Austria's WWI Chances without the Italian Front

Discussions on all aspects of Austria-Hungary. Hosted by Glenn Jewison.
User avatar
Daniel S.
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 15:43
Location: Bucharest,somewhere in old Wallachia,now Romania

Post by Daniel S. » 23 Apr 2003 19:39

joel pacheco wrote:i don't know why the links will not work properly, i guess just type them in manually. the professor who gave the lesson(on romanian in ww1) was named douglas porch. he has written several books on military history and has an award winning book on the french foreign legion. i belive his books can still be purchased on amazon.com. he is an extremely able instructor and credible historian.


OK,I saw that site which use the term "overrun" but my point wasn't about terms.I just wanted to show the fact that Romania still oposed a stiff resistance in 1917 on Moldavian front and,if you didn't mention this fact,it could seem that all Romania was overrun,which is not true.

I do not contest that Mr. Douglas Porch could be a worthy person.But it seems to me that he told you just the empty side of the glass.

Best regards,
Daniel

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

Post by Victor » 24 Apr 2003 06:07

joel pacheco wrote: the only time "romania" was EVER discussed in my entire university career was by one of my history professors, and he used the term "overrun", and even mentioned that the germans and austrians "got everything they needed to supply thier armies for the next 6 months."(from the collapse of romania) his words.


With all due respect to your professor, but I really doubt that the Germans and Austrians got everything they needed to supply their armies for the next 6 months. The oil fields and processing installations were blown up in the retreat. By November 1918 the Germans restored only 5% (IIRC) of the production capacity.

joel pacheco wrote: romania was thrashed by the central powers, the country was looted of grain and oil, and romania's army fled the capital bucharest less resistence that saddam's boys used to defend baghdad.


You put to much importance on Bucharest as the capital. The time of the Romania with two capitals (Bucharest and Jassy) was not that far away in time then. The fact is that the government and the state continued to function after being relocated to Jassy, something which did not happen in Iraq.

joel pacheco wrote: i think that it is in the interest of everyone if historical arguments are based on the facts anbd not whitewashings to make people feel some misplaced pride in fantasy achievements.


I would not consider "fantasy achievements" the defeat of two powerful Central Powers offensives. This practically saved the existence of the Romanian state.

joel pacheco wrote: the professor who gave the lesson(on romanian in ww1) was named douglas porch. he has written several books on military history and has an award winning book on the french foreign legion. i belive his books can still be purchased on amazon.com. he is an extremely able instructor and credible historian.


The problem with many former Communist countries is that Western historians generally did not have access to their archives. Take the example of Russia in WWII. For many years circulated the idea (promoted by some German generals) that the Red Army was just a huge behemoth which won only by overwhelming its adversary and that only LL saved it from disappearance. But since David Glantz started publishing his works, based on original Soviet documents that image changed.

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

Post by Victor » 24 Apr 2003 06:07

Moulded wrote: From Arthur Banks..A Military Atlas of the First World war.


What is the meaning of "Romanians make the final stand here"?

Moulded wrote: Otherwise they could be 'Chasseurs',The Corps of Mountain Infantry Regiment,but this wasn't formed until 1915.


The first Vanatori (Romanian for Chasseurs) units were formed in 1860. During the Independence War in 1877-1878 there were four battalions.

The vanatori de munte (mountain infantry) Battalion was created in late 1916, not 1915.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 24 Apr 2003 13:07

Victor wrote:
Moulded wrote: From Arthur Banks..A Military Atlas of the First World war.


What is the meaning of "Romanians make the final stand here"?



I read it as being the new seat of Government at Jassy.

User avatar
Maresal-06
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 01 Jul 2002 23:11
Location: Qc, Canada

Post by Maresal-06 » 24 Apr 2003 13:11

When did the Romanians used the first "ADRIAN" helmets? Can anyone help? During the French mission?

Best regards,

M-06

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

Post by FW » 24 Apr 2003 16:08

look what I started with a simple question about Austria and Italy!

