"For a brilliant attack you calculate how many men can the machine gun kill and you launch an attack with a superior amount of men: someone will get to the machine gun" Luigi Cadorna in "Lettere". This should give you an idea on how backwards the Italian chief of staff was. Luckily for us (spoiler alert) he was later replaced with Armando Diaz after the disaster in Caporetto.
Seriously?? That sounds like Zap Brannigan in Futurama. "The Kill-Bots had one weakness--a kill limit. I knew this, and so sent wave after wave of brave men until the Kill-Bots all shut down...and then I heroically destroyed them!"
Really well done! I am Italian, and I rarely saw well-done documentaries in english about italian side. Generally they are full of misconceptions and rough approximations. Your research is complete and full of references. Congrats!!!!
Emperor Palpitoad welp, it might be so Honestly i don't know Even if Trento and Trieste were given to Italy, i'm not sure Italy would fight with Austria and Germany I'm not the type of person sorry😅 But probably in my opinion Italy could
I'm an Italian history research student at the University of Milan. This video made me so happy to see that there still are people abroad able to do proper research about Italy's involvement in ww1 and pre-fascist era. Well done.
@@josephdalelio6684 all those "nasty stereotypes about Italy" have been fueled by the Italians themselves; I mean, did you even pay attention to this video?
And you know what's funny about Cadorna? Despite being one of the most incompetent and despotic WW1 generals, with no regards for soldiers life, there are still a lot of roads and public buildings named after him such as a big train station in Milan. Isn't that great?
Stefano Maccarone troverai sempre chi ti dirà: "Cadorna era in linea con gli altri generali, tutti mandavano la fanteria a immolarsi". Per quanto riguarda la sua figura nella storia "istituzionale", lo Stato non può dire che fosse un incompetente per non far sfigurare le centinaia di migliaia di soldati caduti dal '15 a Caporetto: se seguivano ordini stupidi, la loro morte fu invano? Meglio pensare che siano tutti eroi e patrioti piuttosto che contadini e studenti, carne da macello mandata contro le mitragliatrici con la minaccia della decimazione.
Jurij Klanjšček Non potrei essere più d'accordo, però credo anche che molti italiani siano già dell' idea che le centinaia di migliaia di morti siano stati in grossa parte dovute anche alla sua incompetenza: Udine ha già tolto i nomi delle strade dedicate a lui! Anzi, la retorica degli "eroici soldati italiani mandati a morire da incompetenti", per quanto spesso fallace, mi pare abbia preso molto piede in Italia.
Stefano Maccarone I'm not a "patron saint of lost causes", but you know that Cadorna send to massacre less soldiers than his French and British analogues (e chi ti scrive è il nipote di un bambino che non ha potuto conoscere suo padre per questo), just think about La Somme or Verdun... had Haig and Joffre been more human? There is just a difference between them: Cadorna held in office more time than other Chiefs of staff. (and I don't know if it's a good matter or a bad one...) . I think that judjing TODAY and blaming about facts of 100 YEARS AGO is an ufair offense to the minds of our fathers, and a greater arrogance about our intelligence. Penso giudicare e condannare oggi i fatti di allora sia un grandissimo insulto all'intelligenza di chi fu chiamato a decidere e scegliere in quel momento (sia ai massimi vertici, che nella vita di tutti i giorni), e un'arrogante sopravvalutazione della nostra, d'intelligenza.
mizhard Well first we need to consider that in the italian front a lower number of casualties is just expected due to the lower amount of soldiers in the field so I wouldn't use it as a "proof of humanity". But in a way you are right: it is really easy to judge a century later and we shall not feel in any way superior or more clever; however this is not what I was saying, my point is: should we award honors and praises for those who had led so many to certain death due to their incompetence? I don't mean to have Cadorna's name scourged and cursed and I don't believe that I would have done any better, however it can't be denied that his action lead to failure and death: is it arrogant to believe that he should not receive praise? You say that "judging TODAY and blaming about facts of 100 YEARS AGO is an unfair offense to the minds of our fathers, and a greater arrogance about our intelligence", but isn't history itself an act of judgment "a posteriori"? What good is having this very series of videos if our remembrance of this acts does not lead us to know better than our predecessors, while still having nothing but the utmost respect and reverence for those who suffered and died?
As an Italian I have to say that you did a very good job in explaining the situation of the country and what led Italy into war. It's not common, even among good historians. Bravi!
From what I read on articles about Italy after the war, their promises were broken. They only received Tryol and Trieste, but not Dalmatia. I'd say they got fucked over. Which is why italy ended up fighting against the Allies in World War 2.
@@fkjl4717 Actually it was all nations that screwed Italy in the peace deal, with the USA probably having the least impact. Russia didn't want Italy to own anything in the Balkans. France and Britain did not want Italy to gain any colonies. Belgium wanted new colonies. The USA only wanted to ask the people who lived in lands under Italian claim if they did or did not want to join. Exactly like how Italy unified.
@@fkjl4717 Russia wasn't at Versaille, but expressed how they did not want to give Italy Balkan land during the London agreement. Italy also wanted some German colonies. And last but not least with the USA method Italy would have gotten all areas with a majority of Italian population, so all of the coast line.
Awesome video! I've always known that Italy suddenly switched sides in 1914 but never knew why. I just thought that Italians were jerks who had an appetite for screwing teammates up (well it happened twice in both WWs). But now I have a clearer picture. Italy's participation in both WWs has always been considered sort of a sideshow and not too many people talk about it. I've just recently started to study Italy in WWII though: the Mussolini regime, the Western Desert Campaign, the Russian expedition, and things that most WWII history books never even mention... It's quite fascinating.
The 51st Division Yeah, you can even see that in WW2 satire and entertainment the Italians don't get more credit then the little boy. See for example Danger 5 where Mussolini is just a small boy playing video games.
I'm glad that someone like you begins to understand things as they actually went and is not limited to the stereotypical solemnities. As for the Second World War, Italy lost it and it was over for her on September 8, 1943. After that, it was immediately invaded by German troops and the liberation war began with the Partisans and anti-fascists in the name; in essence it was also a civil war that saw the Partisans against Germans and Italians still loyal to the fascist regime. All ended on April 25, 1945. After all, if we want to be precise, France also had its shame with Vichy, but this is not said. We know that history is written by the winners.
Thank you for your kind words. It was really a pleasure working on this episode. After years of being confused by these complex events, sitting down and doing the research allowed me to finally figure it out. Madeleine Johnson
There was talk of a war with France in Italy in order the regain West Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and Colonial lands as well. I think the Italians were really more holding out to see which side did better in the war before committing to either side. Smart considering the economic and technological situation of the time.
@@rohiths3554 Very unlikely. The combination of authoritarian ways and antiquated doctrine was always going to get him bogged down. Still, it might have cut the number of battles in the same place to half, since he would have atleast known the geography better
@@rohiths3554 Well of course. France would had two homefronts, Austria-Hungary no Italy to grind it down which would mean a better performance in the East, and finally the naval war would have became much more crucial, with the Mediterranean no longer being an Entente lake but instead as contested as the North Sea, if not more so. If France were to fall, which would have been likely even without the Italians breaking throught, the Royal Navy would have been for the first time truly outmatched. The war would surely end there and then, since I doubt Japan would care to send their navy around the entire globe, least they end up like Russia in 1905. Even the USA intervening would have achieved little else than curbing some of the more enthusiastic demands of the winning powers.
Thank you for the rare "intellectual honesty" concernig Italy in the WWs. I al the first to explain the limits and the errors of this nation, but often people abroad indulte whitout khow the situation! Really interesting channel!
You should look up the plans that Cadorna made to invade France and help the Germans. in fact, during the negotiations with the entente, Cadorna still made plans of defense in the western Alps. As a result the tactics to attack an invade Austria we conceived only when there was no left time to organise a better invasion. :)
Oh very interesting. Could you write us something about that, like 2 or 3 paragraphs? We have a format called OUT OF THE ETHER where we showcase the best comments we got.
