Why Was Austria-Hungary so USELESS in World War 1???

[@HenryStewart]

Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/HSH001 Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!

[@bjorntorlarsson]

Kaiser Franz Joseph hadn't ruled for "almost half a century". He had ruled for longer than any of his subjects could remember, since childhood. Really! It's exceptional.

[@jimmys1558]

play that game since 2011, went to total shit. and you can call it pay to win without doubt

[@TheFishman3226]

What the name of the movie shown in the video?

[@williamyoung9401]

There was a large build-up of tensions prior to the murder of Franz Ferdinand. The assassination was just the trigger; it didn't come out of nowhere. The equivalent of apartheid existed in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, even regarding their supposed ally, Germany. Ironically, Franz wanted to abolish this practice when he acceded to the throne to unite the various ethnic groups under his rule. Fun fact: earlier in the day, a bomb had been thrown at the couple and they almost died that way.

[@Ezekiel903]

the only useless army were the British, without US you would have lost more as only your "empire"

[@snuffthisrooster7043]

I watched an entire video from this channel about how incompetent the Russians were in WW1, and now I'm learning about how bad the Austro-Hungarians did against the Russians....

[@aerosdacillo1227]

dont forget the minorities in the territory

[@alexzero3736]

How The Tides Turned😂

[@Promislandzion]

They faught on like 6 fronts. 😭

[@philmckay9973]

Just need to listen to how the russian navy went to fight the japanese….

[@wolfgangkranek376]

It doesnt help, when your army consists of people who dont even speak the same language or don't have a single commando language. And when a huge portion of its soldiers and officers, already before the war, didnt identify themselves with the Empire, but opposed it. Wanting their own nations. Also the Russians had at least two high ranking officers from the k&k military intelligence service working for them spies. Only one was identified, but the harm was already done.

[@scotttimmer3507]

All of that is part of the accepted history of Austria - Hungary during World War I. However, it could be argued that the empire actually did pretty well considering its multi ethnic make up. It held out for four years against Italy and Russia, and the Russians usually outnumbered them. And the British blockade caused catastrophic shortages of everything.

[@sockysol9599]

cope

[@dylanram4653]

@@sockysol9599 i mean its kind of true, they were screwed from the start

[@mistapoli]

The only reason they were ever able to hold back Russia was because of the Germans.

[@qwopiretyu]

​@@dylanram4653 even if you can see yourself losing the chess game you can't just not play

[@itsorganic7739]

They had more fronts then any other power, had a smaller population and economy then Germany but were expected to pull a similar degree of weight. The brusikov offensive broke the back of the Russian army, and the caporetto offensive nearly destroyed the Italian army. They subdued Romania, and Serbia, and were expected to deal largely with Russia they fought in the war longer then any other power. They were leagues above the Russians, Italians, and ottomans. They were a solid B tank performance for having a D to F rated starting position. The trope of them being useless is a tired and old one made by layman historians who just want to lionize the Germans and ignore the actual intricacies of war and a states capacity for it.

[@EricNapoli-z3d]

The fact that Austria-Hungary fought a three front war from 1915 to 1917 and was still able to pull off strategic victories is proof enough that they were not "useless." The reality is that they did not have the industry or geography to win the war they were fighting.

[@airborngrmp1]

Which strategic victory are you referring to?

[@alphamyr]

@@airborngrmp1 12 Isonzo battles

[@Tarmenell]

They managed to hold the Alps defensively, I would have a hard time imagining a better defensive position, and after being reinforced by German divisions, they managed to drive away the demoralized Italians. Honestly, as a victory, it is weak, especially when we add the TWO retreats from Serbia and the siege of Przemyśl to the equation. Moreover, the excuse of "three fronts" does not hold up for Serbia either, during the beginning there was only the Serbian front and they beat them like hell there anyway. Besides, just look at the history line, the Austrian army has been beaten from all sides for 100 years and there is no hope for reforms,

[@amogus948]

​@@alphamyrthe Isonzo river, its the hilly/mountainous rocky terrain and its shortness gave the Austrians a strong advantage. They knew that the Italians could only attack along that short strip of land (it was impossible for them to try anything big in the Alps because the Austrians had the very high ground) and so it was very easy to defend that short front. Regardless of this disadvantage, the Italian offensives almost led to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian front in at least a couple of istances in the first 2 years of conflict an, had not been for the Germans coming to their rescue in autumn 1917, the Austrian line would have most likely collapsed as soon as the Italians would have launched another offensive

[@alphamyr]

@@Tarmenell the alps were but a small portion of the italian front my illiterate friend!

[@Vicarious_Heart]

Austro-Hungarians and Italians were pulling some actual Monty Python Blackadder shit. lol

[@bjorntorlarsson]

The Austrian Navy was actually pretty good! But that's another topic (which in itself is a bit strange of a contrast). The Emperor was simply old and too demented to eat breakfast, and the parasites around him were just corrupted. Luckily, today there's no great power leadership suffering such problems! (Oouch)

[@RealKull]

Italy fared much better than Great Britain

[@RealKull]

@@bjorntorlarsson austrian navy spent all of the war buried in its harbours, the Italians had to torpedo their ships there with fast assault boats

[@jacoporegini8841]

@@RealKull Estremamente discutibile come affermazione.

[@orestezanardo4468]

1.240.000 dead bodies are not comedy stuff. Respect our people please

[@itsorganic7739]

Austria Hungary being a useless ally is a very old and tired trope. Their country had some of the worst starting positions in the war, surrounded on nearly every front with a. Disjointed and underfunded military and political system. Despite all this they did have success and lasted longer in the war then any other central power. I’m not saying they were amazing but they carried their weight and then some and there were certainly powers in the war who were far more incompetent then the empire. This tired old trope needs to go, it’s a layman understanding of history that falls apart when you look further into their actual starting position and just how much hard fighting they did do with accompanying successes.

[@Finnishnat-conservativedot7126]

Are you arguing they perform fantastically then? Statement of "Austria-Hungary performed bad in WW1" isn't a tired trope that states a general feeling about their nature, but rather a fact of performance. Their starting position and climate is *irrelevant*.

[@itsorganic7739]

@ I would give their performance a solid B ranking on a scale of S-F with their starting position being a comfortable D. So with that, yes I think they performed well. Germany did obviously carry the war effort, but the Kuk did perform much better then both the ottoman, Russians, and Italians.

[@Finnishnat-conservativedot7126]

@@itsorganic7739 Actually they didn't perform better than Russia, when it came to battling Russia, their primary objective they failed spectacularly and needed an bailout by the Germans. To hell with Russians, Austrians barely defeated Serbians only after Bulgaria and Germany decided to help. That's embarrassing.

[@itsorganic7739]

@@Finnishnat-conservativedot7126 Russia was a larger country, had more population, more industry, a more unified and centralized government, more material support, and had fewer fronts they needed to fight on. Despite all those advantages the Russians still broke well before the Kuk and completely dissolved as a state. The brusilov offensive while a limited success ultimately broke the back of the Russian military to the point it never recovered. They also dealt a massive blow to russia in the Gorlice Tarnow offensive, bled them at the Siege_of_Przemyśl despite it being a total defeat, and nearly destroyed italy in the battle of caproetto despite as the author of video admitting that the italian military budget was larger. They subdued serbia and Romania. They won on nearly ever front they fought on. The Kuk despite its disunity mobilized 15% of their population where the russians only mobilzied about 7%. The Austrians suffered fewer casulaties in the war despite being in it longer then the Russians.The Kuk had no business being as resiliant and effective as they were given how few advantages they had at the onset of the way. "But what about serbia!" the tired argument goes. Serbia was a fervently nationalist country that proportionally suffered the worst of any WW1 Power. They were one of the most effective and resiliant countries in WW1. The Serbian military was one of the best, battle hardended, and modern militaries at the outbreak of the war, coming off a string of Victories in the balkan wars only several years prior, where the last major war Austria Hungary was in was the Austro german war of 1866. No one knew how much modern warfar was going to change within that time, and ultimately while they did blunder at the start trying to storm a narrow front across mountains even against a smaller force. When you don't know what the new meta for warfare will be, it will make for an extremely difficult and costly set of lessons, but learn from them they did. Its the same way the Juggernauts of France and Britain failed spectacularly at Gallipoli despite having every advantage. Does that mean they were also terrible at war? Ultimately Austrians did subdue the balkans where the allies could not do the same within a pitched battle.

