George Washington carried a sword. Later, when John Brown planned to spark a slave revolt, he tried to steal it in a heist, as a symbol of revolution.

There was also Peter Francisco, called the "Giant of the Revolution" for his size (he was known for pulling cannons across battlefields single-handedly), who preferred hand-to-hand combat. Washington himself commissioned a special broadsword for Fransisco to carry.

9/11 was an attack in one of the most iconic USA cities on civilians, by foreign citizens. The Sarajevo incident was a targeted assassination on the heir of the empire, done in an occupied province, by Austrian citizens of Serbian nationality - it's a risk you get when you have a multinational empire which has a heavy boot on the occupied nationalities in "Europe 's Powder Keg".

The only parallel is that both are terrorist attacks, but you can list some of the "striking parallels" if you want, I would like to see them ...

My first thought was John “mad jack” Churchill of Great Britain in WWII, who went to battle with a longbow, a Scottish broadsword, and a set of bagpipes, but that’s not what you were asking… there was Thomas butler an African American fencing master from Louisiana, but that was more around the revolution so again not what you were asking…. Nothing really comes to mind honestly, rapiers we’re required for majors down and used frequently, but so we’re bayonets which could be considered a short sword?

[removed]

As a Romanian we don't see our entry into WW1 as a mistake. It's considered a very wise move, since it garnered us a LOT of good will among the Entente and directly led to the unification of almost every single Romanian majority territory that existed outside the borders of the Old Kingdom of Romania. Post WW1 Romania was basically 2x the size and population of pre-WW1 Romania.

What really fucked us up was the collapse of the Russian Empire, since our war plans massively relied on them as the main force on the Eastern Front.

Yeah, the Romanians definitely joined thanks to the allies managing to convince them to help join the war effort, as by this time nothing was going well for the entente.

They were under the false assumption that such gains would benefit them the way such changes in territory reflected strength and success in past decades. But the cost was far too high, both in lives and political unrest.

If territory was so important, Austria actually offered more concessions than what Italy eventually got in the peace, and that was just for remaining neutral. Their leaders could have played a much smarter game, but got caught up in Napoleonic ideas of glory and assumed easy victory.

Their leadership, when their lines were not overstretched and resources split, could perform well enough. Certainly well enough to fight the Russians who were the worst combatant in a scenario where the Austrians have their full army.

I mean we got a Farewell to Arms from it so make of that what you will.

Except no. Italy joining the war significantly altered the war. Austria was now doomed to gimp forever. The Austrian army, once it sorted it's kinks out, was performing as well as the other armies, however it had a severe lack of supplies and didn't cannibalize it's economy as much as Germany to make up for it. They were also overstretched on every single front due to the Italian entrance. Italys entrance meant 2 million Austrians be away from the eastern front. If Italy doesn't join Austria can actually perform well, throwing it's full weight against Russia. They'd be able to perform well. All their resources and manpower on one front. No longer overstretched, actually having the manpower to mount offensives alone. Something as devastating as the Brusilov offensive becomes impossible for the Russians in this TL, the eastern front is held by mostly Austria with minor German support. Germany is able to throw more divisions towards the western front, they win at Verdun, they push back the British at the Somme.

Summer of 1916 was a horrible time for the CP, they were this close to winning at Verdun, but the Brusilov offensive devastated the overstretched Austrians, to the point of collapse, forcing Germany to halt their near victory at Verdun and patch up the eastern front. Then the Somme happened. By January 1917 the CPs manpower situation was dire, all because every single attack they had made in 1916 had failed. And those failures can be linked to the collapsing eastern front.

