Whats wrong with Kuk army?

[Major Major]

A friend of mine told me a story about one KuK regiment where the language of command was English. (!)

All the men wanted to emigrate after doing their time, er doing their service. So many learned the language of the country they were going to.

The officers were educated men. Educated men spoke foreign languages. Even English.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A friend of mine told me a story about one KuK regiment where the language of command was English. (!)

All the men wanted to emigrate after doing their time, er doing their service. So many learned the language of the country they were going to.

The officers were educated men. Educated men spoke foreign languages. Even English.

I've actually read about that, IIRC there were something like 18 different languages in the unit, which IIRC was a company, not a regiment. So the only common language everyone had some experience with was English, but that was a bizarre circumstance.

 

[CVFTownshend]

I've actually read about that, IIRC there were something like 18 different languages in the unit, which IIRC was a company, not a regiment. So the only common language everyone had some experience with was English, but that was a bizarre circumstance.

There's a breakdown of the ethnicities in the Army in the mid-Nineteenth Century that went something like 128K Germans, 96K Czechs and Slovaks, 52K Italians, 50K Ruthenes (Ukrainians), 37K Poles, 27K Croats, 22K Slovenes, 20K Romanians, and 19K Serbs, among others.

Make a cohesive force out of that, especially in an era of conscription.

In 1914, the mobilization orders went out in 15 different languages, which makes Belgium's and Canada's issues with languages in their militaries look minor.

 

[Minty_Fresh]

Short of replacing the upper command with Germans, the Austrians need to attack Serbia with more men in 1914 and not spread their corps on the advance in a way that guaranteed a lack of cohesion.

If they win in 1914 on the Serbian front, they should be able to fight elsewhere reasonably well. The Italians were weak, and the Russians were beaten elsewhere on the front. The collapse of the army in 1918 came from being essentially starving as a nation. Not much they can do about that.

 

[Insider]

Thank you all for amazing level of discussion. Curiously, what caused food shortages? Lack of fertilisers? Requisition of horses? Or calling farmhands to military service? Or was it simply year of bad harvests, not related in anyway to war activity (except perhaps amount of fine dust in atmosphere?)

 

[Keb]

Thank you all for amazing level of discussion. Curiously, what caused food shortages? Lack of fertilisers? Requisition of horses? Or calling farmhands to military service? Or was it simply year of bad harvests, not related in anyway to war activity (except perhaps amount of fine dust in atmosphere?)

A major contribution was the loss of rolling stock during the initial disasters, when Galizia was overrun. This was followed up by the devastation of the largely agricultural Galizian plains, which provided a fair bit of food. Like all CPs, severed from the world market (more so than others, as the Austrians were locked into the Adriatic), the Empire suffered shortages of everything, including food. It's the same issue that Germany had, really.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Thank you all for amazing level of discussion. Curiously, what caused food shortages? Lack of fertilisers? Requisition of horses? Or calling farmhands to military service? Or was it simply year of bad harvests, not related in anyway to war activity (except perhaps amount of fine dust in atmosphere?)

Yes. Lack of fertilizer (they didn't have Haber Process plants until late in the war, built by Germany and even then limited numbers for explosive production), loss of horses when Galicia was overrun in 1914 (it produced something like half of the Empire's horses) plus the military use of most of the remaining horses, most of A-H's foot soldiers were their farm labor, Galicia being a major battelfield for a while which destroyed a lot of A-H's vital farmlands, Russia taking hostage of lot of civilians from areas they occupied/pro-Russia Ukrainians fleeing with the Russian army, transportation issues (also in Germany BTW) caused by the breakdown in rolling stock and rail lines due to extreme military use as well as the need to mainly use internal transport for war purposes rather than moving around civilian food, and the lack of coal which was critical for train use. IIRC there were some bad harvests too, but that was a factor less of weather than the above issues combined. Germany had many of these same problems too, minus her territory being overrun.

 

[Redbeard]

I've actually read about that, IIRC there were something like 18 different languages in the unit, which IIRC was a company, not a regiment. So the only common language everyone had some experience with was English, but that was a bizarre circumstance.