[@Finnishnat-conservativedot7126]

@@itsorganic7739 I'm sorry man, but all of this is just plainly a massive huff of copium... Really, four to one advantage can be mitigated with "nationalism" and unproven "Serbian army quality" that suddenly crumbles when anyone besides Austria fights them? Like Bulgaria? You mean to tell me that Bulgaria, despite its even more limited industry and manpower somehow manages to break the stalemate all while Austria is unable to do the same for several years despite the 4 to 1 ratio?! Also Austria singlehandedly defeating Russia? Are you just making up things? As far as I and most people know, Austria was in one of the largest retreats of world War one before Germans reinforced the line. You're just stealing valor from Germans, despite Austrians themselves never even wanting to claim the title, you'll do anything to be a contrarian won't you? Furthermore, gains of brest littovsk finally began happening during one of the largest revolutions, as subsequently, while one of the largest civil wars in history was brewing. Austria quite literally joined for sloppy seconds and then shat itself into inexistense. You are defending what Russians, Germans, British and even Austrians themselves deemed dysfunctional, weak and useless, I would ask who's paying you for the glaze, but you are doing it just to be contrarian. Unpopular opinion doesn't equal a smart and sophisticated opinion, there's literally nothing supporting your claim for a "B tier performance". It's defeat, after defeat, after defeat until Italy happens, which is like one out of three targets realized... for a really short while until reinforcements arrived. Funnily enough those reinforcementsb you do not count as Italian, unlike German imperial reinforcements that miraculously turn into Austrian reinforcements...

[@hennessyblues4576]

I think the real question should be is why does Germany keep picking the worst friends to back them up when the shit goes down?

[@wolfgangkranek376]

The WWI Conspiracy - Part One: To Start A War

[@MothaLuva]

Because Germany always needed an Austrian to tell them what to do.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Because Germany was bad at diplomacy and good at making several enemies. They could maybe not provoke Britain with a naval race or ally with Russia instead of Austria-Hungary, then yes, they would've won.

[@wolfgangkranek376]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 That's a narrative (ie. propaganda) that was spread by the British to legitimize the war. Look up Google: "Corbett Report Episode 350 - History Is Written By The Winners"

[@diegonatan6301]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 ally Russia was impossible, for many practical and ideological reasons Russia and Germany would end as enemies.

[@gew1898]

Yes the KuK Army was ineffective in attack, for the reasons you list. I would argue that they often did surprisingly well in defense. The siege of Przemyśl is a prime example.

[@chrismath149]

I'd use the defence of the border against Italy as an example - Cadorna was probably less competent than Von Hötzendorf but had much better support available ( wasn't blockaded, etc ).

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

And before so you say Przemyśl was simply a crushing defeat, Boroevic (aka the Lion of the Isonzo) temporarily relieved the city and inflicted the Russians 20-40K casualties. Honestly, Boroevic carried the Austro-Hungarian army from Conrad's blunders.

[@colinhunt4057]

@@chrismath149 No one was more incompetent than Conrad. His stupidity ensured that: 1. the Russians knew what AH intentions were when the war started because of his Italian mistress; 2. Conrad's strategy and tactics guaranteed that most of the AH junior and non-commissioned officers would be killed in the first three months. This ensured that the AH army would have no cadre of experienced veterans on which to rebuild the army after the 1914 disasters. Conrad was so viciously stupid that he must have been a Russian double agent.

[@anantachonnambat6701]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 A couple hundred thousand soldiers against an entire country army. Dude went nuts on the Isonzo haha.

[@FifinatorKlon]

Are we talking about the same Siege of Przemyśl that would see over 100k Austro-Hungarian troops dead or as pows after only 6 months?

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Austria-Hungary actually wasn't "useless" as Germany would've lost earlier without the Austro-Hungarian troops. The same applies to the Ottoman Empire. Now yes, the Austro-Hungarian army was very flawed (mainly due to its incompetent high command), but this could be very well explained. Firstly, Austria-Hungary had to fight three fronts, more than most WW1 belligerents. They didn't fail to defeat Serbia because they were "useless", but because they never had a major numerical advantage as the Russian army was destroying them in Galicia (the 2nd Army had to be recalled from Serbia). Serbia also got good weapons supplied from its Entente allies. Secondly, the Austro-Hungarian army lacked war experience as it fought its last war decades ago, which put the country in another disadvantage. However, wars such as the Seven Years' War and later Napoleonic Wars proved that the Austrian army *was capable of being competent* with better generals, thus winning many battles such as Kolin, Hochkirch & Aspern-Essling. Unfortunately, Austria-Hungary had no opportunity to improve its army as it immediately collapsed by the end of WW1. Langauge actually wasn't the biggest issue as Austria had to deal with that problem for centuries and the commanders actually got some German knowledge. As for performance, while it was far from good, they still managed to hold off the Italians mostly alone. While the Germans did help at Caporetto, it was small compared to the other fronts. Just putting my two cents here.

[@korpiman]

The question is why Austria-Hungary started the war. I believe they were aware that their military was underfunded. They also had one of the worst chiefs of staff, Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf. Additionally, Austrians and Hungarians (especially Hungarians) treated other nations as if they were cattle. Off-topic: I notice similarities between Austria-Hungary's issues and some challenges the EU faces today. Germans are hardworking and organized people, but there’s still a tendency to view themselves as a "master race." They failed to unite Europe in the past because they were too proud of their perceived superiority over others.

[@aleale6277]

Caporetto was succesfull only thanks to the german army. All kuk divisions failed to penetrate the front.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@aleale6277 "All kuk divisions failed to penetrate the front." Just straight up wrong. The Germans were mainly responsible for the planning, but the Austro-Hungarians still played a huge role at crushing the Italian army at Caporetto. Speaking of which, the Italians were not blockaded unlike Germany & Austria-Hungary (where Rommel berated about the poor food situation), and they weren't an effective threat to A-H. A-H's only advantage against Italy was its terrain, but even then the Austro-Hungarians fought well for an empire that was completely blockaded.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@korpiman "The question is why Austria-Hungary started the war." Austria-Hungary started the war to get revenge on Serbia. If Russia simply stayed neutral, then Austria-Hungary would finish the war before Christmas. "I believe they were aware that their military was underfunded." Yes, the Austrians were very well aware of that, but the Hungarians unfortunately didn't care. "They also had one of the worst chiefs of staff, Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf." Yes, Hötzendorf was without doubt Austria-Hungary's greatest weakness during the war. "Additionally, Austrians and Hungarians (especially Hungarians) treated other nations as if they were cattle." Hungary, yes, but definitely not Austria. In addition, Poles & Bosnians were actually loyal to Austria-Hungary despite everything. "Off-topic: I notice similarities between Austria-Hungary's issues and some challenges the EU faces today. Germans are hardworking and organized people, but there’s still a tendency to view themselves as a "master race." They failed to unite Europe in the past because they were too proud of their perceived superiority over others." Well, besides some Neo-Nazis, I haven't head any Germans seeing themselves as the "master race" like in WW2. Also, the Nazis' "superiority" over other races is what led to their downfall ironically.

[@gonczoltomi7824]

​@@korpimanwhy? what would uk do if their heir is assasinated by irish folk, whom are funded by the irish gov? I assure you that island wouldnt even exist anymore...

[@tatyo02]

of course we were "useless" when Austria-Hungary had to defend itself againts the bigger russian offensives TWICE(Brussilow, Kerenskij) fight on three fronts, when the Germans thought the war can be won on the western front...they realized too late that the russians need to be defeated first.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

In addition, it's worth to mention that Germany promised to help Austria-Hungary at encircling the Russians in Poland, but what did happen? Germany invaded a neutral country, which provoked the world's largest empire into the war, and Austria-Hungary's attempt to take Poland (after initial victories at Krasnik and Komarow) failed due to the Germans simply staying in the defensive at Tannenberg. Germany wasn't that much of a great ally as people imagine.

