WI no Austro-Hungarian common army?

[Fehérvári]

As everyone, who is familiar with the era of the Great War knows how ill-equipped and poorly funded the Austro-Hungarian common army was, because both Austria and Hungary was more willing to spend on the second-line armies, the Landwehr and the Honvéd; an interesting idea came to my mind. What if Austria and Hungary both had their own respective armies linked only by the Emperor/King an Supreme Commander and some kind of alliance-like joint Overhighcommand?

Let's say the Ausgleich goes different and Franz Joseph is more willing to contribute towards the Hungarian demands.

In my opinion, it would make both sides of the Empire more willing to spend on the military, since they not only would compete with other Great Powers, but with each other as well.

What do you think about it? How could it change the Great War? Please share with me your opinion!

(The navy would remain common though.)

 

[LordTerra]

It depends. This division in the military could make improvements but it could cause issues

Like the Hungarian army not moving in defence of the Austrian parts of the empire, only placing defensive troops within their own part of the empire and focusing on Serbia. This could happen give versa

Possibly it could also make further compromise and progress in other areas even more difficult because both sides of the empire have a large stick to hit the other with if the other wont back down, unlike the joint army that couldn't be relied upon to pick one side.

 

[Fehérvári]

It depends. This division in the military could make improvements but it could cause issues

Like the Hungarian army not moving in defence of the Austrian parts of the empire, only placing defensive troops within their own part of the empire and focusing on Serbia. This could happen give versa

Possibly it could also make further compromise and progress in other areas even more difficult because both sides of the empire have a large stick to hit the other with if the other wont back down, unlike the joint army that couldn't be relied upon to pick one side.

Hmm, I see, since it is natural to first deal with the threat upon your own state, the Hungarians would probably focus on Serbia first indeed, but I doubt the Hungarian leadership would be that short minded to ignore the threat coming from Russia and her panslavist policies (Russia was a great factor even in the Compromise of '67).

About the further comprimises and the neutrality of the common army: The common army's high command and most of the command chain was mostly from the Austrian side of the Dual Monarchy so in my perspective there's no question which side would the common army favour. This sceniario indeed the tension between Hungary and Austria would be higher, but the Hungarians would be in a better position compared to OTL as well. Hungary would be more effective in pushing for demands and since non of the two sides would want a war (because Russia), the Austrians would be more willing to give in, which would lead to the decrease of the inner-tension in Hungary. The best example is the National Bank of Hungary. Not one Government bled out in Hungary, because they couldn't achieve to establish a separate national bank for Hungary.

Ofcourse, this is only my opinion and I'm eager to hear others opinions as well to be able to see the situation in multiple perspectives.

 

[JackLumber]

Sounds overall less effective to me and set a dangerous precedent for the multi ethnic state in my opinion.

 

[Pere F.]

Arm race inside your borders that surest way to get a civil war.

 

[Fehérvári]

The reason behind the underfundedness of the common army was because both nation prefered their own second-line armies (Honvéd, Landwehr) and because of the Hungarian opposition to raise their share of the budget on the common army. Because of the overwhelming German majority in the Highcommand, they feared the Austrians could turn it against them.

Arm race inside your borders that surest way to get a civil war.

Not necessarily. As long as both sides benefit from the cooperation, the confrontation is avoidable. Ofcourse in special circumstances the tension could escalate, but you have to have three important factors:
1. Have Franz Ferdinand, or someone with similar anti-Hungarian attitudes on the Throne.
2. Have Russia be somehow less menacing. (Maybe a won Great War would do.)
3. Have both sides to be not so concerned about their minorities behavior.

 

[JackLumber]

In a central powers victory of ww1 it doesn't really matter because AH will be a German sock puppet

 

[Fehérvári]

In a central powers victory of ww1 it doesn't really matter because AH will be a German sock puppet

Why would it?

 

[JackLumber]

Why would it?

Basically all of europe save Russia would be and otl it became a German sock puppet not long after the war started. You would have to change a lot to get AH in a position where doesn't end up Germany's vassal following a ww1 central victory.

 

[Magyarország]

A terrible, terrible catastrophe.