As requested: Since 1882 the Italian government had the idea to fulfil their duties to the German Empire going to war, on the Rhine, against France. In 1888 plans were made by Prime Minister Crispi to send, in the case of war, troops on the Alps (against France) and on the Rhine but, with the internal turmoil of the '90, the strategy was abandoned. Only in 1912-1914 with the action of General Alberto Pollio who was firmly convinced that Italy had to be a loyal ally to the Central Empires. Moltke himself was positively surprised (Foerster, Die deutsch-italienische Konvention, cit., pp. 399-400) even though he knew that Italy would not be able to assure a big help on the Rhine front. The 18 december 1913 the italian generals were unanimously in favor to the aid that Pollio promised to Moltke. The aid would have been composed primarly of horsemen (which Moltke judged well equipped, Gian Enrico Rusconi, "L'azzardo del 1915", p. 37). Cadorna himself judged positively Pollio's idea and expressed the wish to assemble an "armata delle Alpi" to battle the French army. ("L'azzardo del 1915, p. 39). Although Italy choose the neutral position, in 1914 the two ambassadors (Avarna in Wien and Bollati in Berlin) are tirelessly working to reassure the central empires that neutrality will be temporary and Italy will, in the end, side with them while Salandra (MP) and San Giuliano (foreign minister) are constantly at work to keep neutrality. As you said, Italy was trying to snatch the most from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in return for the aid in the WW. While the diplomats were occupied Cadorna became Chief of the Italian Army on the 27 of July of 1914. Cadorna was a “triplicist” as the majority of the Italian military staff, he really believed in the Triple Alliance. On the same day he wanted to know if it was possible to send some more troops on the Rhine in aid of the German ally. On the 31th he sent the king a memorandum about the transport of troops in Germany (Luigi Cadorna, “Altre pagine sulla grande guerra”, pp. 15-23) but, at the same time, the government decided to keep Italy neutral… The troops were already marching West, to France, and Cadorna received a brief note about the position of Italy. He was requested to start preparing the war in the East, against the Empire. On the 6 of august the Italian army started her march to the East to prepare for a possible war against Austria (Gatti, “Un italiano a Versailles”, cit., pp. 438-439). Cadorna was highly incompetent and his management of the war brought only disasters but, it is to notice, he had also to copy to a general situation of misunderstandings and lies inside the diplomatic apparatus of Italy. :D
I don't know if is that the case but you should look up the epistolary of Moltke for the relations between general Pollio, Moltke himself and the Austrian General :D
Thank you for this video! My great grandfather fought for Italy at the Trentino offensive as an already naturalized American.. he went to a war camp for 2 years in Austria and the Americans had him released only a few days before entering the war… this video provides a lot of great context
In 1916, my grandfather was awarded a medal for valor in a battle of the Isonzo, in an assault on an enemy trench (a few weeks later, again in the Plava area, his unit was captured and my grandfather was sent to a prison in Montenegro - I think - ) where he remained long after the war ended).
One of my ancestors moved to Canada around the year 1900, but went back to Italy in 1914 to fight for Her. Was this a common occurrence in North America (not just Italians, but across many groups)? Also as an Italian I must say that the phrase "There were many hot heads in Italy" is a hilariously accurate statement.
My great grandfather was in Boston and also went back to fight in ww1. He wasn't american but was working there. He's at the italian war cemetery, Re di Puglia.
Yes, and Italy used to pay the travel back to Italy to join the army; my great grandfather was in Argentina at the time and he came back to fight; he then decided to stay in Italy and..here I am
Only 1 detail missing: not only it was Austria who violated the terms of the alliance, but there are documents proving that the emperor was already making plans for a future attack on Italy; the "alliance" was pretty much toilet paper and yet there are still people who go by the false narrative of "treacherous Italy" or who say that the allies won the war for Italy, which is again uttely false. After Caporetto there were FIVE allied divisions in Italy... 5 against 56 Italian, who do you think won the battle of the Piave? Brits make a big deal out of the fact that their 2 divisions were the first to surpass the Piave but forget to mention that they were used as spearhead after having FAILED to maintain their defensive position (yes, Austrian and German troops broke through in the British sector on the Asiago plateau and Italian command had to divert troops to reinforce them) at the battle of the 3 mountains. I'm not faulting British soldiers, mind you, only stating facts and showing how absurd common belief is. Italy won their part of WW1 first and won alone and don't forget that the opening of the southern front was a major factor in forcing German surrender. Despite that the allies pretty much gave Italy the middle finger by not maintaining the promises that were made. Now who betrayed who again? I'm not saying Italy was blameless and immaculate or that Italy won the war for the allies, just that popular narrative is complete garbage
I have been a student of military history most of my life. My major concentration is World War 1 and 2. This review of yours is the absolute BEST I have come across. I really wish you would do a 5 part series on Italy as you allude to. Many of my relatives were in Italy during the time you speak of and I have to admit my Great Grandmother was pretty close to what you had described. Thank you for an outstanding series.
Really well done! I am Italian, and I rarely saw well-done documentaries in itlian about English side. Germs are full of misconceptions and diseases. Your research is incompelte and full of resources! Condolences!
This channel deserves WAY more subs than 700k. This channel is so effective in delivering vital and in-depth knowledge to the Great War, a war overshadowed by its successor, WW2. Thanks for that!
Thank you for a really interesting and fact-filled description of the Italian situation pre WW1. Well done for getting so much information into such a small amount of time. I am now subscribed!
Ah! You're right: a 5 times long episode would be not enough., by the way, a good brief of the matter, and an "unusual" point of view, because, sincerelly I used to see and read about it more from an Italian point of view. I'd focused more on the facts from 5th May to 24th... institutional ones like cospirancies between Salandra Giolitti and the King, and popular ones, like D'Annunzio's speeches in Genoa and Rome. Great episode.
Outstanding episode! I'd like to recommend a book called 'A Year on the Plateau' ('Un Anno Sull'altipiano'), by ex-soldier Emilio Lussu. Very powerful story and best memoir about Italy's participation in WW1.
Yes, big thanks to Madeline for helping. It's wonderful to hear of the community being involved in more than just watching, commenting and subscribing. Good to hear the backstory on Italy :)
I really like this episode about my country, thanks :) I don't really remember the events between WW1 and WW2, but weren't many of the promises to Italy in the Treaty of London broken?
First learned of this project in the fall with great excitement, but was very busy with my teaching responsibilities. I fell hopelessly behind - even though this only requires 20 minutes per week. Anyway, now that we're on summer break, I have just caught up. It's going to seem like a strange break in my routine not to watch 10 of these a day.
This channel deserves more views. Always been an avid WW2 fan and just getting into WW1 ( GET VERDUN IF YOU LIKE WW1 AND FPS ). Keep up the amazing work!
sobmadrox Glad you liked it. We are playing Verdun from time to time (at the moment not too much because team holidays) but you can join our steam group "Indy Neidell Disciples"
+HadoukenDude Mussolini was head of L'Avanti a socialist journal back before WW1, as he wanted Italy to enter the war, he was ejected from the Socialist reformist party. He supported than the Interventisti. After WW1, in 1919 he founded the Fasci Di Combattimento, in 1921 this group became a truly political called PNF Partito Nazionale FascisTa, at the election though, they didn't gain many votes. Be careful now, PNF had still an armed side, CAMICIE NERE, they were free to attack communists, socialists and opponents. Moreover the governement did nothing to stop them. Why? Basically, They were seen as a tool for getting rid of the opposition ( especially Communists and socialists). In 1922, the so called Marcia su Roma took place and Mussolini backed up by the King took the power. From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini governed legally, also with the others parties. After Delitto Matteotti, a parlamentary that wanted to denounce some irregularities made by PNF, i'm simplyfing here.. ,The Dictatorship started. I think that he modernized Italy, making lot of changes (also illigally) but the only mistake he made was establishing an alliace with Hitler back in 1936, with the so called Patto D'acciaio. The rest you know.. if you has questions, ask me.
Did many Italians want to join with Germany? I only ask because France controlled Corsica and Savoy. And the British controlled Malta. Plus both had far more colonies. It seems like Italy had more to gain by joining Germany.