[@loverofyurigagarin1149]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87maybe Germany didn’t really expect Russian to be ready early so there’s less troops while they are too busy mobilizing. Going to steamroll Russian this right after subduing France with the soldiers on the border.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

Not all Germans believed that by any means.

[@gizaarts9391]

Did anybody mention the betrayal from italy and that at this time troops were already located on other frontlines, so that men too old, or too young for military service( or not suitable fpr other reasons) , fought them off?

[@anthonycoon6955]

Just accept the fact u guys were the equivalent of ww2 Italy

[@robertjarman3703]

Ah yes, Conrad Von Hoetzendorf, a man whom Indy Neidell describes as the most dangerous kind of officer, both stupid and intensely energetic, and a man whom Indy Neidell badly wants to chain to a rock in the Carpathian mountains while he is wearing cardboard shoes so that an eagle can peck out his liver.

[@darkushippotoxotai9536]

Fair. Points for creativity

[@overworlder]

He wasn’t stupid, at least as a strategist. His plans were regarded as among the best, but beyond the capabilities of the forces he led. In that sense he refused to face reality. Austrian armies always faced these problems and successful Austrian generals - Daun, Archduke Charles, Schwartzenberg, Radetzky, Archduke Albert - compensated in various ways. Of these I think Daun had the best formula, which was to hug the enemy closely while occupying strong positions well fortified, which bolstered the morale of the broader army, and preferably provoking the enemy into attacking, otherwise providing a base for offensive action spearheaded by the most reliable troops, the German regiments. But the cult of the offensive meant Daun’s clever solutions, proof against the best army and general of his age, were ignored over the succeeding century and a half. It was forced on the WW1 Habsburg armies soon enough anyway.

[@austrianchad6673]

​@@overworlderDaun was a real one he even beat Fredrick the great and made him almost kill himself.❤️🇦🇹✝️🇦🇹❤️💪💪💪

[@bert8373]

​@@overworlderyes,the Habsburg imperial armies did pretty well from 17th to 19th centuries despite it's multiethnic makeup,generals and marshals like Prince Eugene,Leopold von Daun,Archduke Karl maximized the strengths of imperial troops

[@johnthomson6507]

@@robertjarman3703 I think he bears a large part of the blame for ww1. While at school everybody blamed Germany. I think he is a large player in this disaster.

[@mistapoli]

You know the world is getting crazy when the Austrians and Ottomans are on the same side

[@sagagis]

Centuries of archenemies dissolved side by side

[@zacharyrollick6169]

The French and British on the same side was a new thing at the time too, I believe.

[@thevenbede767]

The fact they did so well is a testament to how bad Cadorna was and how good Boroevic von Bojne was

[@tullochgorum6323]

True - you have to judge their performance by the enemies they were facing. The Serbs were impressive considering their small size and antique equipment, but the Russians and Italians were catastrophically bad. As you say, Cadorna in particular was a disaster and his rout at Caporetto is a case-study in poor leadership.

[@HaraldDrWILLE]

You have no idea. "Greetings" from Austria.

[@gergofordospecs7475]

Same feelings from Hungary

[@JacobM.S]

@@gergofordospecs7475 same here from slovakia

[@AAWT]

Great argument. Very nuanced and detailed. This is entirely spot on. Austria was a ridiculous force in WW1. Greetings to the video creator from Vienna - a job well done. You got everything exactly right. So much for "diversity is our strength".

[@HaraldDrWILLE]

@@AAWT bullshit doesn't have to be explained. "Greetings" ...Dr. H.W..

[@gegru9438]

Grandpa and grandson (regular soldiers sent to east) defending the alps!?... no sign of running ...

[@overworlder]

A major reason not mentioned was decades of underinvestment in the armed forces due to the difficulty of passing funds from the separate parliaments, both for their own territorial armies and the joint army.

[@imgvillasrc1608]

It's actually been a curse for the Austrian Army since the mid-19th century. During the age when the percussion caps were replacing the flintlock, the Austrian Army wanted to go cheap with the replacement of the percussion locks (but failed). Then during the Second Italian War of Independence, a lot of the Austrian units were still using the old and obselete 1842 Augustin rifled musket and not the advanced 1854 Lorenz Rifle (which was standard issue). Then during the Austro-Prussian War, the Austrians still mostly used Lorenz's compression bullet than the more effective Podewil expanding bullet that the Austrian Army wanted to equip their whole units with since 1863. So yes, the Austrian Army was always trying to penny-pinch as much as they can since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Which stunted their army's growth.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

It was their fighting quality, not necessarily their equipment.

[@overworlder]

@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 - Technology was important in WW1. It was famously a period where defensive technology made the offense very difficult. Habsburg divisions lacked machine guns and artillery compared to German and Russian ones, which blunted their offensive actions and weakened their defence. Historically, Austrian armies relied on a strong artillery (and cavalry, less relevant in WW1) to compensate for the variable quality of their infantry. This could not be said in 1914. With sufficient training, fighting quality is not improved by lacking firepower and it is improved by more firepower, better equipment and entrenchments. All of which were not part of the Austrian way of war in 1914, which relied on mass charges by rifle-armed infantry, with horrifying results (the German army was also prone to this error in 1914). If you look at an Austrian division in 1918 compared to a 1914 one, they had learned the lesson.

[@overworlder]

@@imgvillasrc1608 - yes, another rarely-mentioned problem the Habsburg state struggled with throughout its history was very high levels of state debt. So as well as inhibiting training and equipment purchases in peacetime, even before the disastrous effects of the Ausgleich, it meant every war was also a financial crisis, as the state had to raise even more debt to sustain the armies. In fact, one source of financial relief for Vienna in 1914 was the opportunity to repudiate its debts owed to Britain from the Napoleonic Wars!

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

@@overworlder well of course. The biggest jumps in times of war are usually in Medicine, WW1 medical advances came in the form and the widespread use of portable X-rays machines and improved surgical techniques. There were also ever improving treatments for treating exposure to various types of poison gases like chlorine, mustard and the most deadly agent of them all in WW1 phosgene. Prosthetics were naturally in big demand too and were constantly being improved upon throughout the war and beyond.

[@pavelslama5543]

The Czechs did not just surrender en masse. They turned against Austria Hungary and actually fought for the opposing side with a staggering level of competence and bravery. On the Russian front, it was a common joke even amongst the Russian general staff that the best part of the Russian army is the Czech(oslovak) army. On the western and Italian front they fought with at least as much determination and skill as the local soldiers. So just to clarify, they weren´t incompetent by default. They acted incompetently on purpose.

[@aurelije]

They also surrendered to Serbian army and wanted to fight A-H. In one memorial in Serbia both Serbs and Czechs were buried together as brothers. Czechs woud sing Hey Slavs (later anthem of socialistic Yugoslavia) as a sign to Serbian army that iy is a friendly A-H unit ❤

[@stefanalexandrucojocaru1789]

romanians from Transylvania which were forced to fought for austro-hungarians, in Italy and Galicia romanians deserted from austro-hungary army to italians and russians in Italy romanians formed romanians units which fought against Italy

[@stefanalexandrucojocaru1789]

God bless romanians and czech, and both of our nations

[@danielbrunner1081]

We had the worst geography from all empires. The east front was very flat terrain and when Italy joined the war we had a three-front battle. Would’ve ended different if Italy stayed neutral or joined the central powers

[@colinhunt4057]

Unlikely. The AH Empire was still starving to death like Germany from food shortages imposed by the British-French naval blockade. What collapsed Germany was the internal revolt and riots of 1918-1919 brought on by prolonged civilian starvation and freezing to death from coal shortages. When the High Seas Fleet mutinies and refuses to put to sea, it's over. When Ludendorff confesses in the summer of 1918 that the German army can no longer resist the Allied armies in France, it's over.

[@OTTAWA1ONTARIO]

What about Thessaloniki front? You forgot to mention that Serbian army did not capitulate after Serbia was overrun in 1915 but rather they withdrew to Greece with the help of French and British allies and from there continued to fight until triumphant return in 1918 after breaking through the Central powers lines of defense.

