3 ms·

For the geographically-challenged: present-day Austria is land-locked, and thus has no call for a navy, let alone a naval academy.

have_faith 7y ago
Why would that prevent them from having a small navy? Assuming some country is happy for them to pay to have a port somewhere. Although they don't it wouldn't surprise me much to learn that they did have one despite being land-locked.
- michaelt 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navies_of_landlocked_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navies_of_landlocked_countries Bolivia has been landlocked since 1904, but has a navy with 5,000 personnel (patrolling the country's many large rivers and lakes) and... a naval academy! Which Peru grants access to the sea. Of course, you'll note Austria isn't on that list.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Many moons ago I reconnected with an old friend who moved to Switzerland years before; just imagine my face when he told me he was working for a Swiss shipowner:).
  - aasasd 7y ago
    Well, Switzerland may not have access to a sea, but it has a haven. A tax haven. A lot of ships are owned by corporations in those.
- thrower123 7y ago
  They did, when they were the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and controlled Venezia and the Dalmatian coast.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  > Assuming some country is happy for them to pay to have a port somewhere. Because a port that you're only borrowing can quickly become a port that either you're trapped in or not welcome to come back to if either you or your host get involved in a military conflict.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gyulai 7y ago
Nitpick: A navy doesn't necessarily need a harbour directly at the high seas. Austria has had a navy with patrol vessels on the river danube from which they could theoretically reach the high seas until 2006. Also: Military installations on foreign soil are not all that uncommon (as I'm sure Americans can appreciate). I believe that Austria has had vessels in Trieste, even when Trieste was already part of Italy and Austria was already landlocked.

have_faith 7y ago

Why would that prevent them from having a small navy? Assuming some country is happy for them to pay to have a port somewhere. Although they don't it wouldn't surprise me much to learn that they did have one despite being land-locked.

michaelt 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navies_of_landlocked_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navies_of_landlocked_countries Bolivia has been landlocked since 1904, but has a navy with 5,000 personnel (patrolling the country's many large rivers and lakes) and... a naval academy! Which Peru grants access to the sea. Of course, you'll note Austria isn't on that list.
squarefoot 7y ago
Many moons ago I reconnected with an old friend who moved to Switzerland years before; just imagine my face when he told me he was working for a Swiss shipowner:).
- aasasd 7y ago
  Well, Switzerland may not have access to a sea, but it has a haven. A tax haven. A lot of ships are owned by corporations in those.
thrower123 7y ago
They did, when they were the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and controlled Venezia and the Dalmatian coast.
wool_gather 7y ago
> Assuming some country is happy for them to pay to have a port somewhere. Because a port that you're only borrowing can quickly become a port that either you're trapped in or not welcome to come back to if either you or your host get involved in a military conflict.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gyulai 7y ago

Nitpick: A navy doesn't necessarily need a harbour directly at the high seas. Austria has had a navy with patrol vessels on the river danube from which they could theoretically reach the high seas until 2006. Also: Military installations on foreign soil are not all that uncommon (as I'm sure Americans can appreciate). I believe that Austria has had vessels in Trieste, even when Trieste was already part of Italy and Austria was already landlocked.