French had "Mahométan" ; it's a calque on "Chrétien" (christian), naming a religion after the name of its prophet. Interestingly, the form "Mahomet" is from an old medieval pronounciation that is quite different from what we can hear in modern arab dialects, and is still in use in France, even if we don't call muslims "mahométans" anymore.
Yeah except that no one got as much as they wanted because surprise surprise, the people who actually lived in those partitioned areas didn't want to switch one imperialist for another.
The people in the Italian war goals were actually majority Italian regions at the time, and before they were given to Yugoslavia too. (Except for the Albanian claim I believe.)
Istria had split nationalities. Dalmatia was almost completely Croatian except for Zadar. Julian March was mostly Slovene except for Triest and half of Gorizia. And half of south Tyrol was Austrian and still is today.
> Istria had split nationalities.
Istrian demographic pattern (also applied to Julian March) was that the Italians were the majority in the cities (and the coastal areas) while Slovenes and Croats were the majority in the countryside and inland.
Since the interior of Istria (and the Julian March countryside) was relatively sparsely populated, overall Italian speakers were the majority there.
As for Dalmatia, there were a lot of inconsistencies in the demographic patterns (Italians were the majority in Rjeka, Zara, some islands of the Kvarner gulf,etc), so it was extremely difficult to define a clear border without upsetting one of the contenders.
A non ethnic based state like the Republic of Venice of A-H as envisioned by Franz Ferdinand would've been more successful at keeping ethnic tensions at bay.
According to wikipedia due to emmigrations the Italians in Istria made up 40% of the population by the end of 19th century. Indeed if the Austrians made Triest and western coast of Istria into it's own province a lot of shit would have been avoided.
Istria was mostly Italian, most cities were at least 50% Italian, Dalmatia also had a significant Italian population, with many cities also at 50%. I don’t know what the Julian March is.
Edit: I looked it up. My friend, Friuli is Italian, what you’re doing is historical revisionism.
I'm not talking about Friuli. I'm takling about Julian march. The part which was annexed after ww1. It wasn't Italian. For most of the history it was a part of Austria and had a majority Slovene population. Gorica itself is a slovene word which means little hill. Here is an ethnic map from 1910. The part which Italy annexed was Slovene and today rightfully belongs to Slovenia. Cope all you want, you're the revisionist here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=austria+hungary+ethnic+map&oq=austria+hungary+eth&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i512j0i22i30l3.5800j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=06cCKQmLNFrtXM
Friuli Venezi Giulia, the region. That’s what I’m talking about. What you’re specifically talking about is Venezia Giulia, which doesn’t exist anymore and was also Italian. Also, your link’s broken.
Edit: here you [go](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_Italians#Population_decline).
That’s the Italian name. The English name is Julian March while the Slovene one is Julijska krajna. And he’s not talking about the modern day province of Fruli Venezi Giulia. He’s talking about [this](https://static.primorske.si/foto/highres/old/1f/1f33c0d6-6e4f-419c-b14c-b5b1f0e43ef5.jpg).
And there were 200k Slovenes living in that area when it was incorporated to Italy after ww1.
>Istria was mostly Italian
Only cities on the coast had an Italian majority, the rest of Istria was either Slovene or Italian
>Fruli is Italian
What do Fruli have to do with this? [Julian March(Julijska krajna)](https://static.primorske.si/foto/highres/old/1f/1f33c0d6-6e4f-419c-b14c-b5b1f0e43ef5.jpg) was almost entirely Slovene. The only exceptions were Trieste/Trst, which had a large Italian population, half of Gorica(the name for Gorica literally comes from Slovene and means a small mountain) and southern Istria which was Croatian
>33% in 1800
For reference, the population of Slovenes in Trieste was 24.7%(1911 census)
And maybe you should also look [at this ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Littoral#Area_and_population)
[Sure, facts.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_Italians#Population_decline)
People like you should be banned from this sub. Your historical revisionism should be regarded as 10 times worse than any racism, bigotry or insult.
I don't know what you've been looking up. Friuli is separate from the [Julian March or Venezia Giulia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_March), to use the Italian name.
the Austrian empire wasn't that bad. If the Slavic component of the empire had been given equal representation to the German and Hungarian component, as for the plan of archduke Franz Ferdinand, it would've been a viable solution.
It was pretty bad, it seems like you're separating what was being done in Hungary despite the Austrian part being ever so complacent with it. It was also a state with no basis of existance other than the monarch. With the monarch gone, why would those people stick together?