I guess Catalonians aren't Spanish, Occitans aren't French, Bavarians aren't German, Neapolitans aren't Italian... Or maybe that's not how it works? You get the idea.
The deeper you go into WW1 history, the more it looks like a freaky set of Chinese Pandora's boxes, like one wasn't enough. Sorry for the creative writing here, I'm just saying that you are right about the Italian situation being a mess. Also it didn't help that fascism promoted a twisted post-war interpretation of the events soon after. Several topics stayed taboo for decades, like ethnic Italians fighting for another army. By the way, would you please make an episode about them if you find enough material? That would be intriguing! Carry on with your good work!
"italy was poor" after the unification, but has always been Europe's richest country until the XVII century, outclassed by the new emerging empires. It was born ALL here, medical science, western universities, banks, music and musical instruments etc
@Tommy Tunes by the time Garibaldi conquered the south in 1861 the kingdom of two Sicily's was an incredibly poor country where the nobility held an iron grip on the region's economy so much so that when Garibaldi landed in Sicily, people were volunteering to join him in the hopes that life would get better under a new kingdom the kingdom of Italy were dicks to the southerners but that is more because they did nothing to improve the region than actively try to damage it
The coming in war of Italy in 1915 was the result of the french and english politic of the the batoon or the carrot. The treath of a naval blockage was the batoon, the promise of the regions of Trentino and of Friuli & Venezia Giulia were the carrot.
An excellent historical reconstruction. The only point on which I cannot agree is the linguistic one, which is still that of the literature of the nineties of the twentieth century (influenced by the separatist vision of the former Lega Nord of Bossi). The Italian dialects are part of a neo-Latin continuum. All speakers understand each other with simple "turns of phrase". The impossibility of understanding is an invention. As for cultural divisions, Germany was no less divided. Indeed, the Germans had competing religious confessions between North and South. Italians were almost all Catholics.
Sardinian and Friulan are different Romance languages and there's a gap between Rimini and LaSpezia, not mentioning a guy walking to the next village would find people speaking a different dialect. YET, everyone spoke italian to a certain extent for bureaucratic and commercial reasons, even the strongest anti-unitarian monarchies used Italian and not the local languages (not even Naples, whatever the "neo-bourbons" will tell you), and while local rivalries were (and still are) strong no one questioned their belonging to an Italian nation, even back in early Renaissance.
Rochi Maru for some reason I can't reply to your comment. The Italians were never on the german side, and they never changed side mid-war, did your teachers seriously tell you that?
General Cadorna has very interesting family members also. His son was an officer in WW1 who would go on to be an Italian resistance fighter in WWII. His father, was also a general and was instrumental in the unification of Italy. Incredible history spanning those three generations.
Great video and I appreciate even more the comments below, with people realizing how many shades can have the history of the world; moreover, as an Italian, I'm happy to see people that learn what really Italy did in WWI and WWII; here in Italy and in a lot of countries for what I know, people still suffer of the anti-italian propaganda of the wars, that obviously change a lot of things ( below there's a comment of a student from Turkey and what was taught to him at school, and it's really interesting to see the propaganda made in different countries)
Actually, Italy had been mostly united the Kingdom of Italy rules by the Carolingian Dynasty, who took it from the Lombards, and they ruled much of Italy (with south Italy being a patchwork of their control, byzantine control, and independent entities at varying points, and Rome always being held by the papacy). It technically lived on during the era of the Holy Roman Empire as well (with the emperor consistently holding the title, alongside king of the germans, witht eh de jure title as emperor beign dependant on the Pope), thought the 16th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Italy
Notice how he said unified as in all of Italy (even though you can argue that all of Italy includes both Malta and Corsica, but in fear of both French and Maltese Nationalists I will just say they are historic claims). The Franks only ruled over norther and central Italy, though Justinian the First (of Byzantium) had reconcurred all of Italy some 80 years after the fall of Rome. I should also mention that I am discounting the HRE, who at several points occupied almost all of Italy, because (and please correct me if I am wrong, my knowledge of HRE Italy isn't too good) of the amount of autonomy the Italian states were granted. I could also see a possible argument for Napoleon, but I haven't really studied his campaigns in Italy either.
BountyFlamor Jubaland, territories from Egypt/Sudan/Algeria where given to Italy. Not that much of a reward; but strictly speaking some colonial territories where given to Italy.
Italy win on the Piave river, in the mountains and in Vittorio Veneto city there were fifty-one Italian divisions, three British, two French, one Czechoslovakian and one American regiment, against seventy-three Austro-Hungarian divisions, thank you gen. Armando Diaz.
Italy's claim on Triest and Trentino made absolute sense because they were inhabited by Italians, but the claim on South Tyrol was total hypocrisy. It was inhabited by a majority of Austrians. They basically did what they threw at Austria Hungary before.
***** Italy had more of a claim for territory against France than Austria-Hungary: Corsica, Nice and Tunisia all totaled had a larger Italian population more than twice than the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
But wasn't Austria-Hungary right concerning the Triple Alliance treaty? They were required only to pay compensation to Italy if they annexed Serbian territory which they didn't intend. Did the treaty demand to inform your other allies before making a move? If so, Indy does not mention it.
In the treaty demand Austria sent to Serbia, there would be land acquisition by Austria from Serbian land and effectively turning Serbia into a puppet state of austrio Hungary. There was zero demands or points about Italians or their compensation.
LordAcul Not so much actually, Nice and Savoie were given to France in a treaty in order to gain Lombardy, so a lot of the italian population simply moved back to Piedmont. I'm not really sure about Corsica though, but Trieste and Trentino were heavily populated with italians, Istria and Dalmatia had italian minorities going back as far as 400 years who had become "austrian" just a century before. I mean, in Istria italian is an official language even as of today, while we can't say the same for Corsica.
LordAcul Corsica was just a "colony" of the Republic of Genoa, until they sold it to France. Were they Italians? ... maybe just for propaganda: they were as Italian as Sardinians were. Sardinians "were" Austrians too, from @1713 to @1718, and no one remember about that. There's a nice quote from Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms", where a drunken italian official chats about all the lands had to be conquered. Trento and Trieste, sure, but more: Nice and Corsica.
Stefano Maccarone Corsica (they spoke Tuscan-Italian, check the Corsican Constitution of 1750 and the fact that even Napoleone spoke Italian first so that many French considered him a foreign at the beginning) and Nice (Garibaldi was from a wealthy Italian family of Nice) were actually Italian, but the French government strongly repressed this
Whenever someone is talking about the dispute about Trieste, they forget that the citizens of the city always seen themselves as Triestens (?). The city was a mix of Italians and Slovenians. And rightly it should have been a part of Slovenia. This dispute lasted till the cold war, when we Slovenians finally lost Trieste and Gorizia I hope you will point out how strong the nationalism of Italy was, and that this was one of the main reasons the Rapallo agreement took third of the Slovenian terriotory. The period between both wars in this region, was marked by brutal Italian control and violence. Hope you will do a special on Slovenia (the wonder at Kobarid), and the creation of the Slo-Cro-Srb state. Keep po the good work! :)
Jan Kastigar We will probably have a Slovenia special at some point. And the whole situation with Triest perfectly illustrates what happens when nationalism is not working.
It was by a vast majourity Italian, populated by Venetians during la Serenisima, as was Gorizia (Although more Friulans there) There is a reason why Nova Gorica exists. It should have been part of Italy along with most of Western Istria, Even Austro-Hungarian statistics make it clear, these lands were Italian.