[@Knoesel3000]

u are right but Thessaloniki should get its own movie or docu

[@aleale6277]

They evacuated thanks to italian and french navies. Not the british. "The evacuation started on 15 January; the journey was made from three ports, San Giovanni di Medua, Durrës and Valona (Vlorë).[47] Altogether, 45 Italian, 25 French and eleven British transport ships were employed in the evacuation; they carried out 202, 101 and 19 voyages, respectively.[48] The Duke of Abruzzi and Vice Admiral Emanuele Cutinelli Rendina, commander of Italian naval forces in the southern Adriatic (with headquarters in Brindisi), were tasked with planning the evacuation by sea; it was established that larger ships would load the troops in Durres and Vlore, whereas smaller vessels would be employed in San Giovanni di Medua. Rear Admiral Guglielmo Capomazza supervised the evacuation in Vlorë, Albania.[48]"

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

Are you sure that Serbs were those who were fighting on the Salonika front?

[@OTTAWA1ONTARIO]

@@ozymandiasultor9480 Not only that they fought there but were key force in allied victory.

[@kvhgolian3617]

Unfortunately this video was very poorly researched and is giving a very distorted view on the Austro-Hungarian army. Fact is they conquered Serbia, held the eastern front till Germans could show up in force, broken the back of Tsars army in 1915, subdued Romania in 1916, Held against the Italians in 1915 and 1916 and in fact nearly captured Venice in 1917, conquered Albania and marched as far a Greece, while suffering a famine at home and a continental blockade.

[@matovicmmilan]

No, Austria-Hungary(50 million people) failed to conquer Serbia(4.2 million) on its own despite several attempts all of which ended up with the Austro-Hungarian defeat. It was only after the AH leadership pleaded with Germany(65 million) for help and the German Army joined the fight that the combined Austro-Hungarian & German troops forced the Serbian Army to steadily retreat but even this only gained momentum after Bulgaria invaded Serbia from the east.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@matovicmmilan This happens when you are forced to fight the largest army in the world, plus Serbia was supplied by some of the best Entente weapons during the war. If this wasn't a world war, then Serbia would be in serious trouble. Besides Entente help, Serbia wasn't some "tiny, defenseless" country as they had a lot of war experience and were extremely nationalistic (to the point it wanted to "free" Bosnia). Bulgaria only had it to easy because Serbia was caught off-guard.

[@darius_alex2043]

The Austrians didn’t do shit in Romania. The Germans and Bulgarians broke the Russian lines in Dobrogea and the German reinforcements were the ones who started to push us back in Transylvania and in the end Germany was the one to capture Bucharest and to overrun the south of the country.

[@w0lffe09]

@@darius_alex2043 You forgot to mention the Turks as well in the Dobrogea line. It was the Bulgarians and Turks fighting there, then Germany had to send help. Both the west and south frontlines in Romania had to be broken with help from German divisions.

[@matovicmmilan]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 You're mostly right, I emphasized in a comment yesterday that it was Russia that saved Serbia but not France, let alone the Great Britain or Italy. I wrote in greater detail about the unwillingness of even France to provide artillery ammunition to Serbia until the it was paid 100%. In regard to equipment - even the best armed Serbian regiment was inferior to an average Austro-Hungarian one, especially when it comes to machine guns, mortars and artillery pieces. Aside from Russia, only Montenegro joined Serbia, which isn't surprising considering that it's just another Serb country, similar to the relations between Germany and Austria.

[@richardkrotec1440]

i think that austria hungary was not as bad as you might think, first off in the prewar years the army did not have proper funding also the main reason why austria lost in the beggining is because Col Redl sold the austro hungarian battle plan against both russia and serbia to there governments so both knew what austria would do. Redl commited suicide before he could be interogated which left austrias leaders blind as to what plans were compimised. however the austrians won the first 2 battles on the eastern front at krasnik and kommarov in sept 1914 and a 3rd battle at limanowa in dec 1914 these victories were acheaved without any german support. now yes when austria lost some disatrous batttles in oct nov 1914 the germans helped stablise the front however in most cases german assistance was always limited, like the battle of golice tarnow was mostly an austrian victory 3/4 of the troops were austro hungarian and only 1/4 were german again at caporetto the germans only gave 6 division as opposed to 18 austro hungarian divisions and in both battles the germans were under austrian command,and yes i know it irritates the pro german historians but in those 2 battles it was austrian lead and was even comfirmed in several older books .now i am not saying anything to down play germanys role in the war as they were indeed the dominant military force in ww1. but that did not mean that austria was not capiable of doing anything.this narritive was an invention by the germans who were trying to cover up some of there own poor mistakes.i think there needs to be more fair and balanced view of this topic. as it seems to be only a german and anglo american perspective.i have talked with many historians not just from austria but from italy russia and france it seems there historians are mostly of a different view than the anglo american historians view.Richard

[@ivkasuic4474]

If is so, WHY my coutrymens were able to inflict many casulties to Austrians in there attempt to defeat us Serbs.Serbian army WAS SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than Austrian and Hungarian army??? We beat them again and again in battles at Cer mountain ,at Shabac , on the Kolubara river etc.!That INCOMPETENT general Oscar Potiorek had chosen utterly WRONG strategical direction to deliver the blow ... throu mountains of western Serbia,instead across the Danube from Banat?!

[@richardkrotec1440]

@@ivkasuic4474 Because the serbian army had austria hungary's battle plan that the austrian military intelligence officer Col Redl sold to the serbian government. but col Redl commited suicide before he could be interrigated leaving the austrian generals blind as to what plans had been comprimised thats why the serbs won no other reason , oh and by the way serbia only won out of the fact that the austrian forces did not have enough manpower on the serbian front because there main army was tied up on the eastern front and no the serbians did not always beat the austrians, yes they won a few battles but thats it the austrian army captured belgrade and only had to evauate as they were outnumbered .and most of there army like the 2nd army was pulled out to early and sent it to the russian front.if they would have had the 2nd army and an entire army corp that potiorik left in bosina that he feared wrongfuly that the locals would rise up. had the austrian army had this entire corp along with the 2nd army they would have crushed serbia

[@Bloatedsnake]

This channel deserves more views

[@BAG3Lmk07]

Thank you for this. My great grandfather owned one of the largest egg factories in Krakow, Poland in 1914. Four of his seven kids would be killed in the Holocaust thirty years later. He would live until 1958, just long enough to see my dad born.

[@jims8828]

Seems one obvious reason has not been mentioned: the bluish "cadet grey" uniform in Austro-Hungarian army from the start of the war to late 1915 made the soldiers highly visible in European land battles, where the background was mostly greenery and mud. The Serbian army had learned to use olive-grey uniform color from their balkan war experience, and Russians had learned to use green-khaki uniform from their Russo-Japanese War experience. Btw, the French using a bluish uniform color likewise had the highest casualty rate on the western front.

[@nerminerminerminermi]

French startet with bright red pants

[@sa2ze670]

They were already being replaced, but never actually were because of missing funds.

[@chadromanowski2408]

I am and have been a history nerd since highschool, where I had a great AP history teacher who hooked me with the stories behind the story. Your channel reminds me of why I love history.

[@dallasdaffer]

Ottoman Empire? They in the central powers also Bulgaria were in the central powers and japan was in the entente

[@sagagis]

Ottomans have recognition. Armchair Historian published a video about Ottomans a few weeks ago

[@dallasdaffer]

thanks for telling me

[@brandonarmienti7734]

I hope you do more WW1 videos. Hopefully you do a video on Bulgaria. They are not talked about as much as they should. Bulgaria with such a small population, fought surprisingly well.

[@xornxenophon3652]

Why does everyone always forget the Ottoman Empire? Are they a joke to you? They got Churchill fired!

[@MichaelDNelson]

Solid video. Well paced and informative.

[@sharonrigs7999]

A certain Painter made a wise decision when he chose to serve Germany. Imagine how different history could have been if he had served his birth nation.

[@EricNapoli-z3d]

Austria is a German country.

