Why did Italy shamelessly betray the Central Powers at the beginning of WWI, bros...

Wouldn't have mattered if just britain had stayed out of a conflict it had no obligations to enter whatsoever.

There were like a dozen escape clause for Italy in the alliance treaty, and AH basically manage to break all of them.
The triple alliance was pretty much a sham, austrian generals had been proposing war against Italy since 1903, and both countries basically spent the time they were allied fortifying their mutual border. Italy even went to war with Germany's turkish allies for fuck's sake. Nobody expected Italy to go to war on the alliance's side.

>Shit that guy looked at me funny
>better stab him in the throat, just in case
Very Germanic logic

From the world odminating imperialist perspective it might look a tad different as from an encircled point of view, I'll gove you that. But then again your only another propaganda victim, and the anglo narrative is all you ever heard.

>Shit we're at war on two fronts
>Better invade Belgium
>The country we agreed not to invade alongside the British and everyone else
>What could go wrong?
Germans and their boos are such fucking dindus

Italians weren't obliged to participate in german autism, this is no betrayal

Are you serious? The Brits and the Frogs had the exact same plans prepared. ike anyone gave a shit about Belgium. The whole "muh freedum" story is american post-ww2 propaganda.

>Plans are things that happened in real life
See here's your problem, the USA had war plans against Britain prior to WW2, dosen't mean they had a war dipshit

No, your problem is that you take morals into geostrategy.

>"Whoa, morally is, like, relative, bruh"
>"There's nothing wrong in breaking guarantees of independence, they're like, only pieces of paper and stuff"

>Austria and Germany dindu nuffin
>They just invaded and declared war on neutral countries
>They're the victims
>It's you who's bringing morality into it!
Really made me stink

>>"Whoa, morally is, like, relative, bruh"
>>Austria and Germany dindu nuffin
Of course not. They cetainly played a big role. The anglo narrative based on "moral obligations" is just horseshit though. Which is especially awkward when you look at those countries histories of subjugating other countries.
>no problem when we do it.
Entering WW1 was a great opportunity to get rid of a continental competitor, that's it.

>Entering WW1 was a great opportunity to get rid of a continental competitor, that's it.
Serbia is a continental competitor? There's no reason why Germany should have backed Austrias autism as much as they did

In the light of having no other allies, which certainly is Germany's fault, it was possibly foolish but not without reason.

Because Germany were the bad guys

What's funny is why Italy thought former Venetian territory was rightfully theirs when Venetians didn't consider themselves Italians at all.

kinda how it works

>Want Venetian clay
>Get btfo by the Austrian fleet who sing Ventian songs about it
Autism is the answer to most revanchist issues really

Maybe the Central Powers thought that Italy would be mad over Nice and Savoy being taken by France?

but they were the ones to willingly give them away

The funniest bit of Italian entry to WWI was that the Austrians knew it was coming and on the second it was announced their navy levelled Ancona and hampered Italian capabilities in the Adriatic

>Trades Nice and Savoy away to get French backing to fuck over Austria only 40 years prior
That was a pretty naive thought process

>Venetians didn't consider themselves Italians at all.
Source for that claim?

>Serbia is a continental competitor?
In the era of pan Slavism? Sure

That's just historical autism, even after the First Balkan War they were all stabbing eachother in the back

>That's just historical autism,
I mean it was very successful (Czechoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia) for most of the 20th century. History would tell us that in retrospect certain internal contradictions made pan-Slavism unsustainable in the long term (although this arguably only applies to Yugoslavia) but at the some time it wouldn't be fair to dismiss it as historical autism. Pan-Slavism produced tangible fruit for many decades.

Not until AH decided to lose a war it didn't

>we declared a war on their allies but they moved faster than us so they're the aggressors

Maybe the Kingdom of Servia shouldn't have murdered a high ranking official of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Well they didn't, an autistic Bosnian Serb did

>bosnian kills austrain heir, serbia must pay

>implyng bosnians arent just confused serbians

>it's okay when Germany defends their allies but bad when Britain does it

You left out
>Agree to every demand except the one about Austrians being allowed to decide Serbian judicial procedures
>Austria declares war anyway
I think Croatia and the Muslims might have something to say about that statement

Again. Germany had one mattering ally and was encircled. Britain was in no danger at all and could choose to either stay out of a continental shitfest or try to get rid of a competitor. Both countries acted foolish. Repeating 100 years old propaganda over and over doesn't help anyone. Especially when it is relying on the "morals" of geostrategy. Belgium only plays a role as a propagandistic tool.

his ass, since he's wrong

Belgium was literall britians snitch in the continent
A police department wouldn't let one of their rats get killed if it meant staying out of a gangwar

Doesn't matter if Britain wasn't in danger, Belgium was their Ally and Germany invaded them.