If this is anything beyond a myth it would be a rare exception. Each regiment recruited its men from a distinct province so at least the men would speak the same language and same province regiments were usually paired in Brigades. The command language in all non-Hungarian regiments was German, but a WWI army wasn't a place to study the finer tones of human communication. Soldiers were drilled to do this and that without giving it further thoughts or discussion and the command itself often wasn't recognisable in any civilian language. I can sure tell you as an example that the Danish command for "Present arms!" wouldn't be understood by any Danish speaker - it simply has been through too many mad drill sergeants. "But who cares, at this gutteral sound you just do this, and we train it until you can do it at sleep!"

Anyway most citizens in the Empire spoke and understood a little German - not enough to study litterature, but certainly enough to be drilled. BTW in WWI tens of thousands Danish speaking from Slesvig/Sønderjylland fought in the German army (and 5300 fell) - I have not seen one remark about the German command language being the problem - I'm sure a lot of other things appeared much more problematic.

Our current view on the KuK is very much seen through its successors who had to legitemise themselves by saying: "Look people, we just saved you from something absolutely hopeless and rediculous - how lucky you are!" Not just the politicians but also in litterature, like in the (unfinished) novel "The Brave Soldier Schwejk" by the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek. It is actually a very well written story, and quite funny, but was as much a showdown with militarism as with the KuK. As pacifism was quite popular among intellectuals after WWI the novel became very popular (a TV series was made in the 70s), also because you through it could critisise militarism without being too hard on your own nation. The KuK had none to defend it after 1918 but was quite handy as a scapegoat.

From my own contact to not at least Poles it is my impression however, that there has since been a growing recognition of the KuK. I have even heard Poles, who lived before 1918, say that Poles never had a better time than during the KuK!

What first of all tied the KuK together was the Emperor and the army, and with the last gone the rest went too. By early 20th century the Empire sure was challenged by modern times, who wasn't? National identity is usually seen as the main challenge to the KuK, but actually I have come to doubt about that. By WWI national identity had been "modern" for a century but what IMHO was the problem was the too dominant place Hungarian national identity had been given after 1867 - it was that and not the inherent idea of the Empire that stopped room being given to other (Slavic) national identities.

The (Habsburg) Empire is often in general being seen as a colossus on clay feet - but actually it had a major position in Europe for longer than anyone else since the Roman Empire - not much clay feet in that! *

*) I count from 1439 after which Habsburg occupied the Emperor title until 1806 and after that also had the major position until at least mid 19th century, and a great power status until 1918. But already Rudolf I in 1273 was the first Habsburg with a major role.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If this is anything beyond a myth it would be a rare exception. Each regiment recruited its men from a distinct province so at least the men would speak the same language and same province regiments were usually paired in Brigades. The command language in all non-Hungarian regiments was German, but a WWI army wasn't a place to study the finer tones of human communication. Soldiers were drilled to do this and that without giving it further thoughts or discussion and the command itself often wasn't recognisable in any civilian language. I can sure tell you as an example that the Danish command for "Present arms!" wouldn't be understood by any Danish speaker - it simply has been through too many mad drill sergeants. "But who cares, at this gutteral sound you just do this, and we train it until you can do it at sleep!"

Anyway most citizens in the Empire spoke and understood a little German - not enough to study litterature, but certainly enough to be drilled. BTW in WWI tens of thousands Danish speaking from Slesvig/Sønderjylland fought in the German army (and 5300 fell) - I have not seen one remark about the German command language being the problem - I'm sure a lot of other things appeared much more problematic.

Our current view on the KuK is very much seen through its successors who had to legitemise themselves by saying: "Look people, we just saved you from something absolutely hopeless and rediculous - how lucky you are!" Not just the politicians but also in litterature, like in the (unfinished) novel "The Brave Soldier Schwejk" by the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek. It is actually a very well written story, and quite funny, but was as much a showdown with militarism as with the KuK. As pacifism was quite popular among intellectuals after WWI the novel became very popular (a TV series was made in the 70s), also because you through it could critisise militarism without being too hard on your own nation. The KuK had none to defend it after 1918 but was quite handy as a scapegoat.

From my own contact to not at least Poles it is my impression however, that there has since been a growing recognition of the KuK. I have even heard Poles, who lived before 1918, say that Poles never had a better time than during the KuK!

