I'd watch thatYou know what flight of the bumblebee orchestral version with the video of the ships in 2x time would be super funny.
EDIT: Maybe the Benny Hill Theme instead?
Last edited:
I'd watch thatYou know what flight of the bumblebee orchestral version with the video of the ships in 2x time would be super funny.
MAN I WANT THAT! Especially as you could have it pan to the Italian and British fleets just in silent horror looking on. Real perfection. Though to my understanding while the italian ships were technically better then either French or Austrian ships it wasn't by much being rather marginal. Though I may be wrong.What? That's too serious, solemn even. We need something more...flamboyant, to show just how plain messed up those classes were.
Offenbach's Galop Infernal, aka the Can Can song? Perfection
The British took offence. Salandra himself admitted their coal was theirs to export as they saw fit. Who was he to tell Britain what to do with its resources, or how to modify its laws, especially in time of war? The Captain's death was tragic, yes, but he had failed to follow orders legally given inside British territorial waters (and as the autopsy clearly showed, was not directly killed by British fire anyway). HMS Acorn had obeyed standing orders from the Admiralty; however tragic the results were, they weren't something to condemn a good officer over. Whitehall appreciated Salandra's demand for compensation, but in the context of a belligerent note and poor relations, they refused to pay. Asquith decided to make a point; three days after receiving the letter, he ordered Ambassador Rodd and his staff to return home. He intended this as a moderate response to offensive demands which would be hard to retailate against, aside from downgrading the Italian embassy in London. The two countries might be hostile in the near future, but no one would go to war over a recalled ambassador. (4) Many in the Cabinet and on the streets, however, felt snubbed. Salandra had not intended to expel Ambassador Rodd; he'd hoped that the British would meet his demands so normal relations could resume. Asking the British to undo the decisions which had damaged Italy's economy and caused this rupture was, to Salandra, perfectly reasonable. Threatening to expel the Ambassador was meant to give his request "teeth" and appease his nationalistic government.Dear Sir,
I hope this note finds you well. My best wishes to His Majesty's Government, and to the British people as they continue sacrifice and struggle on this European Continent. I have every expectation that, as he did when our two peoples once fought in the Crimea six decades past, the British soldier will distinguish himself by his valour and skill. May the course of operations bring about a swift and just peace to restore harmony to this Continent. Yet, on behalf of His Majesty King Vittorio Emmanuelle, the present Government which I have the honour to head in his name, and the entire people of Italy, I must highlight several wartime actions which, while conducted with the best of intentions, have caused some offence to the Italian nation, in the hopes that rectification may come.
Great Britain, as a sovereign nation, has an unlimited right to do as it pleases with its abundant natural resources, and to undertake commerce in the circumstances of its choosing. Yet it has been the practice of every government since the days of Lord Palmerston to maintain favourable trade relations with the Italian nation, to mutual benefit. The decision of 3 November 1914, outlined in the Coal Regulations Act, to greatly decrease the availability of coal on the open market, deviates strongly from this tradition and has caused harm to both parties. His Majesty and the Government of Italy are disconcerted at the privations inflicted on the Italian people by economic malaise resulting from this decision by the British Government. Consequently, to defend conditions of prosperity at home, we have been forced to decrease our traditional exports of foodstuffs to the United Kingdom and her allies, as outlined in my letter of February 1. The damage to the balance of trade is immense and it is to be hoped that His Majesty's Government will see fit to restoring the proper economic order, so that the Kingdom of Italy may prove of service in assisting in Britain's mighty struggle.
Second is the matter of international commerce. The Hague and Geneva Conventions, to which both of our Kingdoms are signatory, permit that in times of war blockades may be established and shipping interdicted. (3) Yet both parties to the conflict have exceeded their authority, interfering with the right of the Kingdom of Italy as a sovereign power to conduct trade under its own terms. I speak principally of the recent incident off the coast of Plymouth, when ten ships bearing the Italian flag, their destination a stated neutral city, carrying no military cargo, were prohibited from executing their mission by the Royal Navy, with heavy damage and loss of life aboard one vessel. If we shall judge good from evil by their fruits, this extreme application of British policy appears wrong.
Consequently I must, on behalf of His Majesty and the Government and people of Italy, make the following requests to ameliorate the honour of the Italian nation and its relations with Great Britain:
-Repeal of the Coal Regulations Act of 3 November 1914, or insertion into that Act a proviso exempting the Kingdom of Italy.
