Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by sirjackalot, Oct 5, 2019.
Taking in consideration has it ended...yes, yes really
That's from fighting harder, not smarter.
Being the best bulletstopper isn't the best metric to use, I think.
Being willing to die for your country is important, but you need to look at how many of them were needlessly wasted
Austrians ran the meatgrinder on the Italians, not the other way around.
Only the 1st, 2nd and 6th Battles of the Isonzo had k.k.L and KuK taking slightly more casualties than the Italians, That didn't change til 1918
For the same reason Brazil and the other South American nations had them.
their rivals had those ships
AH as it was entered the war with more and better ships than the Italians. The original plan when the Italians were still Allies was to block Entente shipping at Sicily and make Suez unusable. Lack of funding prevented that. Lack of naval power to potentially challenge the British or French meant that Italy knew it would be at the mercy of the British for its imports which made their decision of neutrality and subsequent declaration of war on former ally simple one to make. For comparison with just 18 million Krona of funding as compared to 80 or 90 the army had the Habsburg navy was a respectable foe that kept Italians at bay. Spending more on either navy or army was however impossible due to Hungarians.
A-H was just lucky that they hold one of the best defensive line in Europe at the Isonzo and even with that, the 11th had almost become their caporetto and only German support had permitted the K.u.K to continue to fight for all the war, really when the Russian made a breakthrought it was ususally in the A-H sector, even during the Kerensky offensive
Regarding Serbia, taking in consideration that they have sent beat the first offensive of A-H and got ravaged by thypus and later attacked in the rear front by Bulgaria, well they had fought as good as possible with what they had
It’s a good thing that Serbia decided to fight AH alone and not involve great powers. Or that AH fought Italians alone rather than fighting on 3 fronts. Italians sure were divided and unable to focus their forces considering their southern and western front.
- Any plan that doesn't assume that RN/NM will dominate the Med is questionable...
- Amphibious landing are very hard so a much smaller force could have defended the AH coast...
18M v 80/90M is still huge and roughly 20% you could have bought a very large number of guns, shells and MGs for even 1/2 that.....
What benefit did Hungary get from such a fleet that would make it worth building?
The Italians were on the offensive in a context where defense was massively superior, not improved by the Carsos geography. Nevertheless both the 6th and 10th Izonso plausibly could gave resulted in an Italian breakthrough into the Austrian Riviera.
Austria entered into the war with Serbia knowing that it would trigger a Russian intervention, just as Germany crossed through Belgium knowing the probable British response. Both countries gambled, and lost, wildly underestimating their opponents and overestimating themselves. In truth I think that the Central Powers would be liable to do far worse than they did; the Marne was far more likely to end with the Germans halted much farther east than a capture of Paris, and Tannenberg also could have been less of a German knockout and a loss of East Prussia. The Turks staying out would have shortened the war considerably for the Entente. And so on.
This is not to say that the Russians don't deserve the lions share of the blame, but neither Austria nor Germany were passive victims.
Combined with Italy thr Triple Alliance had the potential to wrest control over the Mediterranean from the French in a decisive battle. It would have been a great gamble, however. Still Italian entry in 1914 is easily enough to win the war within a year or two- but that depends on convinc8ng Italy to commit economic and possibly national suicide for the sake of her ancestral enemy and geopolitical rival. Buying Italian neutrality with territorial concessions would have been more plausible, but the broader point must be made again that neither the Austrians nor the Germans did much of significance to erode the fatal coalition arrayed against them and actively took measures to make more enemies rather than less.
Austrias dual structure was a part of her sysfuntlction mainly due to the Hungarians refusing to pay their share.
Royal Navy can’t dominate the Mediterranean for 4 years and keep the German High seas fleet hemmed in at the same time. And Habsburg Italian fleet doesn’t have to dominate it either. Simply make transfer of goods trough Mediterranean using Suez demand too high a price.
The benefit they got was to keep the lands they claimed.
Yes they can,
Source: P. G. Halpern, A Naval History of World War I, (London: UCL Press, 1994), pp. 7-20. from https://warandsecurity.com/2014/08/04/the-naval-balance-of-power-in-1914/
RN only really needs to equal Germany in north sea due to geography + a couple to cover ships in dock at the time. She could spare at least a couple of the older ships to cover the difference between France and AH+I.
I fail to see why the navel war really matters that much to Hungary, its far more important to win land battles and spend Hungarian tax money in peacetime in Hungary that navel building on the coast will not do?
Sorry, you can put as you want but A-H had not last till the end of the war if the German will have not giving her so much support...and regarding so many front, well better remember who get the idea, the A-H brass itself. They had suffered a lot of pressure? Sure, but other nation had suffered more and by 1918 anybody knows that the Empire was dead or in the best case scenario a whole owned subsidiary of Germany
July 23, 1914 Serbia begins Mobilization after receiving the A-H Ultimatum
July 24, A-H informs France, Russia, and Britain of Serbian ultimatum at 9 AM, Churchill sends Fleet advisory notice of crisis, but not a full alert
July 25 A-H cut diplomatic ties, declares martial law and begins partial Mobilization, German Fleet ordered to return to base, Tsar studies Mobilization options
July 26, Serbia Mobilizes, A-H full Mobilization on Russian Border. French Fleet readies.