What first of all tied the KuK together was the Emperor and the army, and with the last gone the rest went too. By early 20th century the Empire sure was challenged by modern times, who wasn't? National identity is usually seen as the main challenge to the KuK, but actually I have come to doubt about that. By WWI national identity had been "modern" for a century but what IMHO was the problem was the too dominant place Hungarian national identity had been given after 1867 - it was that and not the inherent idea of the Empire that stopped room being given to other (Slavic) national identities.

The (Habsburg) Empire is often in general being seen as a colossus on clay feet - but actually it had a major position in Europe for longer than anyone else since the Roman Empire - not much clay feet in that! *

*) I count from 1439 after which Habsburg occupied the Emperor title until 1806 and after that also had the major position until at least mid 19th century, and a great power status until 1918. But already Rudolf I in 1273 was the first Habsburg with a major role.

From many historians working on the Habsburg military in WW1 it was very poorly run, made many mistakes, was very wasteful with it's men's lives, the generalship poor, and the actual apparatus of state pretty incompetent and lazy. That said the Habsburg period prior to WW1 had it's problems too, but in many ways was better than the mess of the interwar years; that however doesn't mean that the Habsburg Empire was so great, it is more a comment on the problems built up after WW1. Sure some of the successor states had major problems (Yugoslavia) due to incompetence, but many issues were the result of the war and settlement (Hungary and Austria). Several states were much better off (Czechoslovakia, Romania, arguably Poland). For the Poles you mention that lived before 1918 that was likely nostalgia and was of course influenced by the fact that peace existed for generations before WW1, so the post-war period was a mess due to the political, social, and economic upheaval, not because the Habsburgs were so great, just that the war screwed up life after it. Plus we tend to look back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses.

That said it is more than likely that without WW1 the Habsburg Empire would have muddled on for generations and perhaps even reformed in the meantime.

 

[Redbeard]

Sure a lot went wrong in WWI, but that really wasn't special for the KuK. Disrespect of the lives of ordinary soldiers wasn't special for the KuK, that was the rule! But if we for a moment try to rank the involved in WWI in "respect for the soldiers" I would say the Germans were best and the Russians and Italians worst and the French certainly worse than the KuK, at least until Petain. You could argue about where to put the British but the KuK really appear rather ordinary among contemporaries. What was special was that the KuK more than any relied on the army being intact, the others had a "nation" to fall back on in case of disaster.

Were the Poles just nostalgic? What view on past times isn't? From what I heard they rather argued, that compared to being ruled by Prussia, Russia or a communist regime the Habsburgs were the ones giving the best "room". I haven't had much contact to Czechs but I have heard from many ex-Yugoslavians, especially Slovenians, that the happy times were Habsburg and that was where they belonged (in a central European circle rather than a Balkan). Anyway what is now Czech Republic (Böhmen/Bohemia and Mähren/Moravia) then had a very strong German influx (in 1910 about a third of all in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia).

Anyway it is not my intention to paint a rosy picture of the KuK, but rather than being especially hopeless I think it was more "ordinary" among contemporaries. Could it have survived WWI? Perhaps, but as you say not without reforms, nobody could/can survive without reforming.

What might be really interesting from a present day perspective is of course if a "Co-operation" roughly covering the area of the old KuK would be more survivable than the EU? Not that it would take very much however...

 

[CVFTownshend]

Setting aside the larger issues, the linguistic realities of the KuK have to be considered; although in peacetime and even during initial mobilization, "ethnic" units can be raised, activated, and even assigned to formations, the reality is that when operations begin, communications are slower, the ability for one unit to reinforce another is more prone to friction, and the ability to slot in fillers and replacements where needed, as opposed to where they fit, is negated.

These are challenging enough for armies with two languages (Canada and Belgium being obvious examples); for those with a dozen or more, it is a very real issue for organizational cohesion, especially in any force that requires the mobilization of multi-ethnic populations. The Philippines in 1941-42 is an obvious example.

Obviously, if the KuK was content to only conscript German speakers, that's one thing: but they were not.

 

[Redbeard]

Setting aside the larger issues, the linguistic realities of the KuK have to be considered; although in peacetime and even during initial mobilization, "ethnic" units can be raised, activated, and even assigned to formations, the reality is that when operations begin, communications are slower, the ability for one unit to reinforce another is more prone to friction, and the ability to slot in fillers and replacements where needed, as opposed to where they fit, is negated.

