Early on in the war, Italy sent its soldiers equipped with uniforms and weapons designed for the Libyan desert to fight in the alps in winter. Many soldiers froze to death. A substantial proportion of the weapons like guns wouldn’t even work in the freezing weather. Generals sent tens of thousands of soldiers to die in hopeless attacks. After the war, Italy had profound social unrest and a deeply scarred country.

Switzerland, on the other hand, remained neutral, equipped its soldiers for winter climates (even if it didn’t adequately pay them;) after the war was quite prosperous.

The United States remained neutral and made huge profits from the war until the war reached a stalemate, then it joined the war, ended it and dictated terms heavily in its favor to both sides, picking up territories.

Italy, on the other hand, didn’t even get the territories it was promised.

I think it’s very far fetched to describe at least choice as a wise decision

But all else wasn't equal. Germany had France on the ropes in 1914-16 as it was, Italy clearly played the role of a kingmaker in WW1 I would say.

While I agree the parallels to 9/11 are quite striking. The assassins were citizens of the Austrian empire but they were radicalized and support by a Serbian institution and coordination with he assassination with the knowledge of some Serbian members of government.

Negotiations between Rome the Central powers did continue even after the London Treaty was almost secured, but Vienna’s reluctance lead to their failure. Despite Germany supporting Italy’s demands, Austria initially completely refused any concession, going by the rule that any territorial grant on a national basis would lead to the collapse of the Empire. Demands included Trentino and an extension of the eastern Italian border on the Isonzo river, along with an autonomous status for Trieste. As time went on, Vienna gradually came to reluctantly accept these demands, but by then Italy had already signed the London Treaty.

So yeah, not really an absurd scenario if Austria had more hindsight.

It wasnt just cardona though, the army of Italy was ill equipped and poorly led and had to attacked in bad terrain.

Even without Cadorna being an imbecile there certainly were no better places to attack anyhow.

Yeah same for Romania.

But while it’s debatable if it wad a good choice for Italy, it was a terrible choice for Romania. What in earth were they thinking?

Romanias army was quite large but not really modern and poorly led. And worst - almost all their borders were with the central powers and they relied on Russia to somehow help them. And while they joined after the Brussilov offensive decimated the Austrian army, it also Meant the Russian army was tired and had heavy casualties as well and the Central powers had just defeated Serbia meaning the balkan was quite secure in their hands Imo the biggest blunder of WW1.

I'll reference Alessandro Barbero, his episode on the italian retreat at the end of WWI.

Basically he said that the Italian govt didn't want to enter the war because they knew how fucked up the army was. They saw how poorly it performed in Ethiopia and didn't fancy their chance against European Nations.

However the people didn't know that, it was all covered up. And there was sens of connection between the italian people and France. That was particularly the case with educated italians, Barbero noted, which are influential in journals and the "good" society. The liberal democracies, France and UK, embodied well their values and ideals for which they wished Italy to fight. They wouldn't let liberal values fall. So the pressure mounted little by little, journals after journals, discussion in posh café after discussion until the govt had to ceide to the pressure.

It didn't make a mistake joining as much as it pretended to be stronger than what it was to its people.

I disagree. While they may have had inadequte leadership, the strategic advantage of having an additional 3 million troops available. While perhaps inferior to the German army, what would have happened if the Austrians could have relieved the entire German force fighting in Russia? The Austrians were more than capable enough o handle the Russian empire, at least defensively in 1915. With the forces freed up from the Russian front, things on the Western front would have looked quite grim for the Entente in 1915-1916.

I hate the way news outlets report on Prehispanic archeology and history: They always make it out to be extra macabre pointlessly.

This is a more subtle example, but one that sticks out to me is how the BBC reported on "Aztec altar with human ashes uncovered in Mexico city", the implication being it was this gruesome shrine with human ashes and burning flesh, and it's literally just an urn with the remains of relatives kept in a household, which isn't even particularly uncommon today in the western world.

Another I can't find the link to, but it was a bunch of burials found somewhere in the Andes, where the article was titled something like "Gruesome mass child burial found", and even though the burial of people was a relatively minor part of the finds with also a ton of jewlery, art, and other things being found, the article was almost entirely focused on the mortuary remains, and in a throw away line conceded that there's no evidence of sacrifice and they seemed to die of natural causes.