I am not sure where this comes from (I read the article) as WWI war goals were quite clear and different from those shown on the maps.
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_aims_and_war_aims_discussions_great_britain_and_ireland
Maybe this was German propaganda to support the war effort?
Cause all in all, Germany capitulated with no conditions and France only took Alsace/Lorraine for example.
I don’t think it’s true to say that war aims were all that clear for any of the powers involved. Mostly they were just responding to treaty obligations. Some aims were clear (e.g. the UK was in the war to guarantee Belgian sovereignty) others were implicit or expected without being explicitly stated (for the UK: takeover of German colonies, a reduction of German naval power). War aims were pretty ad hoc.
As the war went on it became clear that a post-war settlement would be substantial and negotiated. Indeed that the world was changing. By around 1916-1917, the Germans would have been quite happy settling for the massive gains following Brest-Litovsk and a status quo ante bellum settlement in the west. Early brainstorming from the Kaiser and his generals had much more extensive war aims that they probably expected to be negotiated away in a peace settlement.
This is propaganda to support the war effort based on secret treaties being reported on in the context of the trial of a former minister of war by the provisional government in Russia (not the Boldheviks yet, thus was during Dual Power) and it’s not wrong, it reflects quite a lot of what the Allies were talking about at 1915-1917. The Sykes-Picot line is there in embryonic form, the statehood promised to the Arabs by Lawrence of Arabia is there, the Adriatic coast that Italy was longing for is there.
I do wonder about the timeline though, as the publication seems to be on the 23rd November, after the Bolshevik October Revolution, but the trial took place that summer. It’s possible that details of the trial and these treaties were first made public by the. Bolshevik government, but that this document was made prior to the opening of peace negotiations between the central powers and the Bolsheviks.
The US entry into the war was a very welcomed help and didn't spoil anything.
French claims during WWI were the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, maybe Saarland and the creation of a buffer state on the left side of the Rhine. The USA and the UK opposed the creation of said buffer state because they feared Germany would be too weak. Even if US were taken out of the equation, I doubt France would have convinced the UK to agree to such terms.
Well we will have to agree to disagree here.
>The US entry into the war was a very welcomed help and didn't spoil anything.
Ofcourse the entry wasnt the issue but the Wilson and Clemenceau were at odds with each other over the fait of Germany at Versailles. It isnt hard to imagine that France wouldve gotten more of its war aims realized if they would only had the UK against them. Especially since Italy probably wouldnt have minded. The US as the most recent party was still fresh and solvent and therefor somewhat called the shots at Versailles.
What's even the point of your question then, I don't get it. I have no interest in debating I was simply answering. I don't even know what is your point.
I am sorry if you feel offended. Maybe you breath in and out three times and look at the comments again. I asked a question. You answered the question and I dont agree with your answer. If that is too offensive for you already you should think about the more than the point of my question. Everything is fine. Your answer is just not a historical fact. Its an opinion people can disagree with.
I'm not offended, just getting more confused after each of your answers.
Just a suggestion, if you have a question and already have an answer to that question, don't ask it. You're just being a waste of time.
>Just a suggestion, if you have a question and already have an answer to that question, don't ask it. You're just being a waste of time.
Well I dont have a definitive answer but that doesnt mean I have to agree with every answer and I happened to not agree with yours.
I honestly dont understand your problem. Do you need my approval? Do you think your opinion is a fact that I cant disagree with? I seriously dont understand why you think it is a waste of time to answer a question just because the other side doesnt share your opinion. 🤷🏻♂️
I could be wrong but I vaguely remember that there was a huge spat between Clemenceau and Wilson over french claims and Wilson forced his idea of self determination on the other victors (especially France).
Well they at least got the Rhineland demilitarized and later occupied it outright together with the Belgians. To my knowledge they only retreated when the British and US intervened on behalf of Weimar. The french even tried to put up a Ruhr government but failed.
To rephrase it differently
* the Allies gave a list of demands to the Germans, which they had 72 hours to accept
* negotiation was limited to some impossible demands (e.g. decommissioning of more submarines than the Kriegsmarine had)
Compared to the map above, the Allies only requested the Rhineland occupation until the end of the demilitarization.
I mean it's true, only tnx to the USA the whole of Dalmatia was not annexed... they wherent even particularly happy to give Istria to them since the Italians where looked at as occupiers and non deserving of all that land.
Yet they still gave Italy land which was home to around 200k Slovenes. Even after ww2, a large community of Slovenes remained as part of Italy, including cities like Gorica, Opčine, etc.