The Common Army wasn't THAT badly equiped. They had enough modern rifles for all of their soldiers when the war started and, when equipment attrition massively hit the army after the disasters of 1914, like it did every armies, it recovered in a decent time and even then, I think they still had enough old rifles to arm the rear troops until production caught up. After all, Steyr and FÉG produced an enormous amount of M1895s. Meanwhile, Russia is notorious for not having enough rifles for their massive army in both world wars.

Its problems equipment-wise were in modern, quick-firing field artillery and, later, uniforms. Škoda was doing its best, but the governments were all too frugal when it came to modernising the Artillery and they were short of guns nevertheless despite having good designs ready. Still, they had top-notch Mountain artillery and Siege Artillery.
Uniforms became a problem later in the war as they switched from the dark-blue uniforms to field gray/green. A-H industrial capacity struggled throughout the war, but that has little to do with the frugality of the governments over the Common Army and more about industrial limits in a rapidly-growing economy. Honestly, I think the equipment issues are overstated and little different from the other armies in the war, just like the linguistic issues (although the A-H commanders really fuckes up when they blamed Czech soldiers after the initial battles with Serbia).

Anyways, having no Common Army is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The survival of that army until 1918 is what kept the Empire together for so long despite everything. Plus, having two separate armies sounds like a logistical and leadership nightmare. Without a Common Army, is there even a common General Staff on top of all branches? If so, maybe I'm being a bit too critical and pessimistic, but it would still be a problem supplying units that are in completely different insitution. At least, with the Common Army, there's a cadre and Staff ready to command all the branches into cohesion. I really don't think the Landwehr and Honvéd can have much cohesion without the Common Army and its Staff, which is a disaster waiting to happen... Even if their is a joint staff, I can imagine it having serious trouble getting both branches to cooperate: Getting Honvéd units to be transfered to the Isonzo front of Galicia or Landwehr units in Vojvodina or Transylvania...

Unless the two branches and a joint staff can create some kind of unity between them all, then I would stand corrected, but I sincerely doubt it even if it's hard to imagine Austrian and Hungarian forces in a worse situation than after the inital OTL battles.

Honestly, WW2 Germany is the perfect example of how wrong things get when there's so much competition between branches.

However, there is absoluty no guarantee that A-H becomes a puppet of the Germans. If the A-H forces perform better and suffer less catastrophic casualties in 1914, then it simply won't happen.

Edit: I forgot to mention: I remember reading that Hungarian officers were often looked-down upon by other Magyars for serving in the Common Army rather than the Honvéd, with the latter being more honourable and 'Hungarian', explaining why the Hungarians were under-represented in the Common Army. Making the Common Army more attractive for Magyar officers would have worked wonders.

 

[thezerech]

Considering that OTL's Military problems were basically all the Hungarian's fault and this would give them more control I would say, probably not help at all.

 

[Magyarország]

Considering that OTL's Military problems were basically all the Hungarian's fault and this would give them more control I would say, probably not help at all.

What? That's completely false... How was it all their fault that the Army had poor upper leadership, with poor handling of the first few months of the war leading to most of the issues plaguing the KuK forces until 1918?

 

[thezerech]

What? That's completely false... How was it all their fault that the Army had poor upper leadership, with poor handling of the first few months of the war leading to most of the issues plaguing the KuK forces until 1918?

The leadership issue was a Germanic one sure. However, it wasn't the Austrian parliament that refused to pay for modernizing the army. It was the Hungarian parliament. Otherwise the K.u.K army would have had more modern equipment and enough artillery. IOTL they lacked machine guns, artillery, and all manner of modern equipment due to being underfunded.

 

[Vitruvius]

Who is responsible for military strategy? That would tie in with foreign affairs wouldn't it? And on a related note, if the Army is split and now the total responsibility of the two states what is left for the common government to pay for? The customs union would pay for the Navy (I assume), and the bureaucracy needed to manage AH's foreign affairs, Bosnia, and the customs union itself. That's a pretty tenuous justification. It almost seems like that would pretty quickly lead to the breakup of the Union into merely a personal union under a common Habsburg sovereign (a la Canada and the UK). And once that happens we'll probably see how non-viable the Austrian half is as an independent state.

 

[Magyarország]

The leadership issue was a Germanic one sure. However, it wasn't the Austrian parliament that refused to pay for modernizing the army. It was the Hungarian parliament. Otherwise the K.u.K army would have had more modern equipment and enough artillery. IOTL they lacked machine guns, artillery, and all manner of modern equipment due to being underfunded.