Since the whole area changed hands so many times it is way more complicated than what you are saying. My grandparents lived there, and they told many stories about how before the wars the Slovenians and Italians live together in peace. Yet after the nationalists grew stronger in Italy, the Slovenians in that area slowly started to move away. It peaked with Mussolini, when the Slovenians in the area were persecuated and were activly harrass by the Italian nationalists. Also the Slovenians later form terrorist groups to fight against the oppression. So do not say that the are is rightfully from Italy, since using nationalism and violence does not describe the term ˝rightfully˝. Rightfully it was on our orthern border, where the people that lived in the area around the border between Austria and Slovenia, since the was a vote, a the majority decided to live in Austria, since the new Kingdom of Yugoslavia was just a ˝kid˝. P.S.: Italian nationalism has done much harm to our family, that is why I get emotional about it, also the reason I am studying those things lol :)
Curious about an apparent conflict in the information, in the beginning you talk about how Italy was so divided ethnically, and linguistically that they didn't even really feel like a unified sense of nationhood. That Italian was only the dialect of Florence. If this is the case, how could a nation that lacked cohesion within itself feel related to the lands within Austria, and why would their speaking Italian, a language that wasn't even dominant in Italy, be a binding force?
Wow, you are so amazingly wrong. Italy was not even remotely a nation from Roman times. In the 1600's it could be as many as twelve nations at certain times. The kingdom if Italy was declared in 1861, but if you listen to the video Indy is very clear to explain how diverse the country was and how divided it was culturally as well as linguistically. That's like thinking modern Israel has been a nation since biblical times instead of being founded instead of 1948.
Wow, you're really working hard to prove something that just isn't true. To this day Italian regionalism is strong, and even now it isn't to homogeneous nation or culture you seen to want to think it is. Good for you, whatever over simplifications you need to make it thru your life, but it has never been nor will it ever be as cookie cutter as you seem to want it to be.
Because I am 56 years old, I have lived on three continents, I am well read and University educated. Numerous countries have a population whose identity is not to the nation but to some smaller area. Spain is full of regional separatism, and Great Britain is coming apart at the seams. Heck, before the US Civil War this was true in the US, with state identity trumping a sense of national unity. Ask a Sicilian, see if they answer that they are Italian or Sicilian? They certain feel a sense of local identity. I suspect the urge to reclaim the territories under Austro-Hungarian control was more a political power grab that a patriotic crusade, the video makes conflicting claims however, which was the point of my question. You cannot both say "Italy was united since the garden of Eden' and 'the video is correct' because it very clearly states that the sense of Italian unity was not very strong among the people...
0:42 Italy had been unfied many times thought the ages. Immediately after the fall of Rome the Italian kingdom under Odoacre. Then the Ostroghots. Then the Byzantines. And after the Byzantines the dissolution starts. First the Longobardi invade. Then the Franks. Then the HRE. Then France. Then Spain. Then Austria. In the middle of this invasions sometimes you'll find one or two semi-united Italy, but nowhere near as much as before the Byzantines.
Excellent presentation as usual! It would be interesting to hear more about the position of the Catholic Church toward the war. This is interesting even today with the beatification of Karl I of Austria, venerated today in Austria and Hungary, and now moving toward sainthood.
I'm italian and you have my compliments for accurate description about italian situation before entering in WW1.
Are you Northern Italian ?
@@dhola6042 Si
@yanyatarakuzumyiyenromaimparatoru Italians in WW1 fight same way other nations: in tranch warfare. Come to visit Italy front and you see.
@@andreadalcortivo747 Io sono Americano-italiano
@yanyatarakuzunyiyenromaimparatoru Why don't you read a history book?
"For a brilliant attack you calculate how many men can the machine gun kill and you launch an attack with a superior amount of men: someone will get to the machine gun" Luigi Cadorna in "Lettere".
This should give you an idea on how backwards the Italian chief of staff was.
Luckily for us (spoiler alert) he was later replaced with Armando Diaz after the disaster in Caporetto.
+Lord Fedjuve Kinval Haig and Joffre shared exactly the same point of view. It was pretty common at the time.
You will get to the machine gun but at what cost ?
Seriously?? That sounds like Zap Brannigan in Futurama. "The Kill-Bots had one weakness--a kill limit. I knew this, and so sent wave after wave of brave men until the Kill-Bots all shut down...and then I heroically destroyed them!"
If they got Diaz the job early they'd be sitting pretty in Vienna by early 1918
I think Cadorna comes from warhammer 40k
3:31
Wilhelm Scream!
*KAISER SCREAMS*
No, not you, Kaiser!
45TRANSFORMERSFAN Never thought about that parallel. Is it just a coincidence?
Really well done! I am Italian, and I rarely saw well-done documentaries in english about italian side. Generally they are full of misconceptions and rough approximations. Your research is complete and full of references. Congrats!!!!
+Dottor Wow Thanks! We had some help from a a very active fan who is American and living in Milano.
+The Great War indeed, Italy also wanted the Dalmatia Coast too.
Emperor Palpitoad maybe
Not totally sure, there were tensions between italy and Austria even before ww1
Emperor Palpitoad welp, it might be so
Honestly i don't know
Even if Trento and Trieste were given to Italy, i'm not sure Italy would fight with Austria and Germany
I'm not the type of person sorry😅
But probably in my opinion Italy could
I’m Italian too!!
I'm an Italian history research student at the University of Milan. This video made me so happy to see that there still are people abroad able to do proper research about Italy's involvement in ww1 and pre-fascist era. Well done.
Thanks, we are doing our best but it's definitely not always easy.
@@TheGreatWar Keep up your excellent work. It does a great deal to destroy nasty stereotypes about Italy.
@@josephdalelio6684 all those "nasty stereotypes about Italy" have been fueled by the Italians themselves; I mean, did you even pay attention to this video?
And you know what's funny about Cadorna? Despite being one of the most incompetent and despotic WW1 generals, with no regards for soldiers life, there are still a lot of roads and public buildings named after him such as a big train station in Milan. Isn't that great?
Stefano Maccarone troverai sempre chi ti dirà: "Cadorna era in linea con gli altri generali, tutti mandavano la fanteria a immolarsi". Per quanto riguarda la sua figura nella storia "istituzionale", lo Stato non può dire che fosse un incompetente per non far sfigurare le centinaia di migliaia di soldati caduti dal '15 a Caporetto: se seguivano ordini stupidi, la loro morte fu invano? Meglio pensare che siano tutti eroi e patrioti piuttosto che contadini e studenti, carne da macello mandata contro le mitragliatrici con la minaccia della decimazione.
Jurij Klanjšček Non potrei essere più d'accordo, però credo anche che molti italiani siano già dell' idea che le centinaia di migliaia di morti siano stati in grossa parte dovute anche alla sua incompetenza: Udine ha già tolto i nomi delle strade dedicate a lui! Anzi, la retorica degli "eroici soldati italiani mandati a morire da incompetenti", per quanto spesso fallace, mi pare abbia preso molto piede in Italia.
Stefano Maccarone I'm not a "patron saint of lost causes", but you know that Cadorna send to massacre less soldiers than his French and British analogues (e chi ti scrive è il nipote di un bambino che non ha potuto conoscere suo padre per questo), just think about La Somme or Verdun... had Haig and Joffre been more human? There is just a difference between them: Cadorna held in office more time than other Chiefs of staff. (and I don't know if it's a good matter or a bad one...) . I think that judjing TODAY and blaming about facts of 100 YEARS AGO is an ufair offense to the minds of our fathers, and a greater arrogance about our intelligence. Penso giudicare e condannare oggi i fatti di allora sia un grandissimo insulto all'intelligenza di chi fu chiamato a decidere e scegliere in quel momento (sia ai massimi vertici, che nella vita di tutti i giorni), e un'arrogante sopravvalutazione della nostra, d'intelligenza.
mizhard Well first we need to consider that in the italian front a lower number of casualties is just expected due to the lower amount of soldiers in the field so I wouldn't use it as a "proof of humanity". But in a way you are right: it is really easy to judge a century later and we shall not feel in any way superior or more clever; however this is not what I was saying, my point is: should we award honors and praises for those who had led so many to certain death due to their incompetence? I don't mean to have Cadorna's name scourged and cursed and I don't believe that I would have done any better, however it can't be denied that his action lead to failure and death: is it arrogant to believe that he should not receive praise? You say that "judging TODAY and blaming about facts of 100 YEARS AGO is an unfair offense to the minds of our fathers, and a greater arrogance about our intelligence", but isn't history itself an act of judgment "a posteriori"? What good is having this very series of videos if our remembrance of this acts does not lead us to know better than our predecessors, while still having nothing but the utmost respect and reverence for those who suffered and died?