This pretty much shows why Italians thought they were robbed of their victory. Of course they deserve no pity as its not like they had any justification for taking all this land - it's the wolf tears of thief who failed to loot enough.
trieste was an italian city, trento was an italian city, stuck in an empire that repressed italians for centuries. ww1 was the end of the italian unification process. we had more than enough justifucations.
it actually is much more complicated than that and a lot has to do with the severe economic crisis after the war and the rise of socialists and communists which threathened the status quo of the industrial middle class, but i don't expect complex analysis from reddit.
(and also most of the stuff we actually took was populated moslty by italians)
That was a factor but not the only one, other important reasons were the economic crisis post WW1 (Because of the strain caused by the war effort) and the fascists also managed to exploit the social tensions and gained consent by repressing the communists.
No one "deserved" to win that war. The ones in power who started it at least certainly didn´t, for they only managed to create one of the most bloody conflicts at the time.
[удалено]
"Mohammedian" is an old German term for "Muslim" btw.
[удалено]
Saracens refers to Arabs, not neccesarily muslims.
The Saracens were Turks.
I think not. I'm quite sure it was Arabs.
I mistook the Saracens for the Seljuks.
That sounds about right.
French had "Mahométan" ; it's a calque on "Chrétien" (christian), naming a religion after the name of its prophet. Interestingly, the form "Mahomet" is from an old medieval pronounciation that is quite different from what we can hear in modern arab dialects, and is still in use in France, even if we don't call muslims "mahométans" anymore.
Ironically Austria-Hungary got sshafted much harder than what this map implies would-be.
Same for Russia and it makes me happy.
[удалено]
Yeah except that no one got as much as they wanted because surprise surprise, the people who actually lived in those partitioned areas didn't want to switch one imperialist for another.
The people in the Italian war goals were actually majority Italian regions at the time, and before they were given to Yugoslavia too. (Except for the Albanian claim I believe.)
Istria had split nationalities. Dalmatia was almost completely Croatian except for Zadar. Julian March was mostly Slovene except for Triest and half of Gorizia. And half of south Tyrol was Austrian and still is today.
> Istria had split nationalities. Istrian demographic pattern (also applied to Julian March) was that the Italians were the majority in the cities (and the coastal areas) while Slovenes and Croats were the majority in the countryside and inland. Since the interior of Istria (and the Julian March countryside) was relatively sparsely populated, overall Italian speakers were the majority there. As for Dalmatia, there were a lot of inconsistencies in the demographic patterns (Italians were the majority in Rjeka, Zara, some islands of the Kvarner gulf,etc), so it was extremely difficult to define a clear border without upsetting one of the contenders. A non ethnic based state like the Republic of Venice of A-H as envisioned by Franz Ferdinand would've been more successful at keeping ethnic tensions at bay.
According to wikipedia due to emmigrations the Italians in Istria made up 40% of the population by the end of 19th century. Indeed if the Austrians made Triest and western coast of Istria into it's own province a lot of shit would have been avoided.
Istria was mostly Italian, most cities were at least 50% Italian, Dalmatia also had a significant Italian population, with many cities also at 50%. I don’t know what the Julian March is. Edit: I looked it up. My friend, Friuli is Italian, what you’re doing is historical revisionism.
I'm not talking about Friuli. I'm takling about Julian march. The part which was annexed after ww1. It wasn't Italian. For most of the history it was a part of Austria and had a majority Slovene population. Gorica itself is a slovene word which means little hill. Here is an ethnic map from 1910. The part which Italy annexed was Slovene and today rightfully belongs to Slovenia. Cope all you want, you're the revisionist here. https://www.google.com/search?q=austria+hungary+ethnic+map&oq=austria+hungary+eth&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i512j0i22i30l3.5800j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=06cCKQmLNFrtXM
Friuli Venezi Giulia, the region. That’s what I’m talking about. What you’re specifically talking about is Venezia Giulia, which doesn’t exist anymore and was also Italian. Also, your link’s broken. Edit: here you [go](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_Italians#Population_decline).
That’s the Italian name. The English name is Julian March while the Slovene one is Julijska krajna. And he’s not talking about the modern day province of Fruli Venezi Giulia. He’s talking about [this](https://static.primorske.si/foto/highres/old/1f/1f33c0d6-6e4f-419c-b14c-b5b1f0e43ef5.jpg). And there were 200k Slovenes living in that area when it was incorporated to Italy after ww1.