[@sagagis]

He would have been a great painter in his country. I am sure he would have been accepted by the art school. Also, WWI started because an Austrian was assassinated WWII started because an Austrian was not assassinated

[@sharonrigs7999]

@sagagis It's debatable if assassinating Hitler in mid 1939 would have prevented WW2, since the plans and plots (i.e. dividing Poland with USSR) were already in motion. Himmler probably would have been the successor 😬

[@BaDitO2]

the multi-national aspect is severly overblown. There are like a dozen more severe factors that come before that. just a few examples: a) the habsburg monarchy suffered from a severe competency crisis and did so for a while (basically for the entire reign of franz-joseph). corruption was widespread (for example if you were the son of a landowner your chance of getting conscripted was basically near 0, because you could just bribe the doctor to declare you unfit for service). and noone in either the civil or military service did their jobs properly. b) the hungarian nobility were huge spoilers. any kind of reform on the imperial level was shut down by the hungarian diet. the hungarian nobility (in special the 7 magnates) were kind content of ruling over an agrarian shothole, and they did everything in their power to keep it this way. c) the head of state was very elderly. I mean imagine joe biden in that role and you can imagine how much of a disaster that was etc.. I could go on. everytime the habsburg forces were not dependent on their own administration (when they were under german command for example) they did quite well regardless of ethnicity of the soldiers.

[@vladimirjokanovic6462]

Everybody within Austro-Hungary was fed up with it, including Austrians and Hungarians. Even Hitler himself was so sick of it that he rather volunteered into German army instead.😬

[@hrvojesalinovic5883]

WRONG-WRONG-WRONG ?????? Dalmatia was extremely undeveloped: 28 August 1895, Šibenik (Croatia-Dalmatia) became the world's first city with alternating current-powered street lights. The Krka Electric Power Plant (full name in Croatian: Prva povlaštena električna centrala u Dalmaciji "Krka" Ante Šupuk i sin), later named Jaruga 1, was the first plant built on the river.[6] In December 1892!

[@venator5]

Austro Hungary did fought on multiple frontlines, And they invaded Romania in a really fast manner, It is anything but being "useless".

[@darius_alex2043]

In Romania Germany did most of the work. We were pushing the Austrians into Transylvania but the Germans and Bulgarians broke the Russian lines in Dobrogea so we had to retreat with them and then the Germans reinforced the Austrians in Transylvania and they pushed us back and it all went to shit but the Germans did most of the work.

[@w0lffe09]

You mean they lost a big chunk of Transylvania in a really fast manner? The German divisions sent to help them managed to invade Romania. Also, Romania fought on two fronts as well, against Austro-Hungary and German troops in the west and against Bulgarian and Turkish troops in the south. When Romania joined the war they actually had great success in the Transylvania offensive, but they were forced to abandon it when German troops reinforced Bulgarian and Turkish divisions in the south. Even then, they had some good defensive victories and bought some valuable time for the Allies so the Germans couldn't send the troops to the Western front. For such a small force and what equipment Romania had, they did quite well, unfortunately they were surrounded on multiple fronts, especially after Russia withdrew from the war.

[@venator5]

@@w0lffe09 You are reading wrong books then, but not suprised since the west is eating up the propaganda made up by one single person called Eduard Benes. Technically a born pathological liar.

[@oliverpapai6011]

Hungarian cavalry made the Russians piss their pants. They were the only ones who dared to cavalry rush mounted machine gun positions, which made the Russians scatter. Always against a supernumerary enemy, in a 3 front war, stabbed in the back by Romania, and yet, we not onyl held up but made gains. Russia, Serbia, Romania, we defeated. Even my town of a few thousand had several dozen men die on the eastern front of WW1,my great great grandpa served too

[@theo-dr2dz]

The Austrian army was outdated and underfunded and they had some spectacularly bad commanders: von Hötzendorf and Potiorek. The way Potiorek handled Franz Ferdinand's visit was so incredibly amateurish that one would almost suspect him of being a Serbian agent, deliberately setting up the assassination. Then, the same Potiorek led the invasion of Serbia and botched it up royally. Hötzendorf at the same time thought it a good idea to defend Galicia head on with predictable results. The disasters of Köninggraz and the Italian war should have been wake-up calls to improve the army, but that didn't happen. Mainly because of the weird constitution (the Ausgleich). It was intended as a power-sharing arrangement between Austrians and Hungarians in order to broaden the base of the empire, but it just caused paralysis and sabotage from the Hungarian half. The Austrians should have avoided war at almost any cost, but Hötzendorf, who should have known the state of his army, was constantly pushing for war. That idiot should have been fired in 1913 (he actually was, but got recalled for some incomprehensible reason). Better still, he should never have been an officer at all. The poor logistics are nothing special. Even today in Ukraine, the Russians suffer from bad rations, lack of shoes and all that kind of basic material. That was not really better in some other armies, like the Russian and the Italian. Even the French were not very well-prepared. What they should have done: first fire Hötzendorf and Potiorek. Almost anyone would be better than those two muppets. Second, draw back to the Carpathians and take a purely defensive posture there. Also, just hold the line against Italy at the Isonzo. The Italians were more than willing to bleed themselves dry attacking the same fortresses again and again with the same results every time. With the main army and a somewhat competent commander, defeat Serbia, shortening the front. Redirect the Serbian army to the Russian front and together with the Germans smash the Russians. The Austrians were not a competent army, but so were the Italians and the Russians. However, by poor strategy, they spread their strength too thinly. The economic blockade did the rest.

[@criszh2981]

The cover graphics is insulting for the memory of Austrian-Hungarian soldiers and the whole video fails to support the thesis, that Austria-Hungary has been "useless"

[@criszh2981]

I do appreciate that the cover has changed. Conrad bore no little responsibility for the early disasters on the Eastern Front.

[@berkkarsi]

11:37 The answer

[@joshuamulberger9112]

There was the running joke of Austria Hungary that is something like as you an Austrian Commander who speaks German has a scout report into you who speaks Hungarian so you ask your Polish NCO that he is under to translate to a Slovene Private to translate it to your Slovakian Quartermaster to translate it into German. Went something like that lol. So no wonder why they were so disorganized at times.

[@jarrodcomins2399]

I'd love to see you make videos on each of the nations leaders of WW1 like the videos you made on Tsar Nicolas and Joseph Stalin

[@bjorntorlarsson]

WW1 Sea Lord Jackie Fisher (allegedly!?) said that he never told any politician anything about the war "don't mention the war". Because they'd tell their wives, who'd tell their friends, who'd tell the German spies. Except for prime minister Asquith. Who'd tell someone else's wife, who'd tell her friends, who'd tell the German spies.

[@TheWanderer691]

This video is really well presented. I already knew much was talked about here but you did a superb job in telling the story. The various films you used are great. Thank you very much for the great work.

[@antunerstic7943]

To die for what? To lose a life one thousands kilometers away in mud and cold for a couple of "noble" idiots in Vienna?? No way yesterday, today and tomorrow. No way!

[@richardkbreuer]

Just reading the book of Austrian General Krauss, who explained, why the Austrian Army couldn't defeat the Serbs in the beginning. Poor planing. Despite him telling the Armeeoberkommando that an attack from Bosnia into the mountainous and swampy regions of Serbia is fruitless and costly, the attacks weren't called off. Later in the war, they attacked head on into Belgrade, took the city and that's the end of Serbia. On the Eastern front, the Armeeoberkommando had no clue about military objectives, but didn't bother anyway and engaged the Russians head on. It was a bloody mess and the best officers and men (Alpine Corps, mind you!) died in senseless attacks in the vast plains of Galicia. Sad.

[@johnthomson6507]

I'm not sure this is entirely right. It was a cohesive armed force which fought and lasted the entire war okay. It wasn't Germany. It took 1.54 million dead. However against the Italians it did a good job. Russia it could rely on Germany and rumania. It took a good kicking. However on balance an OK army that lasted without hughe disruption unlike France and Russia.

[@colinhunt4057]

And it managed to so so with the most appallingly useless light artillery.

[@paulbennett4415]

I read somewhere that the German High Command described being allied to Austria-Hungary as though being chained to a corpse.

[@odysseus2656]

"Shackled to a corpse."

[@colinhunt4057]

Ludendorff, who was the originator of that statement, was a liar trying to cover up his own failure. Operation Michel had failed very, very badly. The High Seas Fleet mutinied. Ludendorff himself confessed by the end of summer 1918 that the German army was no longer capable of effective resistance in France and Belgium. The war was over; excuses didn't matter, and it was the Germans who lost it.