It's absurd: If these sorts of finds happened in Greece, Egypt, China, etc, the entire framing and what the articles focused on would be different. They'd spend WAY more time on the tombs, artwork, and the like, and frame the remains as being honoring the dead rather then making it out like it's some perverse death cult.

Even stuff like sanitation gets thrown under the bus: An Aztec noble villa and bathhouse got uncovered a while back (and I wrote up an extended multi page writeup on Aztec hygine, medicine, and botanical science in response ), and half the sites reporting on it call it a "sweat lodge" and acting as if it's a tiny hut rather then a richly painted urban construction and acting as if it's primitive mumbo jumbo rather then a piece of hygienic infrastructure.

Turkey and Bulgaria was on the same side :D

No. I can’t see any other scenario where Italy could gain Italian areas under Austrian control, namely Trentino, Friuli and Trieste. Italy had nothing to gain by going against France (the nation who made reunification possible).

As a person from savoy, I can tell it leaves a stain even to this day when you know which countries sided with the entente or the 3rd Reich. glares at turkey. It wasn't a success with the economics fallout for decades (even today perhaps)

It seems they did the mistake twice with nazis...

World war one was a mistake.

How's that?

It was just a sad comedy of errors that cost the lives of hundreds of millions. BILLIONS, really. Probably hundreds of billions.

Because "my dad is bigger than yours!"

"Oh yeah!? My dad can kick your dad any day!"

And not one "leader" used an ounce of common sense.

Austria-Hungary did in fact proposed this to Italy

I didn’t say it did nothing. I said it did very little to change the outcome of the war. Even if the Austrians had the extra men and resources, they lacked proper leadership and overall resources to change the entire course of the war

I just watched a WW2 documentary on Italy. Italy is full of mistakes

Well, I wouldn’t say it did nothing. It tied up a lot of manpower. Something like 4 million men died, half of which were from the Central Powers. If Italy remained neutral that frees up at least 2 million Austrian soldiers to be deployed elsewhere.

Again, that’s just the dead. Not the entire force that was deployed there.

Believe it or not the war was immensely popular in Russia(at least in 1914),So much so that a commentator said that the Tsar is once again master of his people body and soul or something. The Italian government have additional causes to be fear too,The Libyan war of 1912 despite only token Ottoman resistance undo 50 years! of fiscal prudence and badly deplete their manpower and equipment!.In truth the public got little to do with the decision to enter the war anyway it was the King and his foreign minister sidelining the parliament.

Can anyone recommend some good sources for reading about Italy during WWI, alpine warfare, that sort of thing?

And yet they whent to war with the public support.

History tells us if the people do not support a devastating war you won't be in power long.

Just look east at the time.

Italy has always been a big “ what if?” in history. By all accounts the Entente did screw Italy over. I’m sure had Wilson not intervened perhaps Italy would’ve gotten more but Italy also underperformed especially against Austria which by all accounts was woefully lacking in military capability which probably didn’t help lend Italy credit considering that Serbia, a nation far smaller by all metrics than Italy, was holding its own against AH and Turkey before finally falling apart against the Bulgarians. Italy probably would’ve been better off staying neutral since they can still trade with both sides and grow.

Unlike USA, Austro-Hungary was a multinational empire, with a lot of internal issues and national liberation movements. Austria broke the Berlin treaty and fully annexed Bosnia, where the majority was not Austrian or Hungarian, but Serbian and Ottoman.

The Austrian heir was killed in Sarajevo, with the killers all being Austrian citizens, the capital of Bosnia, not in Viena.

And Austria, after getting the support of Germany, sent a 48 hours ultimatum to Serbia which would have practically made Serbia a territory of Austria - see bellow some "fun" requests:

4. Remove from the Serbian military and civil administration all officers and functionaries whose names the Austro-Hungarian Government will provide.

5. Accept in Serbia "representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government" for the "suppression of subversive movements".

Serbia, which had the Russian support, didn't accept the requests, England offered to mediate, but Austro-Hungary decided to declare war on Serbia - Russia started to mobilize, Germany declared war on Belgium, France and Russia, and England declared war on Germany ...

You can read all the fun in Wikipedia, here, but Austro-Hungary really was not like USA, but more like Russia's invasion in Ukraine...

You forgot the fact that Italy was offered one of the irredenta provice for neutrality,The government have any number of ways to spin it as diplomatic victory(Which it is). The economic rich that flow in would satisfy the population too.

Is there like any good recommended textbooks to read everything about ancient history and civilizations?