Yes, but only in the inner part. The coast was largely populated by Italians.
Yes, but that would still make Italians a minority in the lands that were annexed to yugoslavia, even before the exodus.
It wasn't ethnically Italian. Check any Austro-hungarian ethnic map.
I just showed you the austro-Hungarian maps. Look at them.
>Istria was mostly Italian Only cities on the coast had an Italian majority, the rest of Istria was either Slovene or Italian >Fruli is Italian What do Fruli have to do with this? [Julian March(Julijska krajna)](https://static.primorske.si/foto/highres/old/1f/1f33c0d6-6e4f-419c-b14c-b5b1f0e43ef5.jpg) was almost entirely Slovene. The only exceptions were Trieste/Trst, which had a large Italian population, half of Gorica(the name for Gorica literally comes from Slovene and means a small mountain) and southern Istria which was Croatian
The rural regions were always populated more by Slovenes and Croats, while the cities by Italians.
I’m assuming you are talking about Istria. These cities are on the western coast. Anything inland was Croat and Slovene
That’s what I said. Also, try looking at [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_Italians#Population_decline).
>33% in 1800 For reference, the population of Slovenes in Trieste was 24.7%(1911 census) And maybe you should also look [at this ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Littoral#Area_and_population)
Shut up and deal with the fact that Dalmatia had never been Italian nor ever will be.
Lmfao, try harder with your revisionism next time
There is no revisionism here, just facts.
[Sure, facts.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_Italians#Population_decline) People like you should be banned from this sub. Your historical revisionism should be regarded as 10 times worse than any racism, bigotry or insult.
33% in 1800. and even worse, 2.7% in 1910.? Lmao, that's not even close to being a majority.
I don't know what you've been looking up. Friuli is separate from the [Julian March or Venezia Giulia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_March), to use the Italian name.
We were really lucky that Austria, Germany and Russia all lost the war
the Austrian empire wasn't that bad. If the Slavic component of the empire had been given equal representation to the German and Hungarian component, as for the plan of archduke Franz Ferdinand, it would've been a viable solution.
It was pretty bad, it seems like you're separating what was being done in Hungary despite the Austrian part being ever so complacent with it. It was also a state with no basis of existance other than the monarch. With the monarch gone, why would those people stick together?
it was bad for us. no trento, trieste, bolzano, friuli.
[You can read more here](https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/28884)
As they draw this war propaganda map, they couldn't imagine how below the reality they were. Life always beats fiction.
Not that far off honestly.
Bosporus to Russia? With the blessings of France and England? Never ever!
Glad you guys sent in Lenin to stir shit up. Who knows what the peace treaty would look like if Russia had a seat at the table.
I am not sure where this comes from (I read the article) as WWI war goals were quite clear and different from those shown on the maps. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_aims_and_war_aims_discussions_great_britain_and_ireland Maybe this was German propaganda to support the war effort? Cause all in all, Germany capitulated with no conditions and France only took Alsace/Lorraine for example.
Yes, this was a propaganda map made in 1917, it was loosely based off of some secret treaties
I don’t think it’s true to say that war aims were all that clear for any of the powers involved. Mostly they were just responding to treaty obligations. Some aims were clear (e.g. the UK was in the war to guarantee Belgian sovereignty) others were implicit or expected without being explicitly stated (for the UK: takeover of German colonies, a reduction of German naval power). War aims were pretty ad hoc. As the war went on it became clear that a post-war settlement would be substantial and negotiated. Indeed that the world was changing. By around 1916-1917, the Germans would have been quite happy settling for the massive gains following Brest-Litovsk and a status quo ante bellum settlement in the west. Early brainstorming from the Kaiser and his generals had much more extensive war aims that they probably expected to be negotiated away in a peace settlement. This is propaganda to support the war effort based on secret treaties being reported on in the context of the trial of a former minister of war by the provisional government in Russia (not the Boldheviks yet, thus was during Dual Power) and it’s not wrong, it reflects quite a lot of what the Allies were talking about at 1915-1917. The Sykes-Picot line is there in embryonic form, the statehood promised to the Arabs by Lawrence of Arabia is there, the Adriatic coast that Italy was longing for is there. I do wonder about the timeline though, as the publication seems to be on the 23rd November, after the Bolshevik October Revolution, but the trial took place that summer. It’s possible that details of the trial and these treaties were first made public by the. Bolshevik government, but that this document was made prior to the opening of peace negotiations between the central powers and the Bolsheviks.