-A declaration of intent to allow nonbelligerents their trade rights as sovereign nations, as per the relevant Clauses of the aforementioned Conventions.
-A public apology for the recent loss of life and damage to property off the coast of Plymouth, and restitution for the same.
-Dismissal of the officer(s) responsible for said incident.
In the event that I have not, one month hence, (1 September 1915) received correspondence from the British Government indicating acceptance, I shall be forced to declare Sir Rennell Rodd, Ambassador in Rome, persona non grata, and to reduce the office of his successor from an Ambassador to that of an Envoy.
My warmest greetings to the leadership and people of Great Britain, whose faithful ally I remain as servant of God, King, and Italy,
Antonio Salandra
They are indeed. But there's not much they can do short of establishing favourable trade policies with the Central Powers at British expense. (This is what they did in OTL)I imagine Sweden would be mightily pissed off that the UK essentially just blockaded them.
Exactly. It's a nasty dilemma but neutrality is the best of bad options. Few in the Netherlands (or for that matter Sweden) want to throw their countries into the fire, even with their national honour snubbed. Italy would have followed the same course but for the military and political developments in chapter 4.And the dutch, but hey, what are they going to do? Joining the war would be even worse, they'll have to suck it up and wait.
Corsica especially- it's part of the home country.France also has an empire - losing Corsica or Tunisia would hurt.
Blockading food to Sweden is likely to be viewed more harshly than the semi-blockade of the Netherlands, especially considering that Sweden is below it's prewar imports level already.
Now an interesting possibility would be the major nonaligned groups all getting together and telling the UK, either stop interfering with our trade or ALL of us are going to declare war on you---as in the US, Sweden, Italy, Brazil, etc. The problem is the US wouldn't go for it, if I recall the UK mollified the US by buying everything the US would have sold to the Central powers. That kind of mollification isn't feasible for Sweden or the Netherlands or Italy.
That's an interesting (and just) idea, but as you pointed out the United States wouldn't go for it. Neutrals are neutral because it suits them economically and politically; that doesn't translate into any other shared interests or commonalities. That said it's a cool idea, and if I can figure out a way to implement it, even partially, I will.One wonders, if the blockades of Sweden and other neutrals results in WWI further escalating perhaps even beyond OTL, what's the chance of the US and other powers that are usually neutral and very interested in trade forming a league between WWI and WW2 and telling the European great powers:
If any of you engages in a blockade ever again, we're going to challenge it. And if it's not suicidal, we're all going to declare war on you. This applies both to surface and undersea or aerial blockades. Damaging our ships or our sailors is henceforth considered an act of war and we will all collectively punish you. Kill as many of each other as you please, but we're no longer going to tolerate interference in our trade.
Great points raised.Corsica is tough due to the lack of amphibious capability and the fact that the French slightly outmatch the Italians at sea and the gap gets even bigger when the Brits can pitch in. Similarly, Tunisia has the same problems, as well as the fact that the infrastructure on the Libyan side of the border is not up to the task of supporting a serious offensive.
I can't claim to know much about the Dual Monarchy's navy; are you aware of any good naval history websites (or even threads on this site) which cover them?Hahahahahaha no.
On paper, yes, but the Austrian dreadnoughts are hot garbage, probably the worst dreadnought battleships ever put to sea. In a fleet action they would be active liabilities.
Yes it was and I confess that's the biggest writer's liberty I take here: German diplomats have sufficient common sense to work with Italy and attract them to the CPs.That is a big if. German diplomacy on this period was notoriously bad.
Great summary of events, and not much will change from 1.0. The comparison with the Home Fleet/High Seas Fleet is adept.The best they could do is what happened in the original version of TTL. That is, the RM and the KuK KM combined their fleets at Palermo as a fleet in being. While the Entente would still have the edge in quality, relative parity in numbers means they wouldn't be willing to risk an engagement either, at least not in home Italian/Habsburg waters. This gives the CPs control of the Adriatic, the Tyrrhenian, and the Central Med. The Entente focused on locking those waters down with mines and control of the Western and Eastern Med, but it does give the CPs some breathing room by allowing the Italian and Habsburg fishing fleets safe room to operate in.
Basically, the same situation in the Baltic and the German Bight, that is the British despite an edge in numbers and quality, the gap is close enough they won't risk an engagement in home German waters. Well, Fisher wanted to, but the government told him to shut up and sit down.
I can too!Why can I visualize this scene in my head?
