Why did Austria-Hungary have such a terrible WWI record?

IMO Italy and A-H are two very different things. Yes, Italy had very big regional differences, my country has them too, we also allmost don't understand dialects from other parts of country, but nobody in 19th Century didn't doubt that Sicilians, Sardinians or Napolitans are Italians as Venetians or Piemontese.
OTOH in A-H to say some Czech, Romanian, Croat, Slovenian, Hungarian or Pole that he is Austrian or Austro-Hungarian or some Habsburgian :D would be a BIG mistake.

Italy was national state, with big problems, big regional differences, big linguistical difficulties etc., but she was national state.
A-H never was national state and could not become one, never mind when the POD is, it was tried and failed several times.
True but over a bit of time, and with the right POD, Austria could do this. Austria is a relatively neutral name, and with the right policies, it could be used as a tool of unity for the empire.
 
True but over a bit of time, and with the right POD, Austria could do this. Austria is a relatively neutral name, and with the right policies, it could be used as a tool of unity for the empire.

Under Franz Josef? Unlikely, the man had some intimate experience with what this kind of thing would lead to in 1848-9, I rather doubt he was keen on a sequel to that, which is the *first* requirement to actually get to a territorially, administratively, and politically consolidated Habsburg Empire.
 
It is more than a 20th Century problem in the case of an Empire ruled by the man with the longest dumbass streak of the 19th Century. This is like Prussia starting out with the army of 1806 and finishing the 19th Century with that army ruled by the King who lost the war with Napoleon. The other states in Europe *did* have generals and patterns of being militarily effective. Prussia, after all, defeated F-J and France, France defeated Austria and ultimately did defeat China in a full war (not a little poking on its borders), Russia defeated the Ottoman Empire under Nicholas I and Alexander II, the UK of course was pretty much unstoppable in its wars at the time......

Franz Josef's military has a consistent track record of epic, ludicrous failure. That doesn't indicate that the problems of WWI generalship were anything atypical of F-J's regime. And if we remember the *size* of Solferino and Koniggratz and how both were the largest battles in Europe pre-WWI, we have a regime with the *least* excuse out of all the Powers not to see where war was going in terms of size and to make even rudimentary efforts to prepare for it.

WWI to me is just the grandest example of how Franz Josef was suited to rule the A-H system, but unsuited to wage a war, and it's an example of how autocracy really can be determined by a single individual (for the worst). This is not off-topic when we consider that Franz Josef's entire reign was one lifetime, and this *did* lead to issues in the Empire again and again. The same man who blundered in 1848, 1859, and 1866 is the one who proved just as stupid in 1914.


Your point holds true directly; but the problem cut across Europe

What did the French do that was so brilliant in the 50 years before the war? How was their management of preparing for the war (red pants? no field kitchens? no modern heavy howitzers? gross shortage of junior officers? insane even on paper offensive plans? political hacks running armies and the war ministries?)

The same argument would hold true for the Russians

Considering that only one of the warmaking powers in 1914 (Germany) was even partially equipped for a modern war; it seems rather unfair to lay so much criticism on Austria in and of themselves
 

ingemann

Banned
People come with a lot of good points, but the biggest problem is the general laize-faire attitude of the empire, there was a tendency to just hope problems disappeared on their own, economic they choose to not use government policy to develop the empire, resulting in a lack of industry outside the areas where export to Germany was easy. They did little to develop railroads and canal network.

What AH really needed was that attempts to develop the empire even if they only focused on , a canal through Tyrol, would beside great income from customs also both have allowed a easier invasion of Italy and if Italy was friendly made a British blockage of the CPs even harder. This was sabotage by politicians who embraced the Austrian Schools of Economics.

The Krakow area is the modern centre of the Polish industry, while some of the coal and iron lies north of the Vistula on the Russian side of the river, the Austria side wasn't bad either. Again here the empire did little to develop the area, which could have helped the imperial economy. At the same time the development would have caused migration to the region by Russian Poles, Jews, Ruthenians and Germans all groups which would have prefered the empire to any alternative.