[@rursus8354]

WW1 was when evil imperialist powers thought they were going to crush each other as easily as they crushed natives in the colonies, and they realized that the crushing went in both directions.

[@chaist94]

Sometimes they had to issue orders in FIFTEEN languages. Could be a problem.

[@DMR_MAK]

Dang that algorithm did pick this up! Happy for the channel! 🎉🎉

[@poil8351]

the main reason the serbs performed well in the beginning was a mixture of overconfidence poor leadership and poor intelligence.

[@nikolakrickovic5101]

plus, A-H didn't participated in any kind of war for more than 40 years, Serbia just had finished two Balkan wars (1912-13)... That was the main reason.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

To conclude the reasons why Austria-Hungary was defeat by Serbia: Lack of war experience, incompetent high command and a lot of *indirect* support for Serbia (Russia crushed most of A-H's army in Galicia and Serbia got a lot of Entente supplies).

[@poil8351]

@TheAustrianAnimations87 mind you the Austro-Hungarians handed the serbians their first success by literally stumbling into the serbian armies artillery training range with fairly obvious results.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@poil8351 I don't know where you get this story from. From what I know is that Potiorek made the mistake attacking in the mountain areas instead of the flat ones with only *half of his army.*

[@matovicmmilan]

​@@TheAustrianAnimations87 Regarding the involvement of Russia, yes it pretty much saved Serbia from ultimately succumbing to overwhelming Austro-Hungarian & German manpower and resources advantage. On the other hand, there was very little sympathy for Serbia within France, let alone the Great Britain or Italy. No major equipment supply came to Serbia prior or after WW1 began. For example in 1915 France refused to deliver the much needed artillery ammunition from the ships docked in Greek port to Serbia until the last penny was paid.

[@qwidium]

Those early battles from ww1 are not known at all almost. Big boys took the spotlight. Austria vs Serbia and Austria vs Italy in ww1, such great subjects. On Napoleonic wars era, after being beated pretty hush on 4 campaigns like, Austria discovered the art of war throw the person of archduke Charles of Austria. Slow learning but learning.

[@aasphaltmueller5178]

thank you - The Austrian troops in the first battle in Italy were not that bad, so outnumbered and outmanouvered -(but by the best)

[@dzonikg]

Austria Hungaru had 2 failed invasions with 215 000 losses ,only when Germany and Bulgaria entered war in late 1915 Serbian army had to windrow. Off Course not Interesthing for west movies

[@venator5]

As it is being told to you by an ironically British citizen, who's country in second world war -Who's greatest success in second world war was the Dunkirk withdraval, since their expeditionalry forces which where considered the best of their forces where broken by the german forces and if it was not for the La Mance channel they would have invaded Great Britain too. -Who ass got kicked for the second time in Jugoslavia, Greece and Crete. and only where able to stop the German in Afrika by the help of "Uncle Sam" and pretty much becoming unable to do anything without Uncle Sam from that point on. So much that as the war went on they trusted The US to make all the day time bombings which where casualties where high and keep the job of bombing civilians at night which was far less strategical but at least safer to do. And lets not forgett about Arnhem. Now talk about having an "inconvenient" friend on your side at war.

[@rewdwarf123]

Er...the British had a massive victory over the Germans at El Alamein in October 1942. The USA didn't enter the war there until November. The British would have won in North Africa without them. Only when it came to the war in Italy in 1943, did the Americans take on a leading role.

[@venator5]

@@rewdwarf123 Take into account the ammount of equipment the US send there. Us Sherman tanks where not produced in BG right?

[@Sodacacik]

but people always say diversity is a strength?

[@chrisrauber6602]

only the ones voting 4 Kamala gg

[@airborngrmp1]

Which people? Point to a single person that would actually advocate for an Austrian-style Monarchy over about a dozen ethnically, religiously, and culturally heterogenous people without government representation of any kind as being preferable to a pluralistic society such as is found in the contemporary and contemporaneous 'West'. Last time I checked, "Self-Determination" (that means Nations of people get to choose their own government independently of the political influence of another more powerful Nation) was one of the 14 points promulgated by President Woodrow Wilson near the end of WWI as the only way to secure a lasting European peace, and has remained the Western Nation State paradigm ever since. You know, if you move in the exact opposite direction - that is, a total lack of diversity - you still circle right back around to Austria-Hungary anyway, whose ruling dynasty the House of Hapsburg was famous for their own lack of 'diversity' genetically - being the most inbred Royal House in post-classical European history. What an astoundingly simplistic take. What else do you have, apples and oranges are both fruit? People always say Sodacacik is an expert at comparing apples to oranges.

[@matovicmmilan]

​@@airborngrmp1 Austria-Hungary was very much decentralized which brought upon its own problems e.g. most people spoke only one language while there were at least 8 relevant ones. But no amount of decentralization and no matter how thoroughly represented various nations seem to be - different nations want their own national states. Almost all nations inside Austria-Hungary viewed it as a life under occu pation with partial exception of Croats who negotiated with the Austrian half about the formation of the third part of the AH which would've been composed of the South Slavic territories and controlled by the Croats. But the Hungarians were heavily opposed to giving up significant portion of its territory and equally if not more so were the Serbs, Italians, Slovenes and Bosnian Mu slims when faced with the prospect of living under the Croat rule.

[@matovicmmilan]

​@@airborngrmp1 Also I don't know about any of the current Western states being a pluralistic society? Ok, Switzerland and to some degree Belgium but 95% of the countries counted as the West are typical nation-states. I only use the undefined terms like the "West" when I have to since no two individuals in the world think of the same when they hear the "West". Even if we stick to the most concrete set of terms - geography, there's no widely accepted agreement.

[@chrisrauber6602]

@@airborngrmp1 I am Austrian, btw. And yes, we have traditionalists here still celebrating the "Habsburg Monarchy". U can meet several of them if u visit eg. Vienna or Salzburg. Shocked now....?

[@koenvangeleuken6544]

amongst the german soldiers sent to help the austrians in the mountain war was a young luitenant, Erwin Rommel. he fought bravely, earned a "Pour le Merite'' , one of the highest germon decorations.......and of course he got really famous in WWII !

[@ondrejvasak1054]

The fact that in most cases where A-H troops were led by Germans, they actually performed surprisingly well leads me to believe that the leadership was by far the biggest problem, the other problems could have been overcame or compensated for.

[@overworlder]

When discussing the two governments at 15:55 the map shows postwar borders, not the borders of the Dual Monarchy.

[@volbound1700]

The real issue sounds like Austria's inability to defeat Serbia quickly hurt them. Had they defeated Serbia, they could have focused heavily on Russia. Austria even struggled in wars prior to WW1, however. They performed poorly in the Napoleonic Wars and the Great Turkish Wars. They typically relied on numbers and diplomacy for success in wars. I do think Austria-Hungary may have been better off regionalizing its armies with local officers and divisions sticking together. Form a Centralized army around the Czech, Austrian, and Hungarian cores while regional militia around the other nationalities with focus on the regional armies being more on defense.

[@Seltheros]

Struggled in the Great Turkish War? The Austrians spent more than half of the Schätzkammer on the war against the Ottomans and conducted countless offensives many of which were successful. The French and the Venetians as christians allied with the Ottomans because of their petty territorial disputes with the Habsburgs. The Polish unfortunately had to make a pay for peace with the Turks because the were being constantly attacked by the Tatars and the Russians also. The great reconquest of Hungary (1683-1699) was initiated by the Austrians, Hungarians, and Poles, but at the Battle of Kahlenberg for example the Imperial forces were 2/3 of the whole attacking force. By the way unfortunately Sobieski left the conflict when he was moving through Northern Hungary because his troops were constantly harrassed by Imre Thököly's Ottoman-aligned forces. The Russians and the Venetians joined much later in 1686-87. I would rather state the Habsburgs decline started in 1788 after the disasterous battle at Karánsebes after which the empire has become somewhat of a second-class great power.

[@DMR_MAK]

I love these, lets call them, “Useless Series” - I don’t think I’ve ever seen a history segment that focuses on A-H specifically, typical its Germany or Central Powers in general. Thanks for the upload, heres to hoping it catches the algorithm!