OTL proved that for these countries, damaging and insulting though the blockade was, it wasn't enough to get them in the war. Little will change there ITTL.Individually yes. But if in OTL late 1914 Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Dutch together had formed some Armed Neutrality League, then the threat of all four joining the CP unless Britain stops blockading them would have forced even the Brits to take notice.
Thanks; great to be back. No chance of Britain attacking the Dutch in Indonesia; these aren't the Napoleonic Wars.Kinda late here, but welcome back Wilhelm! God the original ending in the middle of the original TLs Russian Civil War was such a cliffhanger.
Agree here, Indonesia is too important to the Dutch that they probably aren't gonna join the war on the side of the Central Powers unless Britain amps up the blockade or attacks Indonesia first
Great to be back!Finally, IT'S BACK!!
I love this response."First those bastards tried to freeze and starve us to death, now they are just murdering us. Enough is enough!"
"It is not that simple and you know it. Let's not escalate-"
"May God have mercy upon their souls! Because we shall have none."
"Are you even listening to me!?"
No, but I do have a summary from an actual history book detailing the problems of the Tegetthoffs. I get a lot of information from knowledgeable people on Discord.I can't claim to know much about the Dual Monarchy's navy; are you aware of any good naval history websites (or even threads on this site) which cover them?
"And damn fine officers too!" Cadorna raised a finger, red beneath his snow-white moustache. "I trained those men myself. Our Army is mine per the constitution- not His Majesty's, and certainly not Antonio cazzone Salandra's! I guarantee you that no matter what illiterate fools they may be saddled with, or what equpiment they have to work with, my officers will achieve results. Any who fail will spend the rest of the war carrying wheat on their backs."
Same could be said of Foch, Joffre, Haig or Ludendorff. Much of WW1 was about failing your way to victory.I have to keep reminding myself this is a victory timeline everytime this man speaks.
Handy! But I've got book resources for the Italians.@CV12Hornet, you may have seen this site as well, which I intend to use for the Italians. Could be interesting for you as well if you've not seen it yet.
On the whole, the ships appeared well armed and armored – they were quite modern in appearance, too. However, the Tegetthoff'-class was riddled with numerous design flaws that severely reduced their fighting capacity, to below that of contemporary dreadnoughts. The ships were not very stable, and were not suited to operations in the open sea. On trials it was found that the ships would heel over at 19° in high-speed turns – and that the righting arm (i.e., the maximum angle from which the ship could recover) was only 25°. Not only did this mean that turning would expose the unarmored underside of the ship to enemy fire, but also that such turns would be impossible in the event of significant damage due to the risk of capsizing. This was largely the result of the ships being too small for their armament and needed to be 2,500 tons larger. This also led to the warping of longitudinal frames and the keel below the main battery turrets, due to their weight being more than the hull could handle. Additionally, they proved unable to reach their planned top speed of 20 knots – in service it was found impossible to work up past 17.5 knots, rendering them the slowest dreadnoughts of their era.
The armor scheme itself also carried numerous flaws, primarily through unprotected gaps in the armor – such as the space between the barbette and gunhouse, or for the copula holding the turret rangefinder, as well as the armor deck where the overly-large openings for the funnels could allow even small anti-torpedo boat guns to penetrate into the engine room. The funnel uptakes were also entirely unarmored. The main battery also represented an additional weakness, as the Tegetthoff, unlike any foreign dreadnought, did not use interrupted hoists, increasing the risk of flashback, and ammunition stored in the handling room (used as a ready ammunition room) was found to be at risk of detonation from near misses to the ship.
Flaws in the armament were not limited to the above. The triple turrets were not well balanced, and as a result required ammunition to be reserved on the ready racks at the back of the turret to help balance the weight of the guns. Additionally, as it was impossible to ventilate the turret while it was in action, the gun crews only had enough oxygen for 15 minutes of action. The casemate for the 15cm battery lacked any ventilation in the first place, which meant they would be forced to go out of action as soon as any smoke entered their compartments The result of these flaws was to render the Tegetthoff-class largely unsuited for combat with other warships, making them one of the worst dreadnought battleships ever built.
I have to keep reminding myself this is a victory timeline everytime this man speaks.
Unlikely in the extreme. Not only are the Germans focused on them, with Italy committing to the CPs, plenty of Habsburg troops that would otherwise go south would instead go north.And so it starts. Hopefully things go better for Russia when we come to it once more.