These are challenging enough for armies with two languages (Canada and Belgium being obvious examples); for those with a dozen or more, it is a very real issue for organizational cohesion, especially in any force that requires the mobilization of multi-ethnic populations. The Philippines in 1941-42 is an obvious example.

Obviously, if the KuK was content to only conscript German speakers, that's one thing: but they were not.

But the conscription or replacement system didn't work like that. Replacements were sent from the regimental depots and for centuries even a part of the officers were appointed by the regimental Inhaber. Once in a regiment (with others of the same ethnic group) you would very rarely if ever be in another regiment. And actually the replacement system worked very well, perhaps too well as it didn't motivate commanders to look after the personell they already had.

In the artillery the ethnic composition would be more mixed, but here it was demanded that you could read and write German and officers were appointed from the most capable NCOs. To become an NCO you needed 5 years of training at the artillery academy at Budweiss, and after that two years if becomming officer (so the real Budweiser is a gunner!).

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Most of it's leaders were idiots. Like Conrad von Hötzendorf.

 

[Ian_W]

There is nothing wring with the KuK except it didnt win.

Look at Mark Clarke's army in Italy, with their collection of Indians, Brazillians, African American airmen who were unable to vote at home, a heavily segregated white American army, New Zealanders and Canucks.

If they had lost, we'd all agree it was impossible ... but they had victory.

PS I apologise for the inappropriate for the mark one. I shouldnt have written it, and I definitely shouldnt have been drunk-posting. CalBear was right to give me a week off.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There is nothing wring with the KuK excpet it didnt win.

Look at Mark Clarke's army in Italy, with their collection of Indians, Brazillians, Nigger airmen, dumb crackers, sheep-fucking New Zealanders and Canucks.

If they had lost, we'd all agree it was impossible ... but they had victory.

If I were you, I'd really consider deleting this post or at least rephrasing it substantially.

 

[CalBear]

There is nothing wring with the KuK excpet it didnt win.

Look at Mark Clarke's army in Italy, with their collection of Indians, Brazillians, Nigger airmen, dumb crackers, sheep-fucking New Zealanders and Canucks.

If they had lost, we'd all agree it was impossible ... but they had victory.

Sort of excessive, don't you think?

 

[Saphroneth]

The doctrine of elan did turn out to be a huge disaster, didn't it?

Elan is a tricky one - it was based on real results, after all, and indeed there's a strong argument to be made that you need elan in your infantry in a trench war. The problem is when Elan is considered to be a substitute for proper tactics.

So, knowing what we know now, here's how you could have rather substantially improved the Austrian army - have it focus on a mixture of fire and elan. Start in the 1870s or so.
Take recruits with good eyesight and group them into "jaeger" battalions, which use effective rifles for precisely aimed fire to suppress the enemy when they're defending or to shoot up the enemy when they attack - you're going for something like the British here - and the rest into "regular" battalions, who are trained in more general elan-type tactics where the emphasis is on charging and who are not required to be accurate beyond one to two hundred yards.
That's quite an effective doctrine in the 1870s, and more importantly it gets the army into a mode of thought where you have the fire support wing and the assault wing.
Then when technology advances, the fire support wing proliferates. You then have machine guns, artillery, all of that focused into the "fire support" component of the military, where the goal is to suppress the enemy with the jaegers and then charge home with the regulars if attacking (and to deliver heavy and concentrated fire on an attacking enemy before counter-attacking when they retreat).

The reason this is important is that it's basically what works well in a WW1 environment. It's not perfect, but it's a lot closer than anyone else will have, and it's also nice and adaptable to further weapons development. More to the point, as you're only training a minority of the troops in the difficult stuff (the jaegers) you can focus your language education on them.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Elan is a tricky one - it was based on real results, after all, and indeed there's a strong argument to be made that you need elan in your infantry in a trench war. The problem is when Elan is considered to be a substitute for proper tactics.

In the case of the French in 1914 bayonet charging Germans infantry with elan was a disaster waiting to happen. That was proven in 1870 and German infantry only got more lethal in the intervening time. Its certainly easy to overpraise the Germans, but tactically they were probably the best in the world in 1914 with the BEF regulars being probably pretty close, and mad chargers at first contact were not the way to handle them as history proved. Of course everyone should have known that by 1914 due to the experience of the Russo-Japanese war and what had happened to the Japanese attacks on Russian trenches, plus of course the Balkans wars.