[@matthewy2j]

On the opposite side of the spectrum, might be mistake but didn't Bulgari punch well above their weight for a central power?

[@mickwindle7723]

an excellent documentary, really enjoyed this view point... very captivating... Thank you

[@gaming.teacher]

I would like to tell a couple of things. Firstly, a very well presented and compact documentary yet I can not go over a couple of things. Let me elaborate. You wrongly represented the Isonzo front, you made it sound like Austria-Hungary did do offensive actions while that was true for only the 12th battle of the Isonzo, otherwise, for the other 11 offensives, AH was always on the defending side outgunned and outnumbered by the Italians. For the 12th offensive, AH, alongside the Germans, started an attack at the end of October 1917, the Italians were pushed all the way to the Piave river, but the Italians did not retake the lost territory until the battle of Vittorio Veneto in October 1918, which means that the AH did hold the front for 1 year while you made it sound like it was just for short while. Another thing you left out was the Strafexpedition, a clear sign that the military was not as useless as you want to depict it. Because of this attack, Italy did threaten to leave the war unless the Russians attack soon (this itself would make for a nice video, but back to the topic :P). The Brusilov's offensive was carried out earlier than planned. It was very effective, AH had to halt it's own offensive, fall back to the starting line as they had to relocate troops back to the eastern front. I am not sure if you did not come across this or you thought that it was irrelevant. I wanted to share this as depicting the whole picture is important though I know that you want to tell why they were useless. Only a whole picture shows how things really were, while being selective and misrepresenting facts is straight wrong. I am not accusing you of anything, don't get me wrong. :) The things I mentioned don't change much but show that things were not as bad as otherwise it would look like. Cheers and keep up with such interesting content!

[@67claudius]

Between the battle of Caporetto, October 1917 and the battle of Vittorio Veneto, October 1918 you forgot the decisive battle of the Piave River, June 1918, the real beginning of the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which the Austro-Hungarians had 120 thousand dead and 80 thousand wounded, a catastrophe.

[@gaming.teacher]

@@67claudius True, the second battle of the Piave was a defeat for AH, but an offensive defeat and not a defensive one. I am pretty sure that your numbers for the dead, are wrong, at least according to Tucker and Spencer. It does not change matters. But still, the video is very biased and represents only the things he wants to show. That is almost as portraying cigarettes and only mentioning the positive effects while we all know that there are many side effects. Anyway, merry Christmas, if you celebrate it. :)

[@bloqk16]

Back in the early 1970s in high school (California), when in my English literature class we were reading "All's Quiet On The Western Front," our English teacher explained the difficulties the Austro-Hungarian Army had because of the different languages among the conscripts. She illustrated that a platoon sergeant would have to be familiar with 8+ languages when calling out commands. How accurate was her claim? Who knows? But to this day I still marvel that an English lit high school teacher, and not a history teacher, shared that bit of World War I history with her students about how divided the Austria-Hungary Empire was. That same English teacher informed her students about the strong fortifications the German Army constructed during WW I, as there were passages in that same novel that told of artillery barrages.

[@timothyxtremegaming]

Nice video, greetings from Slovakia

[@rlosable]

Anyone can tell me what movies those scenes were from? Seems fairly well made....

[@SepSyn]

Came to ask the same question. Can't find anything

[@mjc8281]

I don't know much about the Austro-Hungarian army of the time period but my understanding during the Napoleonic war units were divided ethnically... indeed Hungarian units wore a variation of the standard uniform.. During this you seem to imply that that had been done away with by WW1 or am I mistaken about the Napoleonic war?

[@robrob9050]

I found it very stupid that they had blue uniform, while Serbians had standard green

[@bronsonperich9430]

Franz Josef was so good at uniting his people the Archduke was assassinated. And multiple languages were the standard situation in any imperial or multi-national army. The British Army didn't have that problem though because Gaelic had been beaten out of their Scottish and Welsh soldiers.

[@cyrusthegreat1893]

Excellent work as usual!! It would also be nice if you could list the names of the movies that you often include into your videos. Thank! 🙏🏻

[@fundamentos3439]

I beg to differ : it sure wasn't. Fighting a three front war , one of which had the largest army in the world , was not exactly an easy task . The alpine front , was a terrible attrition war , in one of the meanest geographies of the planet. The Balkan front was infested with constant hit - and - run tactics , by an enemy , protected by the civilian population. Despite Lemberg , the Brusilov Offensive , and the eleven previous battles at the Isonzo , the KuK army held together , and delivered brilliant victories , such as Gorlice , Montenegro , and Caporetto. The officer's nucleous was professional , and by November 1918 , the KuK occupied enormous stretches of Ukraine , Northern Italy , and the Western Balkans. The spread of nationalism among the troops , the Allied blockade , and Kaiser Karl's and Kaiserin Zita's forlorn hopes of a separate peace with the Entente , doomed the Hapsburg Monarchy

[@bobgatewood5277]

A most excellent production 👍

[@The89delta]

Thank you for all that you put into these. They are great.

[@pcojedi]

Great video, very informative, thank you for posting

[@MrMoggyman]

Not only was Austro Hungary ineffective, the alliance was once stated by Wilhelm II as being 'fettered to a corpse.' In addition the Austro Hungarian Army committed many despicable atrocities in Serbia against its civilians.

[@JonWebb-s3b]

Multi-ethnicities who actually hated being Austrian and Hungarian subjects along with language barriers doomed them from the start. Then there was Conrad Von Hotzendorf, one of the most incompetent military leaders in history. He had only one tactic which was sending human wave assaults into concentrated machine-gun and artillery fire where they were mowed down and turned into hamburger. If I was faced with these situations, I would do a 180 and run like hell too

[@EpicJoshua314]

I have family from Galicia who fought for Austria-Hungary in WW1 for the Landwehr. At least one was captured with another wounded in late 1914. My great grandfather was born in early 1915 in Russian-controlled Galicia. The family was Greek Catholic and more than likely faced persecution. I never knew that regions like Galicia were behind in culture and suffered considerable illiteracy then. Their town had a population of less than 15,000 people then and records I have found list a lot of my great grandfather’s relatives as farmers before the war so that explains a lot. Thanks for this video!

[@konradreinelt5242]

A bad biased video against Austria-Hungary whith a lot of failures or knowingly lies. This video is a shame for an serious historian. It shows more or less the view of the entente after WW1 and ignores the the modern historical researches. I don't want to defend the government of emperor Franz-Josef I. - he really was one of the most stupid Habsburg rulers and a disaster for the empire and especially for it's peoples. But a historian should be focussed on historical datas and facts and don't tell myths.

[@minuda]

7:54 "however they couldn't hold onto their gains and had to retreat soon afterwards." Uhmm... no? They held onto that territory until the Battle of Vittorio Veneto in 1918, an entire year. Your video editing and wording seems to suggest that they lost the territory immediately and were pushed back, but then you refute this yourself when bringing up the Battle of the Piave River shortly after. (8:33). The entire video is seemingly plagued with these little inaccuracies or overgeneralizations that lead me to believe this video was either poorly researched or inherently biased. You make assumptions on the intent of the Austro-Hungarian Army Command at 11:16 "even then the commanders failed to take advantage and Italy had time to re-group and launch a counteroffensive." Just looking at the wikipedia page would tell you that the reason why the offensive stalled out was because the Austro-Hungarian/German forces ran out of supplies, not because they lacked the intent to continue marching. The mentioned Battle of the Piave river was itself quite literally that attempt to follow-up and continue pushing for the Central Powers. And again, that "counteroffensive" would take place an entire year later, it wasn't some immediate action. That being said, the latter half of your video does a good job to explain the command and logistical issues.

[@rogerthomson9461]

The author John Biggins has written some fantastic and funny novels about the Austrian Hungarian war effort - highly recommended !

[@thestørmcrier2024]

One of the things that caused the Astro Hungarians to fail against Serbia in the beginning was the railway system. Because of their military rules for transport, the lead group could only go as fast as the groups behind it or something like that and it ultimately wound up being that Austria invaded Serbia by train at 8 km/h.

