Perhaps, that said there is no denying that Serbia was supporting terrorism so they reaped what they sowed.
Taking in consideration has it ended...yes, yes really
Perhaps, that said there is no denying that Serbia was supporting terrorism so they reaped what they sowed.
That's from fighting harder, not smarter.but Serbia and France had lot more higher % of deaths for population
For the same reason Brazil and the other South American nations had them.I do have to ask why AH would really need (large) ships?
I do have to ask why AH would really need (large) ships?
Would AH not have been far better off ignoring dreadnoughts and building a light coastal defence force leaving spending the saved money on land systems like more MGs and heavy guns or potentially even better dual use industrial development?
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
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
But realistically,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.
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.But realistically,
- 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?
But realistically,
- 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?
Yes they can,Royal Navy can’t dominate the Mediterranean for 4 years and keep the German High seas fleet hemmed in at the same time.
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?The benefit they got was to keep the lands they claimed.
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.
July 23, 1914 Serbia begins Mobilization after receiving the A-H UltimatumAustria 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.
Had the War continued into 1919, would you have considered France to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK and USA ?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
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).A-H was just lucky that they hold one of the best defensive line in Europe at the Isonzo
Oh do explain how Viennese greed dictated Italy's colonial ambitions.The Italo-Turkish war
Oh? So the oppressed peoples of the Balkans finally giving the Ottomans the boot is also down to Austrian greed?the Balkan Wars
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.Italy dropping out of the Triple 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.