So, knowing what we know now, here's how you could have rather substantially improved the Austrian army - have it focus on a mixture of fire and elan. Start in the 1870s or so.
Take recruits with good eyesight and group them into "jaeger" battalions, which use effective rifles for precisely aimed fire to suppress the enemy when they're defending or to shoot up the enemy when they attack - you're going for something like the British here - and the rest into "regular" battalions, who are trained in more general elan-type tactics where the emphasis is on charging and who are not required to be accurate beyond one to two hundred yards.
That's quite an effective doctrine in the 1870s, and more importantly it gets the army into a mode of thought where you have the fire support wing and the assault wing.
Then when technology advances, the fire support wing proliferates. You then have machine guns, artillery, all of that focused into the "fire support" component of the military, where the goal is to suppress the enemy with the jaegers and then charge home with the regulars if attacking (and to deliver heavy and concentrated fire on an attacking enemy before counter-attacking when they retreat).

The reason this is important is that it's basically what works well in a WW1 environment. It's not perfect, but it's a lot closer than anyone else will have, and it's also nice and adaptable to further weapons development. More to the point, as you're only training a minority of the troops in the difficult stuff (the jaegers) you can focus your language education on them.

Actually the Austrians did largely have a very highly trained force that was very good with marksmenship and fire and maneuver tactics, plus probably the best light pattern MG for maneuver warfare that existed in Europe at the time. The problem was their reserves weren't nearly as good and the professional army, for all of its skills, was a thin crust and quickly expended in the heat of modern warfare. Remember that the Austrians actually won the initial engagements with the Russians in Galicia in 1914 quite handily and tactically and operationally outmaneuvered them; the problem was when they ran into Russian artillery they were smashed up because next to the Germans the Russians had the best artillery park in the world. The reality is that artillery did most of the killing and the Austrians did not have the budget to invest heavily in that, so when it ceased to be an infantry only engagement the Austrians were defeated. When it was just Grunts slugging it out the Austrians bettered the Russians in 1914.

 

[Redbeard]

Elan/guts/courage/motivation or whatever you call it certainly is needed in any infantry force but alone it won't guarantee your success. Like taking on a grizzly with a knife sure takes a lot of elan - but the more elan you have the less likely your survival is. But if you combine your elan with some ingenuity and mount your knife on a stick to have a spear your chances of survival suddenly rise, but you still need a lot of elan.

Similarily I think Saphronet's point about the KuK utilising their traditions for rifle troops are well placed. Rifle troops had been used since mid 18th century and the Jäger regiments of WWI belonged to the elite (the Kaiserjäger being the most known) but apparently never was incorporated into general tactics. Perhaps because the tradition was to have rifletroops(marksmen) separated in distinct regiments/bataljons.

But the KUK early on the East front (winter 14/15) ad hoc raised socalled "Jagdkommandos" with very flexible use of firepower and movement but rather for infiltration and countering it than as the tactics of basic tactical units. The KuK also already from autumn 1916 trained assault troops (incorporating Jagdkommandos) and AFAIK Caporetto in 1917 saw widespread use of assault tactics, but again rather in special units than as the general tactic. But here they were not distinct from the German Army.

I think were are back to the basic problems of the lacking funding leading to emphasis on quantity rather than quality - with the manpower resources available (and general disrespect for life) it was too obvious to rely on just sending infantry masses forward - just like most of the rest of the WWI armies.

The KuK sure was very conservative and any change in anything certainly would be met by resistance based on the long traditions, but really - find me an army where that didn't apply! Just take the British cavalry - in WWII it still insisted on charging as headlessly and uncoordinated with other arms as it had in Napoleonic times. OK it had tanks by WWII but apparently not even that made an impression! If that isn't sticking to tradition!

Anyway the KuK had shown it could reform effectively. What Archduke Charles did in early 19th century was very impressive, in a few years transforming an old linear style and 100 % professional army into a largely conscripted and flexibly fighting force was very impressive and IMHO fully on par with what Scharnhorst and Gneisenau did in the Prussia army - but are famed for.

 

[Ian_W]

Sort of excessive, don't you think?

Nope. They applied the right amount of force to the Nazis, and were an excellent example of a brave, multi-national force.