July 27, units in Morocco ordered to France, Bethmann-Hollweg rejects idea of Four Power conference
July 28, A-H declares War on Serbia, Churchill order Fleet to Scapa Flow, Tsar and Kaiser exchange telegrams. French Army advances to frontier
July 29, Russians General Mobilization order signed by the Tsar, they did not have a usable partial plan for Mobilization since 1904, but Partial Mobilization Orders were Telegraphed out to Moscow, Kazan, Kiev and Odessa, plus Fleet in Black Sea. More telegrams between Tsar and Kaiser, with German warnings.
July 30, Moltke presses for general mobilization. French Army withdraws 6 miles along entire border with Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany. Evening of July 30, Reacting to the Austrian Navy bombarding Belgrade, Russia posts General mobilization orders for its troops and Fleet to begin on July 31
July 31, Germany demands that Russia stop Mobilization within 24 hours and declares martial law, and closes Border with France and Belgium. Belgium orders General Mobilization, as does A-H with ordering General Mobilization for men up to 50 years old. Russian Reserves are called up.
August 1, UK orders the Fleet to mobilize. France begin full mobilization to begin August 2nd, with French Order posted at 3:40pm on the 1st.
Germany order Full Mobilization at 5PM, declares war on Russia.
August 2, Russia declares War on Germany, Russian patrols advance into German territory, Germany occupies Luxembourg, German ultimatum to Belgian Government at 8 PM.
To me, it's on Russia for General Mobilization on the 28th.
They didn't have a plan for just against A-H, and besides, Russia didn't have a Treaty or anything signed that they would back Serbia militarily.
Montenegro and Bulgaria were the main Russian target for Diplomacy until the Serbian King and Queen were assassinated by an Army Coup in 1903, by a Pro-Russian Clique, much as would happen 11 years later, lead by the same Serbian, good old Colonel Apis and the Black Hand.
Most nations cut Diplomatic ties with Serbia at that time, and even Russia denounced it, being a little sensitive of Kings being killed bu Assassins
Had the War continued into 1919, would you have considered France to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK and USA ?
Luck had nothing to do with it, The Austrian diplomats worked their asses off at Prague to ensure the strategic heights along the new border would remain in their hands (and they were in a good position to do so given the lacklustre performance of Italy in 1866).
I must say I'm rather sick of hearing geographical features described as "luck", especially when they were acquired by conscious choice.
Oh do explain how Viennese greed dictated Italy's colonial ambitions.
Oh? So the oppressed peoples of the Balkans finally giving the Ottomans the boot is also down to Austrian greed?
Austria was greedy for not wanting to give away its territory? Last I checked Italy was the one demanding territory as a condition of their alliance.
Austria was being greedy by annexing Bosnia to boost their ego. Italy invading Libya was to soothe Italy's wounded ego after Austria took Bosnia and France took Morroco. The Balkan wars were triggered by the crippling damage the Ottomans took after their war with Italy. It's all a chain reaction that started with the annexation of Bosnia. The Edwardian European order was a house of cards, but Austria was the one that shook the table.
Some kind of first past the post electoral system would probably be necessary to bring cross-national coalitions into existence and make Cisleithania's parliament effect. Otherwise, the Reichsrat will splinter into at least half a dozen ethnicity-based parties for each ideological tendency. This could be a multinational conservative party, influenced by catholic social teaching, which favors the aristocracy, industrialists, and the middle classes vs. a more secular, socialist party that represents agricultural laborers, urban workers, and, non-Catholic minorities like Serbs and Romanians.
Italy's claims to Libya date back to the 1870s. Austria annexed Bosnia three years before Italy attacked the Ottomans, so that's a rather delayed knee-jerk reaction. Seems like any causal relation between the two is insignificant at best.
No, as outlined above that's a faulty premise. Additionally, do explain how Italy sinking some gun boats and walking over some Ottoman garrison forces in Libya crippled the Empire's military in the Balkans. Oh wait they were already a military paper tiger by then (thus no response to the Austrian annexation of Bosnia either) and all Italy did was make that more well known.
Further, with regard to shaking the table, both Italy's designs on Libya and Austria's designs on Bosnia (along with the French annexation of Tunesia and the British annexation of Cyprus) were the direct result of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 (which notably also restored the independence of Bulgaria, Austria's partner in the Annexation Crisis). If anyone shook the table it was the Russians, who essentially single handedly turned the Ottomans into a paper tiger.
Besides the people in Bosnia wanted to be annexed by Austria except the Serbs.
It is only disruptive if the Austrians do it. The Italians are no way responsible for their own actions the Austrians made them do it.
Separate names with a comma.