Stefano Maccarone Well said!
As an Italian I have to say that you did a very good job in explaining the situation of the country and what led Italy into war. It's not common, even among good historians. Bravi!
Michele Merloni Grazie! Madeleine Johnson
Prego :) Well deserved.
The Wilhelm Scream makes its triumphant return at 3:32!
A piece of turkey when the Ottomans are defeated? Was it land, or were they just going to have Thanksgiving?
that went over your head a bit, huh?
Iconoclasm_ all they get is the over cooked breast meat of the turkey.
pshhh there's no thanksgiving in Italy
They gave them some land, which they immediately gave back to the Turks during their independence war (Italy was the only power supporting Turkey).
@@MichaelOldAccount19 there is. Last day of the solar year.
From what I read on articles about Italy after the war, their promises were broken. They only received Tryol and Trieste, but not Dalmatia. I'd say they got fucked over. Which is why italy ended up fighting against the Allies in World War 2.
@Peter S reeeeee
@Peter S Only middle Tyrol. South Tyrol is Italian.
@@fkjl4717 Actually it was all nations that screwed Italy in the peace deal, with the USA probably having the least impact.
Russia didn't want Italy to own anything in the Balkans.
France and Britain did not want Italy to gain any colonies.
Belgium wanted new colonies.
The USA only wanted to ask the people who lived in lands under Italian claim if they did or did not want to join. Exactly like how Italy unified.
@@fkjl4717 Russia wasn't at Versaille, but expressed how they did not want to give Italy Balkan land during the London agreement.
Italy also wanted some German colonies.
And last but not least with the USA method Italy would have gotten all areas with a majority of Italian population, so all of the coast line.
that is exactly one of the many reasons Mussolini gave to Italians for pushing them to fight the war
Awesome video! I've always known that Italy suddenly switched sides in 1914 but never knew why. I just thought that Italians were jerks who had an appetite for screwing teammates up (well it happened twice in both WWs). But now I have a clearer picture.
Italy's participation in both WWs has always been considered sort of a sideshow and not too many people talk about it. I've just recently started to study Italy in WWII though: the Mussolini regime, the Western Desert Campaign, the Russian expedition, and things that most WWII history books never even mention... It's quite fascinating.
The 51st Division Yeah, you can even see that in WW2 satire and entertainment the Italians don't get more credit then the little boy. See for example Danger 5 where Mussolini is just a small boy playing video games.
The Great War wait WHAT?
The 51st Division Google Danger 5 - watch all the episodes, especially season 1.
I'm glad that someone like you begins to understand things as they actually went and is not limited to the stereotypical solemnities. As for the Second World War, Italy lost it and it was over for her on September 8, 1943. After that, it was immediately invaded by German troops and the liberation war began with the Partisans and anti-fascists in the name; in essence it was also a civil war that saw the Partisans against Germans and Italians still loyal to the fascist regime. All ended on April 25, 1945. After all, if we want to be precise, France also had its shame with Vichy, but this is not said. We know that history is written by the winners.
Italy didn't switch sides
"Italy has a great hunger but she has bad teeth" - Otto von Bismarck
Yeah but they lost it all
Otto lost his war and was our enemy, he should have focused more on his war and less on chatter and maybe they whould have won some war too.
Mania497
WE went to dentist in WW1.
ti adoro ahaha mitica risposta W L'ITALIA
Maybe you need to read history books ,Italy won ww1
Thank you for your kind words. It was really a pleasure working on this episode. After years of being confused by these complex events, sitting down and doing the research allowed me to finally figure it out. Madeleine Johnson
There was talk of a war with France in Italy in order the regain West Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and Colonial lands as well. I think the Italians were really more holding out to see which side did better in the war before committing to either side. Smart considering the economic and technological situation of the time.
Cadorna himself trained his entire life to invade France.
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 pity. You think he'd have been better at a fight with France if italy joined Central powers?
@@rohiths3554 Very unlikely. The combination of authoritarian ways and antiquated doctrine was always going to get him bogged down.
Still, it might have cut the number of battles in the same place to half, since he would have atleast known the geography better
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 yeah. The central powers would've fared better though.
Germany would have reached Paris for sure
@@rohiths3554 Well of course. France would had two homefronts, Austria-Hungary no Italy to grind it down which would mean a better performance in the East, and finally the naval war would have became much more crucial, with the Mediterranean no longer being an Entente lake but instead as contested as the North Sea, if not more so. If France were to fall, which would have been likely even without the Italians breaking throught, the Royal Navy would have been for the first time truly outmatched. The war would surely end there and then, since I doubt Japan would care to send their navy around the entire globe, least they end up like Russia in 1905. Even the USA intervening would have achieved little else than curbing some of the more enthusiastic demands of the winning powers.
When he is describing Italy undevelopment: clearly a Secondary Power in terms of Victoria II.
Lol, I too draw my historical knowledge from YT history videos and Paradox games.
+COOLOD1 Same here lol
even BELGIUM is more powerful than italy
It should be interesting to compare Italy's developments at the time with the standards of present-day average African country.
+Rogerthegood better. it was better. It was An agricultural country but not a starving one.
Thank you for the rare "intellectual honesty" concernig Italy in the WWs. I al the first to explain the limits and the errors of this nation, but often people abroad indulte whitout khow the situation!
Really interesting channel!
insulte not indulte
My great- grandfather served in the Italian Royal Army in the 1890's. He came to America in 1901.
You should look up the plans that Cadorna made to invade France and help the Germans. in fact, during the negotiations with the entente, Cadorna still made plans of defense in the western Alps. As a result the tactics to attack an invade Austria we conceived only when there was no left time to organise a better invasion. :)
Oh very interesting. Could you write us something about that, like 2 or 3 paragraphs? We have a format called OUT OF THE ETHER where we showcase the best comments we got.
As requested:
Since 1882 the Italian government had the idea to fulfil their duties to the German Empire going to war, on the Rhine, against France. In 1888 plans were made by Prime Minister Crispi to send, in the case of war, troops on the Alps (against France) and on the Rhine but, with the internal turmoil of the '90, the strategy was abandoned. Only in 1912-1914 with the action of General Alberto Pollio who was firmly convinced that Italy had to be a loyal ally to the Central Empires. Moltke himself was positively surprised (Foerster, Die deutsch-italienische Konvention, cit., pp. 399-400) even though he knew that Italy would not be able to assure a big help on the Rhine front.
The 18 december 1913 the italian generals were unanimously in favor to the aid that Pollio promised to Moltke. The aid would have been composed primarly of horsemen (which Moltke judged well equipped, Gian Enrico Rusconi, "L'azzardo del 1915", p. 37). Cadorna himself judged positively Pollio's idea and expressed the wish to assemble an "armata delle Alpi" to battle the French army. ("L'azzardo del 1915, p. 39).
Although Italy choose the neutral position, in 1914 the two ambassadors (Avarna in Wien and Bollati in Berlin) are tirelessly working to reassure the central empires that neutrality will be temporary and Italy will, in the end, side with them while Salandra (MP) and San Giuliano (foreign minister) are constantly at work to keep neutrality. As you said, Italy was trying to snatch the most from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in return for the aid in the WW. While the diplomats were occupied Cadorna became Chief of the Italian Army on the 27 of July of 1914. Cadorna was a “triplicist” as the majority of the Italian military staff, he really believed in the Triple Alliance. On the same day he wanted to know if it was possible to send some more troops on the Rhine in aid of the German ally. On the 31th he sent the king a memorandum about the transport of troops in Germany (Luigi Cadorna, “Altre pagine sulla grande guerra”, pp. 15-23) but, at the same time, the government decided to keep Italy neutral…
The troops were already marching West, to France, and Cadorna received a brief note about the position of Italy. He was requested to start preparing the war in the East, against the Empire. On the 6 of august the Italian army started her march to the East to prepare for a possible war against Austria (Gatti, “Un italiano a Versailles”, cit., pp. 438-439). Cadorna was highly incompetent and his management of the war brought only disasters but, it is to notice, he had also to copy to a general situation of misunderstandings and lies inside the diplomatic apparatus of Italy.