What the empire needed was a emperor willing to beat a few heads together and try to modernise at the very least the Austria part from the top down. At such the epmire could have been in a better position to rebuild after the early losses and forcing the Hungarians to show "solidarity" to the rest of the empire.
 
Your point holds true directly; but the problem cut across Europe

What did the French do that was so brilliant in the 50 years before the war? How was their management of preparing for the war (red pants? no field kitchens? no modern heavy howitzers? gross shortage of junior officers? insane even on paper offensive plans? political hacks running armies and the war ministries?)

The same argument would hold true for the Russians

Considering that only one of the warmaking powers in 1914 (Germany) was even partially equipped for a modern war; it seems rather unfair to lay so much criticism on Austria in and of themselves

Not to the same degree, however.

In Russia's case the problem was complicated by the legacy of the 1905 Revolution. While Russia did put into effect a number of military reforms, without serious political changes to go with them, no military reforms were ever going to save Imperial Russia in a WWI setting. Added to this was the utter fecklessness of Nicholas II and his advisors, of whom his only competent ones died violent deaths. Nonetheless Russia won the 1877-8 war, and this against the same empire that the British repeatedly bungled everything and anything they could against them. So Russia's fault was political. Russia even then made a few big bungling mistakes like all those shells and guns wasted on fortresses and the complete failure to establish a consistent chain of command, military failures irresolvable because resolving them requires political solutions first, the kind Nicholas II was incapable of making happen.

France's mistakes before WWI amounted to the failure to prepare a large amount of heavy artillery and to appreciate that firepower killed in great quantities.

Neither of these are comparable to Austria-Hungary, which did have experience in one man's lifetime of conducting enormous battles, individual weapons which were very good if they'd been better produced, and a military that (ultimately under German command as it turned out) was able to last to the last phase of the war. Franz Josef never capitalized on this at any time under his reign, which indicates that in his particular case A-H's failures may stem from much deeper causes than merely the nature of WWI combat in general.
 
Under Franz Josef? Unlikely, the man had some intimate experience with what this kind of thing would lead to in 1848-9, I rather doubt he was keen on a sequel to that, which is the *first* requirement to actually get to a territorially, administratively, and politically consolidated Habsburg Empire.
It could possibly work under Rudolf or Maximillian, though.
 
It could possibly work under Rudolf or Maximillian, though.

IMHO more under the former as he really was intending some reforms that would have certainly helped the Habsburgs, if not solved all their issues. The real question to me is why FF let Conrad back in after he was first fired, removing him would at least help in the narrow context of WWI (in theory, depending on who takes his place).
 
IMHO more under the former as he really was intending some reforms that would have certainly helped the Habsburgs, if not solved all their issues. The real question to me is why FF let Conrad back in after he was first fired, removing him would at least help in the narrow context of WWI (in theory, depending on who takes his place).
I think both would have done the job. Maximilian was also a reformer and quite liberal compared to his brother. Plus, he might have led Austria into an alliance with France.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What exactly should he have learned?

Also, I remembered a different reason: While A-H may have spent a relatively low percentage of the GDP for arms, their tax level was one of the highest in the world. Don't know for what they spent their money for - debt?

And I think that soldiers had to know more than 100 German words (though not that many more, either 200 or 500).

Civil Service. A world leader in job creation through government spending.
 
Civil Service. A world leader in job creation through government spending.

However no small part of this was the necessity of Franz Josef's regime having to conciliate all the little nationalisms as well as the separate administrative facilities of Hungary and Cislethania.
 

Deleted member 1487

People come with a lot of good points, but the biggest problem is the general laize-faire attitude of the empire, there was a tendency to just hope problems disappeared on their own, economic they choose to not use government policy to develop the empire, resulting in a lack of industry outside the areas where export to Germany was easy. They did little to develop railroads and canal network.