I've already adressed the equipment issue in my post... Plus, I've never heard of the KuK army lacking machine guns. No more than the French, at least. Again, it seems to me more of an issue of industrial capacity than parliamentary obstruction.

 

[Nassirisimo]

I've already adressed the equipment issue in my post... Plus, I've never heard of the KuK army lacking machine guns. No more than the French, at least. Again, it seems to me more of an issue of industrial capacity than parliamentary obstruction.

Quoting from Geoffrey Wawro's book Warfare and Society in Europe, 1792-1914.

And whereas the French and German armies had one artillery piece for every 195 men, the ratio in Austria was 1:338, considerably worse even than Italy’s ratio of 1:295; this was worrisome in the new age of ‘artillery battles’ glimpsed at Sedan, Port Arthur and Mukden (Anon 1902: 31).

Partially, it was a problem of how resources were used as well, the decision to build Dreadnoughts that were less sorely needed than equipment for the army certainly affected things. Still, the fact that the Austro-Hungarian army was worse off in terms of equipment than the Italian army, a nation with fewer industrial resources than the Habsburg Empire, points toward the conclusion that this deficiency was caused by more than just a lack of industrial strength.

 

[Magyarország]

Quoting from Geoffrey Wawro's book Warfare and Society in Europe, 1792-1914.

Partially, it was a problem of how resources were used as well, the decision to build Dreadnoughts that were less sorely needed than equipment for the army certainly affected things. Still, the fact that the Austro-Hungarian army was worse off in terms of equipment than the Italian army, a nation with fewer industrial resources than the Habsburg Empire, points toward the conclusion that this deficiency was caused by more than just a lack of industrial strength.

I didn't say that the KuK armies didn't have an artillery shortage. Quite the opposite. You are, however, ignoring obvious facts if you just look at the numbers.

The Austro-Hungarian land forces were massive. They had a huge army to equip unlike Italy. Hence why the industrial capacity problem has a more pronounced effect than Italy. Also, I'm curious if those numbers include fully-mobilised armies and if it's A-H in 1914 vs Italy in 1915 when they entered the war. Huge difference.

The dreadnoughts did not impede on the production of field artillery. If it did, I doubt Škoda would have been so interested in the KuK's next-gen battleship that they developped thr main guns for it and built a couple before the naval budget was accepted by the parliaments. Besides, naval expenses were unpopular in Vienna and Budapest and they were definitely needed in response to Italian naval buildup.

 

[Tibi088]

... Maybe because im Hungarian and not an austrian fanboy but I see some problem with the reasoning of some people?

In some treads they are redressing Hungary because they didnt pay to modernize the army.

In other threads they are speculating about how the K.u.K should have executed plan U and destroyed at least the Hungarian leadership.

Maybe if the commom army wasnt making plans to conquer Hungary and wasn't ready and willing to execute such plans if ordered Hungary would have been more willing to pay for its modernization. But in view of this facts I dont think I can place any blame on Hungary for trying to concentrate on Honvéd instead.

 

[Magyarország]

... Maybe because im Hungarian and not an austrian fanboy but I see some problem with the reasoning of some people?

In some treads they are redressing Hungary because they didnt pay to modernize the army.

In other threads they are speculating about how the K.u.K should have executed plan U and destroyed at least the Hungarian leadership.

Maybe if the commom army wasnt making plans to conquer Hungary and wasn't ready and willing to execute such plans if ordered Hungary would have been more willing to pay for its modernization. But in view of this facts I dont think I can place any blame on Hungary for trying to concentrate on Honvéd instead.

Erm, what plans to invade Hungary and destroy its leadership?

A lot of it, though, is people talking about stuff they know little about. Austro-Hungarian historiography has been really poor until recently. The post-war nationalist and communist regimes are partly to blame for that alongside lack of interest in the west.

 

[Fehérvári]

The leadership issue was a Germanic one sure. However, it wasn't the Austrian parliament that refused to pay for modernizing the army. It was the Hungarian parliament. Otherwise the K.u.K army would have had more modern equipment and enough artillery. IOTL they lacked machine guns, artillery, and all manner of modern equipment due to being underfunded.

This is exatly why I proposed this topic in the first place. With an own complete army, the Hungarian parliement would be more willing to finance the military. The idea of competition between the two sides of the Monarchy serves the same purpose as well.