:D
Awesome thanks a lot for that!
I don't know if is that the case but you should look up the epistolary of Moltke for the relations between general Pollio, Moltke himself and the Austrian General :D
Antonio Marson Franchini It already sounds like a great set up for a practical joke.
Extremely precise... finally someone who speaks with knowledge about italian intervention, bravo!
Thank you for this video! My great grandfather fought for Italy at the Trentino offensive as an already naturalized American.. he went to a war camp for 2 years in Austria and the Americans had him released only a few days before entering the war… this video provides a lot of great context
In 1916, my grandfather was awarded a medal for valor in a battle of the Isonzo, in an assault on an enemy trench
(a few weeks later, again in the Plava area, his unit was captured and my grandfather was sent to a prison in Montenegro - I think - ) where he remained long after the war ended).
One of my ancestors moved to Canada around the year 1900, but went back to Italy in 1914 to fight for Her. Was this a common occurrence in North America (not just Italians, but across many groups)?
Also as an Italian I must say that the phrase "There were many hot heads in Italy" is a hilariously accurate statement.
+Banya V A lot of Canadians joined the war since it started, expecially on the Western front.
My great grandfather was in Boston and also went back to fight in ww1. He wasn't american but was working there. He's at the italian war cemetery, Re di Puglia.
Ramadl59 Honor to him
Benya V
During both World Wars many Americans "Answered the call of the Fatherland" and went to fight for Germany.
Yes, and Italy used to pay the travel back to Italy to join the army; my great grandfather was in Argentina at the time and he came back to fight; he then decided to stay in Italy and..here I am
Only 1 detail missing: not only it was Austria who violated the terms of the alliance, but there are documents proving that the emperor was already making plans for a future attack on Italy; the "alliance" was pretty much toilet paper and yet there are still people who go by the false narrative of "treacherous Italy" or who say that the allies won the war for Italy, which is again uttely false. After Caporetto there were FIVE allied divisions in Italy... 5 against 56 Italian, who do you think won the battle of the Piave? Brits make a big deal out of the fact that their 2 divisions were the first to surpass the Piave but forget to mention that they were used as spearhead after having FAILED to maintain their defensive position (yes, Austrian and German troops broke through in the British sector on the Asiago plateau and Italian command had to divert troops to reinforce them) at the battle of the 3 mountains. I'm not faulting British soldiers, mind you, only stating facts and showing how absurd common belief is. Italy won their part of WW1 first and won alone and don't forget that the opening of the southern front was a major factor in forcing German surrender. Despite that the allies pretty much gave Italy the middle finger by not maintaining the promises that were made. Now who betrayed who again?
I'm not saying Italy was blameless and immaculate or that Italy won the war for the allies, just that popular narrative is complete garbage
speaking facts
Funky spelling of Giuseppe, I had a bit of a laugh when that popped up! :)
I haven't even watched the episode but I know it's gonna be great!
Smashing _Sceptile Thanks. We can tell you that it actually is.
It's a detailed and precise description of the events! Very good video!
Portugal was the reason the Triple Entente won World War 1, lets be real lads.
+Arthur Michie Could you explain?
Well they sent a whole 12,000 troops man, thats more than Spain, Costa Rica and Iceland combined
I also have another question. Why do you have a North Korean flag?
+sharkfinbite SHIT their onto me
Get him ha ha ha! We'll teach you making grammar mistakes.
I have been a student of military history most of my life. My major concentration is World War 1 and 2. This review of yours is the absolute BEST I have come across. I really wish you would do a 5 part series on Italy as you allude to. Many of my relatives were in Italy during the time you speak of and I have to admit my Great Grandmother was pretty close to what you had described. Thank you for an outstanding series.
Really well done! I am Italian, and I rarely saw well-done documentaries in itlian about English side. Germs are full of misconceptions and diseases. Your research is incompelte and full of resources! Condolences!
cougars
Haven't said this in a while, so I will now; You're doing a great job, keep it up!
xMartyZz Thanks, we will!
This show is really awesome!
This channel deserves WAY more subs than 700k. This channel is so effective in delivering vital and in-depth knowledge to the Great War, a war overshadowed by its successor, WW2. Thanks for that!
Thank you for a really interesting and fact-filled description of the Italian situation pre WW1. Well done for getting so much information into such a small amount of time. I am now subscribed!
3:36 That is a ridiculously cool painting
Your channel is really great and so unique. I really like it :)
TheFrostbiteSK Glad you like it! Same can be said about our community by the way.
I'm italian and i say this is really a well done documentary. My compliments and greetings from Italy
It would've been interesting to see a longer segment on Italy's participation in this war. But this was very nice. Nice job.
You have the entire series for that
As TV Tropes says: "The War cured Futurism for most the same way a Guillotine cures a Sinus Infection."
This channel is brilliant! Regards from Copenhagen.
+iDenmark Thanks. And greetings from Berlin.
This is probably your best video and writing of the whole series
Davvero un bel video per una sintetica analisi dell'entrata in guerra dell'Italia, è stato un piacere scoprire questo canale sulla Grande Guerra ^^
Great episode!
Ah! You're right: a 5 times long episode would be not enough., by the way, a good brief of the matter, and an "unusual" point of view, because, sincerelly I used to see and read about it more from an Italian point of view. I'd focused more on the facts from 5th May to 24th... institutional ones like cospirancies between Salandra Giolitti and the King, and popular ones, like D'Annunzio's speeches in Genoa and Rome. Great episode.
mizhard Glad you liked it. That means a lot to us of course.
Outstanding episode! I'd like to recommend a book called 'A Year on the Plateau' ('Un Anno Sull'altipiano'), by ex-soldier Emilio Lussu. Very powerful story and best memoir about Italy's participation in WW1.
silvioevan11 Seems he deserves a biography episode.
Yes, big thanks to Madeline for helping. It's wonderful to hear of the community being involved in more than just watching, commenting and subscribing.
Good to hear the backstory on Italy :)
Ian Kath Yeah, we couldn't have done that without her.
Ian Kath Thank you! Madeleine
most informative , plus your easy to listen to
Awesome! Great work congratulation.
Darren Marshall Thanks!
Now this was a good episode, informative and teaches uncommon things while being entertaining
congratulations for your great work about Italy.
3:30 nice willhelm scream XD
It was a Kaiser Wilhelm scream :D
3:32 was that a wilhelm scream?
This was a really enlightening episode. I had no idea Italy wasn't united so late into the modern era. Thank ya'll so much!
dapete Glad we could be of service.
Great analysis! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🇮🇹
I really like this episode about my country, thanks :)
I don't really remember the events between WW1 and WW2, but weren't many of the promises to Italy in the Treaty of London broken?
***** We are going to answer that in a few years. Be patient.
First learned of this project in the fall with great excitement, but was very busy with my teaching responsibilities. I fell hopelessly behind - even though this only requires 20 minutes per week. Anyway, now that we're on summer break, I have just caught up. It's going to seem like a strange break in my routine not to watch 10 of these a day.
David Hubbard Glad you found the time and have an interesting summer ahead of you.
This was fascinating. I'd never considered Italy as a young nation, but that explains a lot.
As an Italian passionate about history I'm loving this! Thanks doc!
mi bisabuelo peleo por el reino de Italia saludos desde chile
E bravo nonno !!!
There you go again with that Wilhelm scream.
This channel deserves more views. Always been an avid WW2 fan and just getting into WW1 ( GET VERDUN IF YOU LIKE WW1 AND FPS ). Keep up the amazing work!
sobmadrox Glad you liked it. We are playing Verdun from time to time (at the moment not too much because team holidays) but you can join our steam group "Indy Neidell Disciples"
I'm surprised how divided and hot headed the Italians were back then.
