Talk:Battle of Vittorio Veneto
|WikiProject Italy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
It strikes me that the article adopts a very odd tone with regards to the conditions of battle at Vittorio Veneto and the results achieved there. Omitted is the fact that the Austro-Hungarian Army was at that point already collapsing, with hundreds of thousands of desertions per month bleeding it dry. The Italian victory address is really inappropriate without context to balance its obvious POV; the "victory" was more properly won against shadows, not soldiers. I don't suspect any mischief was involved here, but in any case these matters need attention. Albrecht 19:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree, Albrecht. You are either unaware of the state of the Italian Army at this point, or you ignore it completely. The fact is that Italy had faced many defeats this far, which had resulted in enormous losses; at least 600 000 dead and many more captured (265 000 only during the Caporetto offensive), as well as extensive desertions. Thus it is not correct to assume that the Austro-Hungarian Army was too crippled by desertions to defend itself from the Italian offensive; in comparison to the Italian Army it cannot have been inferior before the final offensive, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be regarded as a true victory.
--Tzachi 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Let's keep in mind that the issue at hand here isn't what you or I think but an historical consensus of reliable sources. For lack of access to the library right now, this site doesn't exactly confirm your tale of the tattered and broken Italian army, and states that "simultaneous political turmoil completed the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." This is in harmony with what I've read elsewhere, although I suppose it's possible I've consulted erroneous accounts. In any case, none of this excuses the addition of the Italian victory address without any context to balance its huge distortions. Cheers, Albrecht 00:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Think that Albrecht is quite right about the victory address. But, on the other hands, i have to say that the last sentence is really suggestive, also considering that the Austrians called "Strafexpedition" their attack on may/june 1916! Giancarlos 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
In line with that, I have never seen it suggested that it was the Austrian defeat that forced the Germans to terms - I'll change it to 'one of the many reasons' as this seems more appropriate. Thejester
Vittorio Veneto was not a battle, but a collapse of the KuK army.
Well, in every battle there is a winner and a looser, regardless to the causes of the defeat. The fact that the Austrian eagle was already in agony, does not change the fact that the battle was won by the Italians. Otherwise, one should also consider that in the previous three years some catastrophic defeats suffered by the Italian army (Caporetto, Ortigara...) DID NOT result into the collapse of Italy. Austro-hungarian army during the whole course of the war was not able to crush its enemy, and this resulted in the end into the final Italian victory at Vittorio Veneto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsog (talk • contribs) 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the contoversy section. While there is a great deal of historical debate about the results and motivation in this battle the section handled it inappropriately. Clearly written from a very pro-Italian POV, certainly did not cover both justifiable viewpoints 1) Italy helped bring the war to a rapid end by a crushing victory or alternatively 2) The Italians attacked against already exhausted de-motivated troops on the verge of collapse. Kurtk60 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"The fact is that Italy had faced many defeats this far" Really. I think this discussion is written from the Austrian POV. You ignore Italian successes and belittle the ultimate Italian victory. The Italians faced a number of problems, aside from facing very strong defensive mountain fortifications; it was significantly outnumbered both in population and material by Austro-Hungarians. Many of the Italian offensives did not have sufficient heavy artillery and ammunition due to the small Italian industrial base.
The fact is both sides had problems launching offensives in this difficult terrain, the mountains not only made attacks very difficult but also made re-supplying the front lines a major effort. Attacks were frequently disrupted by flooding rivers and other natural events.
The backbone of the Austrian Army was broken at Battle of Piave. However the notion that Austro-Hungarian forces simply gave up at Vittorio Veneto is not true.
By the way, the battle is referred to as Vittorio Veneto in my copy of Encyclopedia Britannica of 1922 the best source of the Italian front in WW1 I have found.
This discussion may be old but as an outsider I think that the article is still written from an Italian POV. But first of all, the article is mixing up battle with offensive. That was also the reason for the POV objection above, I guess. The Italians may have won the battle, but the subsequent advance or offensive resp. is anything else than a "decisive victory" against an army, because there were no regular Austrian combat forces anymore. Of course, there were active German remnants or even maybe some divisions still intact, but there was no fighting on behalf of the Austrian-Hungarian army anymore, simply because such a state does not exist since 27 October 1918 while the article sets the end for the 'battle' on 4 November 1918, a week after the collapse of the empire. In the sources below you find some claims that the Austrian-Hungarian troops were leaving as early as 29 October 1918. There were no desertions in that sense, as there was no more high command by the end of this week whom to desert from. Secondly, the "end of the A.-H. empire" was not a direct consequence of the Italian attack, and the given sources below do in any way support such a claim. The end of the empire occurred during battle, even before the Austrian defeat was a military one. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Imperial army asked for an armistice on 29 October, two days before 31 October, when Hungary broke their union with Austria, effectively ending the Empire (and not on 27 October as mentioned). The armistice petition -accepting all Wilson's preconditions for peace- could have never come about had the battle not taken place, thus the military defeat predates Austria-Hungary's dissolution by at least 48hs. One of the cited sources uses the term "thereafter", so I see no reasons to claim that the statement is against NPoV policy. The same for Ludendorff's quote: "In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself..." The offensive lasted until 4 November (a ceasefire had been arranged 24hs before) only because the Italian army commanders wanted to gain as much terrain as possible, but the Imperial troops had already conceded defeat by 29 October. We can discuss ad aeternum what was first, i.e. Italian victory or Habsburg collapse, but Wikipedia relies on sources, and cited sources are quite clear if not explicit on this point.--Darius (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
A Knight of of Vittorio Veneto
I'm not a student of this battle, but in reading the various entries around this part of WW1, it appears that the numbers of casualties are inconsistent, maybe incorrect. The summary boxes seem to put the Italian casualties somewhere in the 150K-200K region. But the background section of this entry cites 300K and uses "losses" instead of deaths or casualties. It's unclear to me why there is a difference, and after reading the discussion above on this page, I also wonder whether Italians were also encountering large numbers of desertions. Perhaps the author is figuring this in as well? Tim Warner (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)