Austria's WWI Chances without the Italian Front

Discussions on all aspects of Austria-Hungary. Hosted by Glenn Jewison.
James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003 22:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

Post by James McBride » 09 Apr 2003 01:07

Ah. I forgot the topic, and Russia had started to make its way into the discussion. I thought you were talking about that.

User avatar
dead-cat
Member
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Mar 2003 22:06
Location: Mainz, Germany

Post by dead-cat » 09 Apr 2003 16:03

yes but again I was refering to the Italian Front on which my research has been concentrated and there the Czechs did not desert en masse.


because the italian front was manned with soldier mainly from hungary.

The original poster claimed "Austria did well against the russian". The arguments brought in favour of the Austro-Hungarian army so far were not falling apart until fall 1918 and the claimed successful operations in the balkans (not in 1914 i suspect). I argued that after 1914 the Austrian army was not capable of mounting any successfull large-scale operation ( the offensive in serbia, sept. 1915 took place again with considerable german support). It also wasn't "a" czech regiment deserting, there were quite numerous cases, even during advances.
This isn't a picture of a disciplined and reliable army.
It also has been claimed that the army was well-trained. If one compares the successfull defence of eastern prussia and the defensive operations in gallicia in fall 1914, when the austro-hungarian army lost 1/3 off its strenght, when the russians advanced allmost into hungary, i'm having a hard time seeing where all the good training was put into good use.

As for the austrian lines not collapsing, i have to point, again, at the operations in 1914 and 1916. Note the fall of Przemysl (sp) were 120 000 austro-hungarian soldiers surrendered (jan 1915).

I wonder what the mutinies in the french army have to do with the discussion on the effectiveness of the austr-hungarian army?

As for the italian front, until 1917 the austro-hungarian army was fighting a defensive battle in a very difficult terrain. this obviously aided the defender since supplies and reinforcements, even if the attacker broke through, were difficult to transport (just think of resupllying the artillery).

again, this wasn't a front on which the war would be won or lost.

User avatar
FW
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 22 Mar 2003 20:11
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Post by FW » 10 Apr 2003 13:54

no it was not a front on where the war could be won or lost but it was the front that I was talking about. Also I have done extensive research on the Italian Front and there were plenty of Czechs there and in fact as the war wore on more and more were sent there instead of to Russia since the General Staff finally realized that sending Czechs to fight fellow Slavs was not the best idea.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33940
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 10 Apr 2003 16:19

Moved from another thread:

joel pacheco wrote:i still disagree. the majority of czzechs, croats,etc. stayed loyal. they did not all rush off to join the russians. and remember, russia collapsed. it's people no longer supported the war or the russian monarchy. as for the army being more hungarian than austrian(i guees you mean germanaustrians), that would be normal because the germans werea minority in the empire. many of the generals were not austrian(german) they were croats, hungarians,etc. to say that the "german" sustrians were an ineffective part of the army after 1915 makes no sense. the austria germans were intergereted into the various units of the empire. most units were heavily one ethnic group or the other, but that was normal in an army with so many as (i recall) 7or 8 official languages. general conrad, one of the commanders in the A_H army spoke 7 languages himself, and many hapsburg army officers were expected to be mulit-linguial. i think that the austrians suffered heavy losses is not a sign of weakness in training, that the army suffered losses and held together at all is a sign of professionalism and srength of training. even if many czech units away, the majority did not, they stayed loyal to the hapsburg to the end. that should be remembered. the empire was not so fragile. if some fronts lacked austrian germans, it is logiacal because they were the minority in the empire. slavic russia collpased. romania was defeated and overrun.(i think in afew months!) russia was the country in ww1 thats army lacked professionalism and training. lacked discipline, weapons, etc, not the hapsburg empire. russia was mess, austria was the effective and disciplined empire which russia was not. russia fell to pieces, civil war, regicide, disaster. austria held together. no matter what % of ethnic troops served on which fronts.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3901
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 13 Apr 2003 17:02

joel pacheco wrote: romania was defeated and overrun.(i think in afew months!)


Actually no.

Only half of Romania was overrun in 1916, and Austrian troops did not play a really important role in this action. During 1917, the Austrians proved incapable of braking the Romanian front, just as the Germans did.

Please read here for more information:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6905

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 13 Apr 2003 20:07

i never said that romaina was defeated solely by austria, i was making the point that other nations, like russia and rumiania fared far worse than multi-ethnic austria. the point being that, romnia might have held onto jassy, but that bucharest fell, the army ran away, and rumania was knocked out of the war. reality. rumania was smashed. austria was not.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 13 Apr 2003 20:10

i never said that romaina was defeated solely by austria, i was making the point that other nations, like russia and rumiania fared far worse than multi-ethnic austria. the point being that, romnia might have held onto jassy, but that bucharest fell, the army ran away, and rumania was knocked out of the war. reality. rumania was smashed. austria was not.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 13 Apr 2003 20:10

i never said that romaina was defeated solely by austria, i was making the point that other nations, like russia and rumiania fared far worse than multi-ethnic austria. the point being that, romnia might have held onto jassy, but that bucharest fell, the army ran away, and rumania was knocked out of the war. reality. rumania was smashed. austria was not.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3901
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 14 Apr 2003 09:58

joel pacheco wrote:i never said that romaina was defeated solely by austria, i was making the point that other nations, like russia and rumiania fared far worse than multi-ethnic austria. the point being that, romnia might have held onto jassy, but that bucharest fell, the army ran away, and rumania was knocked out of the war. reality. rumania was smashed. austria was not.