What AH really needed was that attempts to develop the empire even if they only focused on , a canal through Tyrol, would beside great income from customs also both have allowed a easier invasion of Italy and if Italy was friendly made a British blockage of the CPs even harder. This was sabotage by politicians who embraced the Austrian Schools of Economics.

The Krakow area is the modern centre of the Polish industry, while some of the coal and iron lies north of the Vistula on the Russian side of the river, the Austria side wasn't bad either. Again here the empire did little to develop the area, which could have helped the imperial economy. At the same time the development would have caused migration to the region by Russian Poles, Jews, Ruthenians and Germans all groups which would have prefered the empire to any alternative.

What the empire needed was a emperor willing to beat a few heads together and try to modernise at the very least the Austria part from the top down. At such the epmire could have been in a better position to rebuild after the early losses and forcing the Hungarians to show "solidarity" to the rest of the empire.

Have Koerber's plan succeed...
 
Austria is a relatively neutral name, and with the right policies, it could be used as a tool of unity for the empire.

Only if you mean Austria in its Latin (English) form, not in the German translation Österreich. The latter would be anything but neutral.

Under Franz Josef? Unlikely, the man had some intimate experience with what this kind of thing would lead to in 1848-9, I rather doubt he was keen on a sequel to that, which is the *first* requirement to actually get to a territorially, administratively, and politically consolidated Habsburg Empire.

Indeed. It is unfortunate that, despite being in a good position to do so (at least until the Ausgleich got "entrenched"), the Habsburg's didn't manage to establish a sensible federal framework with which to work. Germany did so in 1867/71 and it became natural to the way the German nation organizes itself. And then there is the US where it took generations to turn a federation into a union (and under completely different circumstances), but it worked out rather well in the end.

Establishing a Central State, or declaring a common Austrian "nationality" is a recipe for suicide. Even Josef II,with the best of intentions, failed here.

a canal through Tyrol,

Please provide a map. I fear that you first need a k.k.-Atomprogramm to manage such an endeavour.

The Krakow area is the modern centre of the Polish industry, while some of the coal and iron lies north of the Vistula on the Russian side of the river, the Austria side wasn't bad either.

The majority of the coal, and therefore of developing industry, is not in the Austrian Krakow-region, but within Prussian Upper Silesia. Krakow couldn't hope to develop economically as much as the region around Kattowitz (etc.) unless they got economically united (1919 onwards).

Generally you are right concerning that Austria would have needed more development. But planned state initiatives to push that was still rare in the 19th century, unless you do something directly military-related or it comes to traffic.

France's mistakes before WWI amounted to the failure to prepare a large amount of heavy artillery and to appreciate that firepower killed in great quantities.

Which ironically meant stepping back behind Napoleon's grasp of contemporary warfare. The little guy would have loved 1914's toys to barrage France's enemies.

IMHO more under the former {Maximilian} as he really was intending some reforms that would have certainly helped the Habsburgs, if not solved all their issues.

I agree. Rudolf had little of a concept and also a bunch of personal issues, which hinder me from seeing him as a ressourceful leader and possible saviour of the monarchy.
IIRC, Maximilian ruled quite liberally as governor of the (incredibly shrinking) Italian possessions- not that it would have helped much. However, he went from bad to worse engaging the no-win-situation in Mexico.

The real question to me is why FF let Conrad back in after he was first fired, removing him would at least help in the narrow context of WWI (in theory, depending on who takes his place).

I presume he thought that he could keep Conrad quite under control personally. :p
 
I think is title tells most of the story. This was not a 20th century nation state!