You will get to do a special on Benito Mussolini right?
HadoukenDude Yeah, he will probably get his own episode.
+HadoukenDude Mussolini was head of L'Avanti a socialist journal back before WW1, as he wanted Italy to enter the war, he was ejected from the Socialist reformist party. He supported than the Interventisti. After WW1, in 1919 he founded the Fasci Di Combattimento, in 1921 this group became a truly political called PNF Partito Nazionale FascisTa, at the election though, they didn't gain many votes. Be careful now, PNF had still an armed side, CAMICIE NERE, they were free to attack communists, socialists and opponents. Moreover the governement did nothing to stop them. Why? Basically, They were seen as a tool for getting rid of the opposition ( especially Communists and socialists).
In 1922, the so called Marcia su Roma took place and Mussolini backed up by the King took the power.
From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini governed legally, also with the others parties. After Delitto Matteotti, a parlamentary that wanted to denounce some irregularities made by PNF, i'm simplyfing here.. ,The Dictatorship started.
I think that he modernized Italy, making lot of changes (also illigally) but the only mistake he made was establishing an alliace with Hitler back in 1936, with the so called Patto D'acciaio. The rest you know.. if you has questions, ask me.
+HadoukenDude There still like that now, whats surprising about it?
Italy will never be united. Never.
Could you make video of finland's struggle for indibendence during ww1.
We will but later on.
Ok :)
>indibendence
Such a finnish way of spelling that lmao
Did many Italians want to join with Germany? I only ask because France controlled Corsica and Savoy. And the British controlled Malta. Plus both had far more colonies. It seems like Italy had more to gain by joining Germany.
Corsica is French and Malta is Maltese not Italian
+Sp00ngb00b yeah I get that but you could have said the same about all of the territory that made up Italy.
I guess Catalonians aren't Spanish, Occitans aren't French, Bavarians aren't German, Neapolitans aren't Italian... Or maybe that's not how it works? You get the idea.
Corsica is not Italian. Corsica is French to the French... and Corsican, to the Corsicans. They are, hm, passionate about that point. Up Ajaccio!
Chris Forsyth Frog lover
Fantastic episode! I learned much.
Thank you for this! A detailed look at pre-war Italy and the fascinating entity that it was is more than welcome.
The deeper you go into WW1 history, the more it looks like a freaky set of Chinese Pandora's boxes, like one wasn't enough. Sorry for the creative writing here, I'm just saying that you are right about the Italian situation being a mess. Also it didn't help that fascism promoted a twisted post-war interpretation of the events soon after. Several topics stayed taboo for decades, like ethnic Italians fighting for another army.
By the way, would you please make an episode about them if you find enough material? That would be intriguing!
Carry on with your good work!
Giulio Menegazzi We will surely mention them in our regular episodes while we cover the Italian front.
"italy was poor" after the unification, but has always been Europe's richest country until the XVII century, outclassed by the new emerging empires. It was born ALL here, medical science, western universities, banks, music and musical instruments etc
Except it wasn't a Country
not yet, to be precise ^^
gli abitanti dell'Italia pre unitaria erano italiani in quanto parte della penisola italica. L'unificazione è un fatto politico e giuridico.
più o meno ^^;
@Tommy Tunes by the time Garibaldi conquered the south in 1861 the kingdom of two Sicily's was an incredibly poor country where the nobility held an iron grip on the region's economy so much so that when Garibaldi landed in Sicily, people were volunteering to join him in the hopes that life would get better under a new kingdom the kingdom of
Italy were dicks to the southerners but that is more because they did nothing to improve the region than actively try
to damage it
The coming in war of Italy in 1915 was the result of the french and english politic of the the batoon or the carrot. The treath of a naval blockage was the batoon, the promise of the regions of Trentino and of Friuli & Venezia Giulia were the carrot.
The background history of early Italy leading up to the Italian entry into WW I was interesting and helped set the tone for Italian Patriotism.
5:22
Italians don't feel very united even today.
unfurtunately here in italy people from the nord hate people from the sud and people of the sud hate people of the nord
+ErwinTerminetorZ North is the true Italy.
+Vasting yep
+Vasting WHAT?THE TRUE ITALICS ARE SOUTHERN ITALY WE ARE ITALICI BYE BYE
Vasting LEARN HISTORY IDIOT !
If you want to read more about Italy and it's involvement in World War 1, there's a great book called The White War by Mark Thomson.
728Magpie Thanks!
"Could have been 5X longer"
Great war fan
"
An excellent historical reconstruction. The only point on which I cannot agree is the linguistic one, which is still that of the literature of the nineties of the twentieth century (influenced by the separatist vision of the former Lega Nord of Bossi).
The Italian dialects are part of a neo-Latin continuum. All speakers understand each other with simple "turns of phrase". The impossibility of understanding is an invention.
As for cultural divisions, Germany was no less divided. Indeed, the Germans had competing religious confessions between North and South. Italians were almost all Catholics.
Sardinian and Friulan are different Romance languages and there's a gap between Rimini and LaSpezia, not mentioning a guy walking to the next village would find people speaking a different dialect.
YET, everyone spoke italian to a certain extent for bureaucratic and commercial reasons, even the strongest anti-unitarian monarchies used Italian and not the local languages (not even Naples, whatever the "neo-bourbons" will tell you), and while local rivalries were (and still are) strong no one questioned their belonging to an Italian nation, even back in early Renaissance.
@@FlagAnthem A different language (within the romance continuum) is not a major threat to understanding.
3:31 is that a wilhelm scream? :D
Rochi Maru for some reason I can't reply to your comment.
The Italians were never on the german side, and they never changed side mid-war, did your teachers seriously tell you that?
***** by that time the Axis were losing
@@joey8062 IT´S WW1 GODDAMNIT
General Cadorna has very interesting family members also. His son was an officer in WW1 who would go on to be an Italian resistance fighter in WWII. His father, was also a general and was instrumental in the unification of Italy. Incredible history spanning those three generations.
Avanti Savoia!!! Viva l'Italia... great video!!!
Great video and I appreciate even more the comments below, with people realizing how many shades can have the history of the world; moreover, as an Italian, I'm happy to see people that learn what really Italy did in WWI and WWII; here in Italy and in a lot of countries for what I know, people still suffer of the anti-italian propaganda of the wars, that obviously change a lot of things ( below there's a comment of a student from Turkey and what was taught to him at school, and it's really interesting to see the propaganda made in different countries)
U.S.: You can’t have Istria, Italy
Italy:Mmph
I’m gonna do a pro gamer move right now
*Italy has left Versailles Table*
l'Istria l'abbiamo avuta lo stesso, con un altro trattato
My great grandfather was an Italian Artillery Officer and fought in Monte Grappa
The video needs to be in the Countries in World War 1 playlist
Actually, Italy had been mostly united the Kingdom of Italy rules by the Carolingian Dynasty, who took it from the Lombards, and they ruled much of Italy (with south Italy being a patchwork of their control, byzantine control, and independent entities at varying points, and Rome always being held by the papacy). It technically lived on during the era of the Holy Roman Empire as well (with the emperor consistently holding the title, alongside king of the germans, witht eh de jure title as emperor beign dependant on the Pope), thought the 16th century.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Italy
Notice how he said unified as in all of Italy (even though you can argue that all of Italy includes both Malta and Corsica, but in fear of both French and Maltese Nationalists I will just say they are historic claims). The Franks only ruled over norther and central Italy, though Justinian the First (of Byzantium) had reconcurred all of Italy some 80 years after the fall of Rome. I should also mention that I am discounting the HRE, who at several points occupied almost all of Italy, because (and please correct me if I am wrong, my knowledge of HRE Italy isn't too good) of the amount of autonomy the Italian states were granted. I could also see a possible argument for Napoleon, but I haven't really studied his campaigns in Italy either.
@@masterm3487 True italia Romana included Istria, Corsica and Malta.
Looks like Italy did not get its promised 'Albania as a protectorate' nor 'colonial additions in Africa' promised in the Treaty of London.