>Keeping a promise is bad
Are Germans just naturally amoral?

Yeah, let's keep it simple and in line with anglo propaganda.
>"To-day events move so rapidly that it is exceedingly difficult to state with technical accuracy the actual state of affairs, but it is clear that the peace of Europe cannot be preserved. Russia and Germany, at any rate, have declared war upon each other."

>He went on to say: "I have assured the House - and the Prime Minister has assured the House more than once - that if any crisis such as this arose, we should come before the House of Commons and be able to say to the House that it was free to decide what the British attitude should be..."
>t. Edward Grey on Monday 3rd August 1914 before the House of Commons
Earlier Churchill had already mobilised the fleet. Unauthorized.
There are many more details that contradict the simplicity that is usually presented.

germans worship Arminius as a national hero then whine all the time about betrayal, they are just hypocrites

No, but after the fall of the 3rd reich less susceptible to propaganda.

>germans worship Arminius
Yeah, it is still 1848 here.

>Mobilizing a fleet is an act of agression when literally half of Europe is on fire with war
Seems like a prudent action to me, just like Russia mobilizing in response to AH mobilizing

They mobilised because the what was happening in Europe.
And looks like it was the right action to take because the very next day Germany invaded Britains ally Belgium

*of

Not they mobilised, Churchill did without authorization. But who gives a shit since this is just presenting the usual British wankery. Not /pol/ but /int/ tier.
But please reduce it to morals when the British plans for a Franco-German war had a BEF landing in Antwerp planned and expected France to attack through Belgium.
>muh ally!

amerisharts fuck off, you know nothing about Italy

Again, you're equating plans with actions, France and Germany were fighting for a week before the Belgian fiasco even started, surely Britain with the only fully professional army in Europe would have been in Antwerp by day 2 if they really wanted to execute that plan

maybe austria should protect its government officials better so that random fuckshits on the street cant kill them.

>the British could have invaded Belgium
>which means it isn't wrong for Germany to do it first!

You're an absolute moron.

Looks like it's you who cannot read. Could and Would are different things. But let's keep it /int/. GB defended Freedom and only entered the war in full altruism mode. Germany ate babies and mustn't be looked at from their strategic situation because evil.
I bet you're also arguing the North Korea is ruled by a madman.

>first country to use chemical warfare in the war
>not evil

>MUH ANGLO PROPAGANDA
>MUH MORAILTY
fuck off, you're a retard who can't understand why another country but german would help their allies.
Go wank to Hugo boss and spiked helmets

>your ally gets attacked and you do nothing despite guaranteeing their independence
>now your word doesn't mean shit anymore and you're diplomatically crippled

It's like you don't understand what "upholding a reputation" means.

>It's like you don't understand what "upholding a reputation" means.
For Britain it means getting rid of evidence, like the whole cabinet protocols of 10 years prior to WW1, sweeping their own crimes under the rug and pointing to someone else.

>Hey I know we signed that treaty in the 19th century
>BUT FUCK THAT
>We need to fight France so Austria can fight Serbia
>Somehow this serves our interests

When even Edward Grey says so before the House of Commons, who am I to disagree?

How do you think parliamentary politics work exactly?

By lying to a democratic institution? That is the whole point I am arguing. Britain was prepared for that war and wanted it badly to get rid of a competitor. Than someone comes along beating the dead Belgian horse. Britain was serving her own interests, so did germany. It was a shitfest. But 100 years later the whole propaganda machinery is still alive and kicking.

One MPs opinion literally dosen't matter

Are you aware that this is Veeky Forums and not /int/ right?

>Minister of Foreign affairs, responsible for the alliance with an autocratic Russia against Germany (which is a great example for realpolitik btw) and the end of splendid isolation
>one MP

>I'm fucking retarded
So that's cleared up then

>more moral relativism
>come from the deluded wehraboo

Are we supposed to be surprised?

It's a subhuman g*rmuttoid

They tend to make up lies when they're cornered

>Venetians didn't consider themselves Italians at all.
Is that why the Republic of St. Mark voted for subsumption under the Kingdom of Sardinia in 1848?
Venetians always have preferred and always will prefer independence, but they are every bit as italian as scots are british. Certainly they preferred being part of Italy than part of Austria, that's for fucking sure.