His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Francis Joseph I, by the grace of God Emperor of Austria; Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria, Illyria; King of Jerusalem, etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany, Crakow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of the Upper & Lower Silesia, Modena, Parma, Piacenza, Guastalla, Oswiecin, Zator, Cieszyn, Friuli, Ragusa, Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg, Tyrol, Kyburg, Gorizia, Gradisca; Prince of Trent, Brixen; Margrave of the Upper & Lower Lusatia, in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Triest, Kotor, the Wendish March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodship of Serbia
 
Obviously not. A-H had to fall apart, or suppress national movements, or develop into a loose federation with the emperor & king as a figurehead. The Habsburgs didn't want 1 and 3, and couldn't maintain 2 either.
 
Obviously not. A-H had to fall apart, or suppress national movements, or develop into a loose federation with the emperor & king as a figurehead. The Habsburgs didn't want 1 and 3, and couldn't maintain 2 either.

Even worse, they combined 2 and 3 by doing the Ausgleich from 1867 onwards, but had no concept beyond that (the Ausgleich was born out of despair anyways and nobody in Vienna except for the Empress wished for it). And as we know, they hit 1, too.
 
About AH generals,i believe Radetzky(Don´t know the speling)was a good general,he should be the one to lead the army.
 
Wiking, i know he was dead by 1914,but some people talked about the whole Franz Josef period.Radeszky could be the starting figure,of a better oficer cadre.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wiking, i know he was dead by 1914,but some people talked about the whole Franz Josef period.Radeszky could be the starting figure,of a better oficer cadre.

Well, Beck did a pretty good job in his era, but lasted too long as Chief of Staff. Conrad actually did improve training and doctrine over what it was in the Beck era and was in the middle of upgrading AH artillery and the reserve system when the war broke out. Also Conrad was on the way out as Chief of Staff.

In the first decade of the 20th century when reforms were really necessary and modern leadership/doctrine/equipment was required from a younger officer, there really wasn't anyone that stood out in the Habsburg military.
Radetzky was too far in the past to really matter by WW1 and Beck had reformed the General Staff and military in general for the modern era, pretty much filling the role the you are suggesting for Radetzky. Beck was AHs Scharnhorst.

The problem was finding a successor to function in the 20th century. Beck was too old and couldn't adapt to the modern forms of warfare that were developing and his chosen successor, Oskar Potiorek, was not favored by Franz Ferdinand because he was too much of a staff officer and only continued the tradition of Beck, rather than offering reforms outside of the way the General Staff functioned.

Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf was the most prolific reformer in the Habsburg army by the early 20th century. There were other better choices for reform, like Moritz von Auffenberg, who was also a better general than Conrad. But he ended up getting sacked as Minister of War for buying the Skoda mortars against the wishes if the penny-pinching government. He also earned the enmity of Franz Josef for speaking his mind. Even tactically officers like Maximilian Csicserics von Bacsány, who was an observer in the Russo-Japanese war and wrote a major report to Conrad about the critical reforms necessary for the AH army and was ignored, were far better as far as reforms went, but didn't have the profile or access to AH leadership that Conrad did.

Franz Ferdinand was a dilettante who appointed people that looked like they were experts, but had no real knowledge or interest in modern military science. He constantly fought with Conrad about modernizing the military, even though he appointed Conrad just for that purpose, because he didn't want to give up the pretty uniforms or parade marches and formation maneuvers/assaults he wanted to watch at military maneuvers. Very much like Wilhelm II and German military maneuvers, he wanted the pagentry, not realistic training. Of course Franz viewed the pagentry as a means to impress the population and awe his subjects into support for the Empire, essentially viewing the military as a regime defense force than a fighting force, even though he wanted both capabilities.

Basically so long as the Habsburgs are in power, the senile Franz Josef, the ignorant Franz Ferdinand, or the weak Karl, there will not be competent reform of the Habsburg military. Conrad is the best that it gets.
 
Ok, i got it now,Radetzky was too in the past.Thank You very much for all the information you worte.Can you teel me if Radezky was the best of it´s time,but didn´t seem to have the best political conections?Am i with a wrong perception?
 
Top