If Italy stays neutral, then Austria with minor German support is able to take on the Russians on their own, who are incapable of mounting any meaningful offensives against the Austrians. In 1915 the CP pushed up to Minsk, the Austrians and eastern German leaders wanted to go further, but Falkenhayns plans for Verdun didn't allow that. Now they can push further, Petrograd likely falls by 1916, Russia pulls out of the war by late 1916 or early 1917. Germany this entire time has had a strengthed western front, as I said they win at Verdun and push the British back at the Somme. In OTL they had 2 million men in the eastern theater, they pulled 900,000 out for the western front offensives in 1918. In this TL they don't need 2 million men in the eastern front, they likely have the full 190-200 divisions on the western front, which is what they attacked with in spring 1918. Germany can now launch the massive offensives it launched in 1918 but significantly earlier, likely spring 1917. But this time their logistics are significantly better because German supplies haven't been wrecked by another year of war. Oh and Italy staying neutral means Austrian ports are open, making the British blockade of Germany worthless. That means no unrestricted warfare that brought America into the war. Anyway, Germany launches their offensive but with better logistics, likely breaks through the British lines as they did in 1918, but this time they have the logistics to take Amiens. Splitting the British and french armies, at which point the Entente sues for peace. A peace favorable to the Central Powers.

You don't just discredit the contribution of millions of men.

I never said nor implied it's irrelevant. I said it's not the defining factor of a militaries strength. Not sure why you're assuming it's either everything, or nothing.

That approach hasn't worked so well for Africa in the past.

The Italians were very upset that they didn't get more and for years thought they were backstabbed.

But by chosing the winning side they received more territory which wouldn‘t have been the case by staying neutral

3 million soldiers isn't a number you can just brush off as irrelevant either, though.

Sure but it was largely a port navy, by that I mean that most of the Austro-Hungarian Navy spent most of its life in port. And those dreadnoughts were rendered completely useless by the Anglo-French Otranto Barrage.

There was simply no match for the combined Anglo-French naval force and it would have been extremely unadvisable for the Royal Italian Navy to try and go against this Anglo-French force.

In hindsight, it would probably be better for Italy to be neutral. But considering the public sentiment and imperial ambitions, if they must have entered the conflict, Italy would have done better entering the war later. Maybe alongside the US of a bit earlier. It is difficult to pinpoint a better time, since the war could have changed a lot without italian participation for a few years.

That would mean that the entente would be in a more unfavorable position, therefore making it easier to get what they wanted in the peace deals, for rescuing them.

Italy could have used those years to study the war and make an actual plan to attack, not to mention better equipping and training their military in the meanwhile and gearing their industry to war (think like Roosevelt did in WW2, where he spend his time between the start of the war and the US entry actually preparing the country and military to enter the conflict, which made the US a formidable force from the get go, especially when you compare to their entry in WW1). That would allow them to actually have sucess in occupying the areas they wanted to own. The Entente would not be easily able to deny territories occupied by the italians, especially if they fought on their own there.

The third point is that they would have faced a weaker Austria-Hungary, more affected by war exaustion. Which makes it all the easier to defeat them. The only disavantage is that the Central powers would have more experience, but preparing adequatelly for the conflict could compensate for that.

[removed]

It doesn't make sense for any smaller or weaker country to get involved unless attacked .

The history between Austria and Italy wasn't great .

The expectation of territory led it down the path both then and with Mussolini.

Maybe if they would have joined Entente only in 1918,and building meanwhile a strong army , suffering much less from the war would have left a powerful Italy post war, getting much more also from the peace, and fascism would have been avoided.Or maybe not

Anyone know the law/legislation JFK introduced which provided amnesty for people and their last names?

Under the Chinese Exclusion Act, I believe there couldn't be any new Chinese immigrants to the USA (beyond sons - I think?)

So many chinese people moved to American, under the pretense of being someone's son when in reality they were not. This was done changing last names and the like.

Any information on the law/legislation JFK made which allowed people to change their last names etc.

I do we should have joined the central powers and taken Flanders an taken revenge on the French for 1672

You're caught up on the number "3 million" as if quantity of bodies is the deciding difference in strength between combatants. That's not how war works at all.

No idea if it ever got translated into english, but Soška fronta by Janez Mesesnel went into quite a detail on fighting in the area.

The Austrians were opposed to territorial concessions the same way the Germans were when it was suggested Alsace-Lorraine could be given to the French.