[@jedandva3907]

Great video , to bad you have not mentioned how Serbian army with its allies advanced from Thessaloniki to the Alps in 1918.

[@damienpeters8518]

Excellent video. It's worth going back and comparing the workings of the Austro-Hungarian armies with Habsburg armies from the pre 19th century

[@Paul_maistre]

5:44 that was mainly because of Luigi cadorna who is one of the worst commanders ever. He threw suicidal attacks that gained nothing and he never prepared for it either and was responsible for the defeat at caporetto

[@allanfifield8256]

1:00 "Belgium - We Switched Sides"??? For World War I that applies to Italy, not Belgium. Italy was (somewhat) bound by treaty to support the German Empire and the Austo-Hungarian Empire.

[@mitchycool92]

I always wondered why Austria-Hungary got its ass kicked in WWI. Great video man!

[@SirAdrian87]

The A-H army sucked because nobody wanted to fight for it. I am from Transylvania, loyalty to A-H was basically 0 after decades of oppression and abuse by the Hungarian administration. Both my great-grandfathers on my father's side fought in WWI in the Austrian army. One of the them was in an all-Romanian regiment. They were deployed to Serbia at the start of the war. From the onset they made a deal with the Serbians "we have no quarrel with you, we are here because we are forced to. we won't fire at you if you don't fire at us". They basically spent the entire of 1914 of half of 1915 NOT fighting the war. Then in 1915 the colonel in charge of the regiment decided everyone should go home so they lined up in a column, artillery and everything, and marched home and that was WWI for him. He was the only man in his regiment to kill someone during the entire war after she randomly shot back at a Serbian kid who kept taking pot-shots at them as they went to the latrine. My other great-grandfather was in Italy in a place he called Chinigretz. He was part of a mixed unit containing Romanians, Slovakians and some Transylvanian germans. In august 1916 Romania joined the war. At that point the Romanian and Slovakian officers in the regiment hatched a plan to surrender to the italians. During an offensive in 1917 they charged a bunch of Italian positions. They had a deal with the italians to let them pass. Once behind Italian lines they gave the Italians all intel they had and were sent to Ravenna for 1 month to recuperate. After 1 month they were sent to Romania to fight against Austria-Hungary, still using their Austro-Hungarian equipment. He finished the war in 1918 liberating his own village from the remaining Hungarian forces.

[@Dekken88]

"failed to defeat Serbia despite it much smaller military" - maybe consider that Austria sent the majority of its forces to fight Russia and the forces facing the Serbians were actually numerically inferior as the plan was to defend there. But the idiotic general leading the austrians there decided f*ck the plan and to attack anyway - and got beaten. Austria-Hungary put about 5 million men on the field, was fighting on 3 fronts - they were essential in the CP's lasting as long as they did. Theyy all did that as a multiethnic Empire and lasted 4 years - like the national states. The bad rep they got is due mostly to horrible military leadership and that them alone among the great powers botched their mobilization - switching on the run from a Serbia only to a Serbia and Russia plan so thats again leadership. This resulted in a catastrophic start of the war that got them a bad rep they never managed to rectify.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Glad that there are still some intelligent people who acknowledge Austria-Hungary fighting Russia at the same time and instead of simply saying "Hahaha, lost to Serbia!!!". However, Potiorek was a complete dumbass indeed and he should've been already removed from command right after the battle of Cer.

[@McIntyreBible]

Austria-Hungary made a poor decision waging war on Serbia, because it ultimately resulted in the disintegration of the empire four years later!

[@Bronxguyanese]

The Russians were able to heat the Austrians and Ottoman Turks, however they had extreme difficulty against Germany.

[@immortalandeternalgod-empe4681]

And there was actually another empire: the ottomans

[@dusk6159]

Which was inferior to Bulgaria, who luckily was on their side thanks to their big contribution, even in some parts of the Eastern Front.

[@andrewprockter1730]

The Entente was divided about Croatia. Even before Italy joined the Allies they demanded a say on the future of Dalmatia and, in addition, Serbia had their claim. The Allies would never have attacked Croatia as a consequence, irrespective of strategical considerations such as having have an enemy behind them.

[@casey203]

I’ve noticed a serious lack of perspective when it comes to historical armies and navies on KZbin. In the early 1900s there were hundreds of nations on the planet. Most of them didn’t have an independent state. Most of the ones with an independent state didn’t have an army equipped with modern rifles and artillery. Most of the states with modern weaponry didn't have the resources and economies of scale to equip and field hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Austria, Italy and Russia with all of these things were some of the most advanced nations on the planet. They just weren't as organized and as advanced as the Top few nations on the planet the UK, Germany, and France. Saying these nations were useless is misleading. If any of these European powers went up against armies in Asia, Africa, or the Americas (south of Mexico) they would have been completely dominate. Which is part of the reason why the European nations managed to build massive empires in the first place. Even the Ottoman empire was relatively advanced for its region of North Africa and the middle east.

[@rogermoore8977]

Can you imagine riding a rusty bicycle in a cavalry charge with a flat tire and that bell on the handlebar.

[@KingAlanI]

The Austro-Hungarian economy being messed up by steel and railway workers getting drafted is the sort of reason some people legitimately get draft exemptions. For instance, the US conscription system of the era (Selective Service Act of 1917) includes "Registrants employed in agricultural labor or industrial enterprises essential to the war effort" in the lower priority Class III

[@BrawlStars-uw3ug]

How a war drains all life out of society. This video is a masterclass. Well done!

[@markcrosbie6014]

I had a lovely hiking holiday in Bovic , right on the Asonzo, twenty years ago. God help the poor buggers on each side who had to fight world war one in that terrain, especially in the winter. Madness!! Mark Crosbie, Isle of Man

[@andrewprockter1730]

The Germans had the organisation and the railway equipment and links to move their troops very quickly between fronts. That's why they had the confidence to commit most of their troops to the Western Front. In spite of this commitment, they heavily beat the Russians in East Prussia despite being outnumbered 5:3. In comparison, the Russian communications were appalling. Their industry could hardly produce any weapons and ammunition, let along vehicles. Austrian communications were only just a bit better than the Russian ones and their commissariat was appalling.

[@cainancainan]

Didn’t realise I needed to watch a half hour video about WW1 but then again, what else was I going to do? Thanks algorithm

[@Ooflord39]

Honestly kinda hard to tell which one was worse Italy, Russia or Austria Hungary

[@karoltomis5704]

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

[@Ooflord39]

@karoltomis5704 true, but they invented the tank

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@Ooflord39 Ranking from the best to the worst: Russia > Austria-Hungary > Italy

[@poisonousbadge126]

Italy wasnt bad​@@TheAustrianAnimations87

[@lucaorlandi289]

​​@@TheAustrianAnimations87In Vittorio Veneto Austrian -hungarian escaped and ran from Italians

[@bjorntorlarsson]

Early on, Austrian soldiers were buried in their uniforms. Near the end of the war, 16 years old conscripts were assembled on those grave yards. Shovels were handed out. And they were told: "- Find one that fits your size. And by the way, very welcome to the Austrian Army!"

[@adler1964]

Where do you get that bullshit fromm?

[@bjorntorlarsson]

@@adler1964 Historians' lectures. I recommend that for you. Never spend a second on MSM, never watch any "documentary". Watch/listen to researchers' lectures instead.

[@vjbd2757]

Nice. Can't wait for the "Why was Italy so Useless in WW1"

[@mercedesvan-doors34]

A number of countries found their tactics and equipment lacking in the face of 'modern' warfare at the time and A-H seemed to be like this. When Germany led them they could achieve much but on their own not so much. In essence they had been preparing for a war that was 'old hat' by the time it broke out. Italy, A-h and Russia fought in very similar ways and relied of sheer weight of numbers to succeed or ground to a murderous stalemate. Russia won initially against them because she had huge manpower reserves but when modern tactics showed up in the Germans she was beaten.

[@franciscohernandez-2018]

Informative video. What movie or TV show is the color footage from?

[@vinc3678]

From which film are those clips with austro hungarian soldiers? Any tips for ww1 films, where i could watch austro-hungarian army? Something from eastern or italian front. Im not aware of any except czech film The Good Soldier Schweik from 1956.