins in either but that i was suggesting that it seems like they were allied to Austria longer and thus trusted them more and thus would favor them over Italy. So ya, just wanted to explain my case and right any (possible) wrongs that may have come up from my post. Thanks!
-Jay Vega
 
Top