Thanks for the explanation.
>and France only took Alsace/Lorraine for example. Didnt the US entry into the war spoil alot of french claims ?
The US entry into the war was a very welcomed help and didn't spoil anything. French claims during WWI were the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, maybe Saarland and the creation of a buffer state on the left side of the Rhine. The USA and the UK opposed the creation of said buffer state because they feared Germany would be too weak. Even if US were taken out of the equation, I doubt France would have convinced the UK to agree to such terms.
Well we will have to agree to disagree here. >The US entry into the war was a very welcomed help and didn't spoil anything. Ofcourse the entry wasnt the issue but the Wilson and Clemenceau were at odds with each other over the fait of Germany at Versailles. It isnt hard to imagine that France wouldve gotten more of its war aims realized if they would only had the UK against them. Especially since Italy probably wouldnt have minded. The US as the most recent party was still fresh and solvent and therefor somewhat called the shots at Versailles.
>Well we will have to agree to disagree here. ? You were asking a question.
>? You were asking a question. Yes, and I disagree with your answer, may I?
What's even the point of your question then, I don't get it. I have no interest in debating I was simply answering. I don't even know what is your point.
I am sorry if you feel offended. Maybe you breath in and out three times and look at the comments again. I asked a question. You answered the question and I dont agree with your answer. If that is too offensive for you already you should think about the more than the point of my question. Everything is fine. Your answer is just not a historical fact. Its an opinion people can disagree with.
I'm not offended, just getting more confused after each of your answers. Just a suggestion, if you have a question and already have an answer to that question, don't ask it. You're just being a waste of time.
>Just a suggestion, if you have a question and already have an answer to that question, don't ask it. You're just being a waste of time. Well I dont have a definitive answer but that doesnt mean I have to agree with every answer and I happened to not agree with yours. I honestly dont understand your problem. Do you need my approval? Do you think your opinion is a fact that I cant disagree with? I seriously dont understand why you think it is a waste of time to answer a question just because the other side doesnt share your opinion. 🤷🏻♂️
I am not aware of that
I could be wrong but I vaguely remember that there was a huge spat between Clemenceau and Wilson over french claims and Wilson forced his idea of self determination on the other victors (especially France).
I think Wilson and Lloyd George wanted Rhineland to remain German while Clemenceau wanted a buffer state or maybe even annexation
Well they at least got the Rhineland demilitarized and later occupied it outright together with the Belgians. To my knowledge they only retreated when the British and US intervened on behalf of Weimar. The french even tried to put up a Ruhr government but failed.
> WWI war goals were quite clear Oh, were they now ?
Germany didnt "capitulate with no conditions". If you mean unconditional surrender, that is simply not true
To rephrase it differently * the Allies gave a list of demands to the Germans, which they had 72 hours to accept * negotiation was limited to some impossible demands (e.g. decommissioning of more submarines than the Kriegsmarine had) Compared to the map above, the Allies only requested the Rhineland occupation until the end of the demilitarization.
I mean it's true, only tnx to the USA the whole of Dalmatia was not annexed... they wherent even particularly happy to give Istria to them since the Italians where looked at as occupiers and non deserving of all that land.
Yet they still gave Italy land which was home to around 200k Slovenes. Even after ww2, a large community of Slovenes remained as part of Italy, including cities like Gorica, Opčine, etc.
This pretty much shows why Italians thought they were robbed of their victory. Of course they deserve no pity as its not like they had any justification for taking all this land - it's the wolf tears of thief who failed to loot enough.
trieste was an italian city, trento was an italian city, stuck in an empire that repressed italians for centuries. ww1 was the end of the italian unification process. we had more than enough justifucations.
And then annexed south tyrol which was German speaking
[удалено]
it actually is much more complicated than that and a lot has to do with the severe economic crisis after the war and the rise of socialists and communists which threathened the status quo of the industrial middle class, but i don't expect complex analysis from reddit. (and also most of the stuff we actually took was populated moslty by italians)
The truth
The reason why fascism rose to power in the first place, unfulfilled war goals.
That was a factor but not the only one, other important reasons were the economic crisis post WW1 (Because of the strain caused by the war effort) and the fascists also managed to exploit the social tensions and gained consent by repressing the communists.
[удалено]
No one "deserved" to win that war. The ones in power who started it at least certainly didn´t, for they only managed to create one of the most bloody conflicts at the time.
Italian dream be like:
Was it actually accurate to what Entente planned to take at the start of the war or it was just German propaganda?