Please follow the link I mentioned and read. The Romanian army was not destroyed in 1916 and in 1917 it tied down and defeated important German and Austrian forces.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 14 Apr 2003 15:16

i read your history thread and disagree. romania didn't hold onto "half" of it's country in ww1. it lost bucharest in a few months, the romanian governemt fleeing to jassy. the russian army( the 4th army is what i read about) fled before the major forces of the germany army could be brought to bear. and by the spring of 1917, the russian army was facing serious discipline problems and revolution. the russians pulled out, a the rmanians couldn't survive fighting the germans and austrians alone and signed the "peace of buchrest" which gave away alot of territory to bulgaria and control of part of the daube to the central powers. romania was knocked out of the war. gone. in the last 3 weeks of ww1, with the germans and ayustrians losing, romaina renounced the treaty, re-entered the war, but by then the war was already over. romania WAS over run, i don't agree with your version of history at all. it sounds like the history books in your country are attempting to revise history to save face for the humiliating defeat the romanians suffered in ww1. we studied the romanian front at my university and what we were taught was not what you were taught.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 14 Apr 2003 15:18

i read your history thread and disagree. romania didn't hold onto "half" of it's country in ww1. it lost bucharest in a few months, the romanian governemt fleeing to jassy. the russian army( the 4th army is what i read about) fled before the major forces of the germany army could be brought to bear. and by the spring of 1917, the russian army was facing serious discipline problems and revolution. the russians pulled out, a the rmanians couldn't survive fighting the germans and austrians alone and signed the "peace of buchrest" which gave away alot of territory to bulgaria and control of part of the daube to the central powers. romania was knocked out of the war. gone. in the last 3 weeks of ww1, with the germans and ayustrians losing, romaina renounced the treaty, re-entered the war, but by then the war was already over. romania WAS over run, i don't agree with your version of history at all. it sounds like the history books in your country are attempting to revise history to save face for the humiliating defeat the romanians suffered in ww1. we studied the romanian front at my university and what we were taught was not what you were taught.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 14 Apr 2003 15:18

i read your history thread and disagree. romania didn't hold onto "half" of it's country in ww1. it lost bucharest in a few months, the romanian governemt fleeing to jassy. the russian army( the 4th army is what i read about) fled before the major forces of the germany army could be brought to bear. and by the spring of 1917, the russian army was facing serious discipline problems and revolution. the russians pulled out, a the rmanians couldn't survive fighting the germans and austrians alone and signed the "peace of buchrest" which gave away alot of territory to bulgaria and control of part of the daube to the central powers. romania was knocked out of the war. gone. in the last 3 weeks of ww1, with the germans and ayustrians losing, romaina renounced the treaty, re-entered the war, but by then the war was already over. romania WAS over run, i don't agree with your version of history at all. it sounds like the history books in your country are attempting to revise history to save face for the humiliating defeat the romanians suffered in ww1. we studied the romanian front at my university and what we were taught was not what you were taught.

User avatar
dead-cat
Member
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Mar 2003 22:06
Location: Mainz, Germany

Post by dead-cat » 14 Apr 2003 15:25

it's people no longer supported the war or the russian monarchy. as for the army being more hungarian than austrian(i guees you mean germanaustrians), that would be normal because the germans werea minority in the empire. many of the generals were not austrian(german) they were croats, hungarians,etc. to say that the "german" sustrians were an ineffective part of the army after 1915 makes no sense.


OK, let's go nitpicking. 1914 Austro-Hungary had a population of roughly 51 million of which the germans were the largest ethnic group with 10 million, followed by the hungarians with 9 millions.

romania was defeated and overrun.(i think in afew months!) russia was the country in ww1 thats army lacked professionalism and training. lacked discipline, weapons, etc, not the hapsburg empire.


there is not much to add to Victors post, only that, if you look at the map you'll see that moldavia is much larger than the area around jassy.
i don't think there is much doubt about the lack of professionalism and equipment among large elements of the russian army (especially officers), however faring a bit better than russia doesn't make an army look competent. one can only guess how austro-hungary would have fared against a better equipped oponent like france. the level of discipline (or lack thereof) in the austro-hungarian army has been abundantly debated in earlier posts, the points have been made and the way i see it, there is not much left to add.

austria held together. no matter what % of ethnic troops served on which fronts.


which begs the question why most but all component nations (hungarians, romanians, slavs(especially czechs)) quickly left the empire as soon they had the chance? obviously nobody gave a hoot about preserving the empire (or even attempting to do so). the germans actually voted to join germany (which was denied).

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 14 Apr 2003 15:42

the germans were still a minority of the overall population of the empire. i still don't agree with your arguments at all. romania was actually defeated in ww1, and sat out most of 1918 peacefully, only restarting the war in the last 3 or weeks of ww1. so, any "victory" by romania at the treaty of versailles was a gift form the allies, not won on the battle field. austria was dismemebered by the treaty of versailles. like you said in your post, many of these points are still debated on this forum. respectfully, i still disagree with you about the austrian empire. many of its people "did give a hoot". croatia and slovenian didnot want to become part of yugoslavia(controlled by the serbs) and the hapsburg empire fell victim(like germany) to vengeful foreign powers who gave away large parts of its land to the winning allies. germany suffered land losses, and the people there did "give a hoot". the sudenten germans,etc. what i have read about the hapsburg army shows it to have been a professional,discilpined army. i don't agree with victors history thread. romania lost 25,000 pows on the 5 sept 1916(the 3 rd day of the german offensive) at tutracia. the captiol bucharest fell apparently without much of a fight at all. by the 7th of may,1918,"peace of bucharest" ended fighting in romania altogether. romania surrendered. that seems like a romanian defeat to me. i guess this is all i have to add to this debate too.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 14 Apr 2003 15:44

pardon, i didn't mean to post the same post so many times. i seem to do that by accident. sincerely, joel

Return to “Austria-Hungary 1867–1918”