Talk:Battle of Vittorio Veneto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
[edit] POV
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.
[edit] English Flag mystery
I have noted that on every battlebox that the UK flag is malfunctioning. I think I might be the cause of it, though unitntentionally. I was revising the battle article, as I thought that if England, which was a minor contributor at Vittorio, was listed, than I thought that the other Allied Auxilaries should be listed. I had trouble getting the flags the correct size, so I copied off the English one. Why the problem would be so widespread I have no idea. If I am responsible, my sincirest apologies. ELV
Excuse me but the mass of land between Lands End and John O Groats is called the United Kingdom. It contains Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland. It we do not take kindly to be called English here in Scotland so change you statement you eejit. Stupid yank.
