Annexing territory along the two countries’ frontier stretching from the Trentino region in the Alps eastward to Trieste at the northern end of the Adriatic Sea was a primary goal and would “liberate” Italian speaking populations from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, while uniting them with their cultural homeland.

You got to also remember that the Austrians occupied/had a great deal of influence in northern Italy since the end of the napoleon wars.

The anti Austrian feelings war strong and the chance to "librate Italians" as they put it is the other factor.

Throw in competing claims on the alpine border with both country's.

As I said before.. Even if they did have government who said we aren't taking part... That said government would have not enough support to survive.

Hey the fact Italy did actually go to war with the central powers and not stay neutral backs this case even more.

A little aside, but my great grandpa is a war orphan from WW1. The education in American schools regarding WW1 left...a lot to be desired. We hardly even glossed over Italy's participation in the war. Now I guess I know why my great grandpa was a war orphan, so thanks for that OP!

NY school for those wondering.

I've been mulling about getting my Italian citizenship, since I'm eligible, but the whole "orphan" thing makes this needlessly complicated.

They made a mistake by joining the war in the first place. They were horribly unprepared for war. They had no modern artillery, the army was poorly trained and equipped, and the country's economy was weak at best. They took enormous casualties and were humiliated at Caporetto.

i am glad you liked it :)

Luigi Cadorna after the 1115th battle of the Isonzo River. Be like one more frontal assault and we will break the Austrians.

I'm sure at the time people had good arguments for staying neutral - they/the public support for them lost out to pro-war people, so what I mean is, hard relative to 'flipping' the precedent of the "losing side of the argument" to winning amongst decision makers

However, even though Italy got shafted at Versailles, better to be at the peace table at all rather than at the mercy of the committee...

Territory was very precious so I'm not sure it's a "real" alternative but it's obviously an interesting option in hindsight.

I recommend Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism for the bullet points.

Brakemen: $1.07/day

Conductor (passenger): $2.11/day

Conductor (freight): $1.80/day

Locomotive engineer: $1.97/day

Locomotive firemen: $1.06/day

Teamster: $1.33/day

Source: Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 499

Depends on how you define as most beautiful. Tristan and Iseult, maybe?

The Reservation Era ran from 1850-1887. So, without being an expert on too many of the finer details and with the heavy push of Manifest Destiny and the frontier expansionist incentive programs that stemmed from it, it’s likely to at least some degree that at least most natives were already relocated by that time specifically to make way for settlers.

The majority of the population didn't want war though, It just some nationalist group that were really loud.

I think the Austrian were justified against Serbian terrorist state though,It's like US response to 9/11. Although in hindsight this was stupid thing to do.

They had like half a million war deaths. Of course it was a mistake to join the war.

Austria-Hungary did have a formidable navy with several Dreadnought though.

The things is they were already offered one of their coveted Austrian province by staying neutral . To bad this is not enough for the King and the hardline nationalist,Just look at Spain and the US who profited so immensely for the war. By staying neutral Italy could get a free province and fill up their treasury with Gold and could have build up their industry with foreign money.

Ok that makes sense.

But! The series also made no mention of even the possibility that homesteaders might encounter Native Americans. Is this accurate as well? Could ALL of the Natives in Montana really been removed by 1883?

I think what a lot of people are forgetting or ignoring is the Italian people's strong sentiment to fight Austria its long term enemy at the time.

And the political factions in the country.

Even if they stayed neutral I don't think it would have lasted as government would have collapsed or had a coup (what I bet the allied powers would have backed)

Neutrality was just not a option.

[removed]

I don’t think it would have been hard at all to argue for neutrality. Italy joining the entente did little to change the outcome of the war and, unlike Dutch neutrality in the second war, no power had the capacity let alone initiative to invade a country the size and strength of Italy merely to open up a southern front against France.

Thank goodness my grand family left Sicily in the late 1800s, early 1900s. I didnt know all this. Fascinating. I thought they left cuz uncle married niece and my grandma's grandma became her mil. No maiden name

Lenin as a dictator is still a bit messy as being clear cut dictator. . As in 1917 it could be argued his word was quite law yet and needed the collective to agree with him. His power did get stronger with the passage of time

Now my moneys on sidonio pais as the first true European dictator.

Who was in office in December 1917

A lot of people don't remember him as he was killed only a year later in December 1918

is there a book or documentary about the excesses and the "dark side" (meaning things like sexual depravity or something along those lines) of royalty in Europe across history?

[removed]

This is interesting! It is near Sogmatar