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 25 Apr 2003 02:08

The expertise of Douglas Porch:

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/people/porch.asp

Champymiddle
Banned
Posts: 346
Joined: 10 Feb 2003 14:30
Location: Bangkok

Post by Champymiddle » 17 Jun 2003 15:33

If you look at the "idiots guide to world war 1" you would see that the author commented the austro-hungarian army as being very good on paper and they had a good mix of infantry, cavalry and artillery (not to mention they created some of the best artillery in their famed skoda works) and they carried modern equipment in battle. However their senior officers did not recieve as much training as the germans they attained their rank through social status as a duke would get a generals position therefore senior officers from the austro-hungarian empire did not achieve rank by ability or by success but through social status. And secondly the ethnic diversity of its empire, the austro-hungarian army had a large portion of slavic people would did not want to fight their fellow slavs (russians) as one of you mentioned earlier, that was why many czechs deserted the army, however the french had large scale dessertions as well but they covered it up effectively. I would have to say the germans had the best of everything good commanders, good equipment, good weapons, solid training and a less diverse ethnic diversity. All these the austro hungarians had except the good commanders and the less diverse ethnic diversity.

GFM Sedge
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Jun 2003 12:01
Location: Austria

Without italian front?

Post by GFM Sedge » 18 Jun 2003 11:43

just to have all necessary information provided here: after 1914, when the first russian rush flooded over galicia (przemysl - just to name, where a full equipped austrian-hungarian army was trapped) germans helped out with troops - conrad did not want austrian forces under german command, although ah-troops did fight more efficiently then - because he feared that the ah-army could loose it's ability to operate without german help (which indeed was the case from beginning 1915) - as the italians declared war - they only did to austria! not to germany - this happened 1916! so the problem was: ah was busy in serbia - russia and on both fronts enemy troops stood really wide inside austria! as germany feared that italy could overrun tyrol an flash straight through bavaria the sent troops to ah russian front an serbia so that ah could build an effective front in italy - thats the whole story - and if 200.000 or more men could have stayed in russian front for at least 1917 they also would not stop devastation of ah army without german help - maybe they could have won war quicker in russia ----!!

User avatar
Oberst Mihael
Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 17:28
Location: Slovenia

Post by Oberst Mihael » 25 Jun 2003 13:28

I know that the focus has shifted to Romania and all that...

but I think it must be noted that the majority of soldiers on the Italian front were Slavs, indeed they were Slovenes (logical, since they would put up a bigger fight when defending their own land). Who mentioned that the majority were Hungarians...? :?

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 09 Jul 2003 16:38

Oberst Mihael wrote:I know that the focus has shifted to Romania and all that...

but I think it must be noted that the majority of soldiers on the Italian front were Slavs, indeed they were Slovenes (logical, since they would put up a bigger fight when defending their own land). Who... ?


Absolutely true. My grandfather told me the only foe he killed was a poor croat soldier he opened with the bayonet from throat to the belly. The poor man died after 2 days inside the same hole of a bomb hiding granpa. A lot of shits written in this thread. :cry:

User avatar
Csaba Becze
Member
Posts: 656
Joined: 27 May 2002 10:44
Location: Hungary

Post by Csaba Becze » 28 Jul 2003 15:37

True? Hungary was a 'bit' bigger, than Slovenia (and the population also). Evidently more Hungarian soldiers were in Italian front, than Slovenian(you should research more in this topic). BTW a lot of Slavs deserted in Italian front...

Gabriel: Croatia was the part of Hungary till 1918

User avatar
Cezarprimo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 10:28

Romania

Post by Cezarprimo » 11 Sep 2003 14:41

Overrun:
a) to seize the positions of and defeat conclusively.
b) to spread or swarm over destructively

Parts of Romania were overrun in 1916-1917 by german, austrian and bulgarian troops and the romnian army was defetead. Howerver there was no cowardice involved in this defeat (as some less informed persons tried to suggest here), the odds were overwehlmingly against the romanians.

Something else, Romania's entry into the war was supposed to be correlated with a large Allied offensive in the west and with serious military assitance for the romanian army. None of these happened when they were supposed to happen.

In 1917 the romanian army retreated in Moldavia and for a while the front was held mainly by russian troops. The military assitance finally came and Romania rebuild its army. This army successfully conducted offensive and defensive operations against the Central Powers.

Once the communist Russia got out of the war, Romania was left alone surrounded by enemies (the former russian allies included). Under such circumstances Romania surrendered and signed a very hard peace treaty at Buftea (a small village around Bucharest). This treaty mentioned the Romania should supply for free the Central Powers with graines, oil, etc.

However, the romanian army was never overrun in Moldavia, and a comparison between the way the iraqi army defended Baghdad in 2003 and the way the romanian army defended Bucharest in 1916 (I belive here we talk about the so called battle of the river Arges) is totally missplaced and proves only the utter ignorance of the one who did it.

Regards

Return to “Austria-Hungary 1867–1918”