![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All nationalistic propoganda aside lets just look at the numbers. On the Eastern Front the Austrians suffered millions of casualties, here they suffer 100,000 and this breaks their back ? Lets be a bit more conservative with the words used. Maybe this broke the back of the Austrian Army on the Italian front. But the million men they lost in 1916 during the Brusilov offensive was alot more dameging.
You look at the numbers when you play Call of Duty. The sources clearly report that defeat was felt by the Central Powers after this battle. Unless you can provide us with other sources rather than some arithmetic exercises.
The number of British and French divisions is wrong. There were only five left. The other six were withdrawn in March 1918 when a German offensive in France started. The 11 divisions had been sent to Italy in November 1917 (after Caporetto, October 24) and started to support the Italians at the end of November (the French at the beginning of December). As far as the discussion about nationalism and "broken backs" is concerned, it should be noted, that by June 1918 the war against Russia had already been over ("Red" October 1917) and that therefore the Austrians could concentrate all their forces on the italian front where the Italians in November 1917 (Caporetto) had lost an enormous amount of men and material. In June 1918 Austria was looking for a decisive victory because her exhausted armies were already fainting. This last and massive effort failed. That's why it was the beginning of the end for Austria.
You are right with regard to differences of losses but with that intervention shows that they have understood nothing of the value of battle, which is sorpendente because of its ease, Austria-Hungary was exhausted by the war effort and, if quell'offensiva had been successful probably Italy perhaps there would, in fact, the battle of the river piave coincided with the final part of Michael German and was the last imperial hope to win the war by folding the first Italy, and then the other powers Allied. In any case, the battle was decisive because annientò the latest military capabilities and Austrian neutralizzò the danger of a collapse Italian, and allowed the offensive to wipe vittorio Venetian imperial forces and have a total victory sull'Impero. Affirming that was less bloody other not only demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability but also not to bring respect to the thousands of victims, should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.105.225 ( talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The battle appears to not have been decisive, as the results section indicates. Therefore, edited to remove that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.208.163 ( talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I had always thought Hemingway's experiences at the Piave and his later hospitalization in Milan inspired "A Farewell to Arms." Does it not deserve to be mentioned? -- 68.226.16.229 ( talk) 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The Casualties of this battle seem to vary from all the sources I've seen, but most of them place Italian casualties between 80000 and 130000 and Austrian casualties from 150000 to over 200000. 68.149.54.222 ( talk) 09:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The body of the article states 20,000 Austro-Hungarian soldiers drowned while trying to cross the Piave river during the battle but the infobox lists only 11,000 Austro-Hungarian deaths, what's with this discrepancy could somebody please explain if this is a mistake? Thanks in advance.
-- 177.225.172.224 ( talk) 10:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
---Thanks a bunch! ;) -- 177.225.172.224 ( talk) 01:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All nationalistic propoganda aside lets just look at the numbers. On the Eastern Front the Austrians suffered millions of casualties, here they suffer 100,000 and this breaks their back ? Lets be a bit more conservative with the words used. Maybe this broke the back of the Austrian Army on the Italian front. But the million men they lost in 1916 during the Brusilov offensive was alot more dameging.
You look at the numbers when you play Call of Duty. The sources clearly report that defeat was felt by the Central Powers after this battle. Unless you can provide us with other sources rather than some arithmetic exercises.
The number of British and French divisions is wrong. There were only five left. The other six were withdrawn in March 1918 when a German offensive in France started. The 11 divisions had been sent to Italy in November 1917 (after Caporetto, October 24) and started to support the Italians at the end of November (the French at the beginning of December). As far as the discussion about nationalism and "broken backs" is concerned, it should be noted, that by June 1918 the war against Russia had already been over ("Red" October 1917) and that therefore the Austrians could concentrate all their forces on the italian front where the Italians in November 1917 (Caporetto) had lost an enormous amount of men and material. In June 1918 Austria was looking for a decisive victory because her exhausted armies were already fainting. This last and massive effort failed. That's why it was the beginning of the end for Austria.
You are right with regard to differences of losses but with that intervention shows that they have understood nothing of the value of battle, which is sorpendente because of its ease, Austria-Hungary was exhausted by the war effort and, if quell'offensiva had been successful probably Italy perhaps there would, in fact, the battle of the river piave coincided with the final part of Michael German and was the last imperial hope to win the war by folding the first Italy, and then the other powers Allied. In any case, the battle was decisive because annientò the latest military capabilities and Austrian neutralizzò the danger of a collapse Italian, and allowed the offensive to wipe vittorio Venetian imperial forces and have a total victory sull'Impero. Affirming that was less bloody other not only demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability but also not to bring respect to the thousands of victims, should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.105.225 ( talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The battle appears to not have been decisive, as the results section indicates. Therefore, edited to remove that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.208.163 ( talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I had always thought Hemingway's experiences at the Piave and his later hospitalization in Milan inspired "A Farewell to Arms." Does it not deserve to be mentioned? -- 68.226.16.229 ( talk) 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The Casualties of this battle seem to vary from all the sources I've seen, but most of them place Italian casualties between 80000 and 130000 and Austrian casualties from 150000 to over 200000. 68.149.54.222 ( talk) 09:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The body of the article states 20,000 Austro-Hungarian soldiers drowned while trying to cross the Piave river during the battle but the infobox lists only 11,000 Austro-Hungarian deaths, what's with this discrepancy could somebody please explain if this is a mistake? Thanks in advance.
-- 177.225.172.224 ( talk) 10:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
---Thanks a bunch! ;) -- 177.225.172.224 ( talk) 01:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)