BountyFlamor Jubaland, territories from Egypt/Sudan/Algeria where given to Italy. Not that much of a reward; but strictly speaking some colonial territories where given to Italy.
Italy win on the Piave river, in the mountains and in Vittorio Veneto city there were
fifty-one Italian divisions, three British, two French, one Czechoslovakian and one American regiment, against seventy-three Austro-Hungarian divisions, thank you gen. Armando Diaz.
1:11 the map shows how the remption of italy is not finished yet
Italy's claim on Triest and Trentino made absolute sense because they were inhabited by Italians, but the claim on South Tyrol was total hypocrisy. It was inhabited by a majority of Austrians. They basically did what they threw at Austria Hungary before.
***** Italy had more of a claim for territory against France than Austria-Hungary: Corsica, Nice and Tunisia all totaled had a larger Italian population more than twice than the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
***** The binary of nationalism makes things difficult.
+Chris Wachtler South Tyrol was a key territory.
Chris Wachtler South tryrol is divided into two parts, the trentino part was a majority italian, and the alto adige part was partialy italian
Italy hated more the Austrian thought
Italy didnt betray anyone but Italy was betrayed because they didnt get the lands they were promised
Really interesting episode this week Indy.
thetrainguy1009 Thanks!
Very Great video
But wasn't Austria-Hungary right concerning the Triple Alliance treaty? They were required only to pay compensation to Italy if they annexed Serbian territory which they didn't intend. Did the treaty demand to inform your other allies before making a move? If so, Indy does not mention it.
In the treaty demand Austria sent to Serbia, there would be land acquisition by Austria from Serbian land and effectively turning Serbia into a puppet state of austrio Hungary. There was zero demands or points about Italians or their compensation.
So I guess the next "Who did what" episode will feature Mussolini?
Considering Gallipoli is going on, I would like one on Pasha. I don't know if Mussolini did that much during the first war.
h85935 Enver Pasha, or the other two.
***** A lousy one and a butcher.
Didn't they already do one on Pasha?
ReppeNThA707 Yes, but not in depth. The three Pashas need their own bonus episode.
It would be nice to get a special on the Iberian peninsula during the war. I'd be happy to help with research.
Well done
Was there not much irredentism against France for Corsica, Nice or Savoie?
LordAcul Not so much actually, Nice and Savoie were given to France in a treaty in order to gain Lombardy, so a lot of the italian population simply moved back to Piedmont. I'm not really sure about Corsica though, but Trieste and Trentino were heavily populated with italians, Istria and Dalmatia had italian minorities going back as far as 400 years who had become "austrian" just a century before. I mean, in Istria italian is an official language even as of today, while we can't say the same for Corsica.
LordAcul Corsica was just a "colony" of the Republic of Genoa, until they sold it to France. Were they Italians? ... maybe just for propaganda: they were as Italian as Sardinians were. Sardinians "were" Austrians too, from @1713 to @1718, and no one remember about that.
There's a nice quote from Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms", where a drunken italian official chats about all the lands had to be conquered. Trento and Trieste, sure, but more: Nice and Corsica.
Stefano Maccarone Corsica (they spoke Tuscan-Italian, check the Corsican Constitution of 1750 and the fact that even Napoleone spoke Italian first so that many French considered him a foreign at the beginning) and Nice (Garibaldi was from a wealthy Italian family of Nice) were actually Italian, but the French government strongly repressed this
Whenever someone is talking about the dispute about Trieste, they forget that the citizens of the city always seen themselves as Triestens (?). The city was a mix of Italians and Slovenians. And rightly it should have been a part of Slovenia. This dispute lasted till the cold war, when we Slovenians finally lost Trieste and Gorizia
I hope you will point out how strong the nationalism of Italy was, and that this was one of the main reasons the Rapallo agreement took third of the Slovenian terriotory. The period between both wars in this region, was marked by brutal Italian control and violence.
Hope you will do a special on Slovenia (the wonder at Kobarid), and the creation of the Slo-Cro-Srb state.
Keep po the good work! :)
Jan Kastigar We will probably have a Slovenia special at some point. And the whole situation with Triest perfectly illustrates what happens when nationalism is not working.
+Jan Kastigar FYI, the people of Trieste call themselves "Triestini."
It was by a vast majourity Italian, populated by Venetians during la Serenisima, as was Gorizia (Although more Friulans there) There is a reason why Nova Gorica exists. It should have been part of Italy along with most of Western Istria, Even Austro-Hungarian statistics make it clear, these lands were Italian.
Since the whole area changed hands so many times it is way more complicated than what you are saying. My grandparents lived there, and they told many stories about how before the wars the Slovenians and Italians live together in peace. Yet after the nationalists grew stronger in Italy, the Slovenians in that area slowly started to move away. It peaked with Mussolini, when the Slovenians in the area were persecuated and were activly harrass by the Italian nationalists. Also the Slovenians later form terrorist groups to fight against the oppression.
So do not say that the are is rightfully from Italy, since using nationalism and violence does not describe the term ˝rightfully˝. Rightfully it was on our orthern border, where the people that lived in the area around the border between Austria and Slovenia, since the was a vote, a the majority decided to live in Austria, since the new Kingdom of Yugoslavia was just a ˝kid˝.
P.S.: Italian nationalism has done much harm to our family, that is why I get emotional about it, also the reason I am studying those things lol :)
Jan Kastigar no, triest is not ritghfuly sloveen, neither the other counties in istria are, the rightful ones are territories of the interior
The audio production was on point for this episode. Keep up the great work team!
Devin Guthrie Thanks!
Very well-researched episode.
Michael Black Kudos to Madeleine. She did an outstanding job supporting us.
Curious about an apparent conflict in the information, in the beginning you talk about how Italy was so divided ethnically, and linguistically that they didn't even really feel like a unified sense of nationhood. That Italian was only the dialect of Florence.
If this is the case, how could a nation that lacked cohesion within itself feel related to the lands within Austria, and why would their speaking Italian, a language that wasn't even dominant in Italy, be a binding force?
But he just said they didn't have any sense of unity...
So then Indy was wrong?
Wow, you are so amazingly wrong. Italy was not even remotely a nation from Roman times. In the 1600's it could be as many as twelve nations at certain times. The kingdom if Italy was declared in 1861, but if you listen to the video Indy is very clear to explain how diverse the country was and how divided it was culturally as well as linguistically. That's like thinking modern Israel has been a nation since biblical times instead of being founded instead of 1948.
Wow, you're really working hard to prove something that just isn't true. To this day Italian regionalism is strong, and even now it isn't to homogeneous nation or culture you seen to want to think it is. Good for you, whatever over simplifications you need to make it thru your life, but it has never been nor will it ever be as cookie cutter as you seem to want it to be.
Because I am 56 years old, I have lived on three continents, I am well read and University educated.
Numerous countries have a population whose identity is not to the nation but to some smaller area. Spain is full of regional separatism, and Great Britain is coming apart at the seams.
Heck, before the US Civil War this was true in the US, with state identity trumping a sense of national unity.
Ask a Sicilian, see if they answer that they are Italian or Sicilian? They certain feel a sense of local identity.
I suspect the urge to reclaim the territories under Austro-Hungarian control was more a political power grab that a patriotic crusade, the video makes conflicting claims however, which was the point of my question.
You cannot both say "Italy was united since the garden of Eden' and 'the video is correct' because it very clearly states that the sense of Italian unity was not very strong among the people...
0:42 Italy had been unfied many times thought the ages. Immediately after the fall of Rome the Italian kingdom under Odoacre. Then the Ostroghots. Then the Byzantines. And after the Byzantines the dissolution starts. First the Longobardi invade. Then the Franks. Then the HRE. Then France. Then Spain. Then Austria. In the middle of this invasions sometimes you'll find one or two semi-united Italy, but nowhere near as much as before the Byzantines.
Excellent presentation as usual! It would be interesting to hear more about the position of the Catholic Church toward the war. This is interesting even today with the beatification of Karl I of Austria, venerated today in Austria and Hungary, and now moving toward sainthood.
Thank you Indy and crew