Which Performance was Worse? WW1 Austria or WW2 Italy?

Who did worse? Austria-Hungary during World War I or Italy during World War II?

  • Austria-Hungary during World War I

    Votes: 8 16.3%
  • Italy during World War II

    Votes: 35 71.4%
  • Both were equally as horrible.

    Votes: 6 12.2%

  • Total voters
    49
Joined Jun 2013
6,524 Posts | 140+
USA
Based on military success (or in this case lack thereof) which country did worse? Austria-Hungary during World War I or Italy during World War II? Both of them are the butts of military jokes and they did do rather poorly when they didn't receive help from Germany. But which country did worse?
 
Joined Dec 2012
10,944 Posts | 1,064+
here
I'd go with Italy.

As much as I think Austria performed poorly, at least they were capable of holding their own, and even prevailing at times, against powers that were their equals, if not superior to them.
 
Joined Jun 2013
6,524 Posts | 140+
USA
I'd go with Italy.

As much as I think Austria performed poorly, at least they were capable of holding their own, and even prevailing at times, against powers that were their equals, if not superior to them.

Tell that to their first two failed invasions of Serbia. And losses in Romania. xD But yeah, Austria's setbacks on the Polish/Russian front were understandable.
 
Joined Mar 2011
437 Posts | 2+
I went with Austria-Hungary because they were a much more established power and had major expectations which they couldn't live up to. No one ever really gave Italy much credence, except for her navy.
 
Joined Aug 2012
2,156 Posts | 50+
Last edited:
Tell that to their first two failed invasions of Serbia. And losses in Romania. xD But yeah, Austria's setbacks on the Polish/Russian front were understandable.

I'd say Italy, if for no other reason than the fact that WW2 was a mobile war so their defeats meant losing large swaths of land.


What about the Ottoman Empire?
 
Joined Jun 2014
1,221 Posts | 1+
VA
I voted both because Austrian defeats had more consequences while Hitler had only low expectations from Italy in the first place.
 
Joined Mar 2010
5,417 Posts | 8+
USA
I'd say Italy in WWII. Austria-Hungary was fighting on several fronts and still managed hold out for much of the war.
 
Joined Jul 2014
6,743 Posts | 472+
Lower Styria, Slovenia
Of course Italy in ww2. I never saw Austria-Hungary in such a bad light that one would compare it with Italy ...
 
Joined Jan 2015
505 Posts | 5+
Large Fields
I went for WW2 Italy. Operation Compass, invasions of France and Greece, and defence of Italian mainland were shockingly ill-initiated...
 
Joined Jan 2014
6,816 Posts | 1,340+
Connecticut
I went for WW2 Italy. Operation Compass, invasions of France and Greece, and defence of Italian mainland were shockingly ill-initiated...

There were a few good Italian divisions in the desert like Ariete. But basically the Italians were worthless. They'd reman their guns only when there was nobody to surrender to.
 
Joined Jun 2014
1,221 Posts | 1+
VA
There were a few good Italian divisions in the desert like Ariete. But basically the Italians were worthless. They'd reman their guns only when there was nobody to surrender to.

Now be fair; the Italian units like all of the units are good units the problem is leadership, motivation and competence above the level of smaller units and understanding of (then) modern warfare.

Why should they be fighting at all? It is a question Mussolini never answered. Should we surrender or stick to a plan we don't know that apparently never went anywhere besides getting us into this trouble where certain death comes next? For this cause we don't understand and with our leaders being among the worst in a European Military?

What would you do?

Italian armies performed poorly but they had excellent reasons to do so.

If British tanks came out of nowhere because your commanding officer couldn't figure out how to anticipate that invading an area with tank divisions might get a counter attack by tanks I would understand perfectly if you surrendered :)
 
Joined Aug 2012
2,156 Posts | 50+
Last edited:
There were a few good Italian divisions in the desert like Ariete. But basically the Italians were worthless. They'd reman their guns only when there was nobody to surrender to.
The bulk of the forces in North Africa were Italians under better military leadership. You do know that, right? Under good officers, they performed admirably. The Italian military was a mess though. Officers were generally promoted based on connections rather than merit. There was a great divide between the common soldiers (largely poor working class southerners) and officers (primarily from wealthy or upper middle class Northern fanilies). They lacked motivation, weren't properly equipped their operations were poorly planned and ill timed. The Italians lacked the industrial base to adapt to the change and unlike Japan (not much better off than Italy), they weren't prepared for it. The Italian Navy was decent, but held back due to a lack of fuel (oil was found in Libya in 1938, but they lacked the infrastructure and tech to profit from it and plans for Libyan oil were put off when the war started). The fact that Pietro Badoglio kept his position, in spite of his role in the biggest Italian military disaster of World War 1 says it all.
 
Joined Nov 2009
3,901 Posts | 56+
Outer world
There were a few good Italian divisions in the desert like Ariete. But basically the Italians were worthless. They'd reman their guns only when there was nobody to surrender to.

Considering that nowhere any Allied (let alone American) troops showed any more courage than any other Axis counterpart I found this comment not much historical.
Not that anyone would expect that much from you anyway.
 
Joined Dec 2014
8,941 Posts | 991+
Spain
Based on military success (or in this case lack thereof) which country did worse? Austria-Hungary during World War I or Italy during World War II? Both of them are the butts of military jokes and they did do rather poorly when they didn't receive help from Germany. But which country did worse?

Austria - Hungary was not conquered by nobody. Austria - Hungary was in krym, Macedonia, Ukrainia, Italy, etc etc in October 1918... It is funny, in October 1918... France had still part of its land occupied by Germany...
In fact, Britain, France, Russia didn´t fight better than Austria - Hungary...
In 1914 - 1918, every army fought very similar (a little better the german one)... but Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia etc had the same level.
 
Joined Jun 2013
6,524 Posts | 140+
USA
Austria - Hungary was not conquered by nobody. Austria - Hungary was in krym, Macedonia, Ukrainia, Italy, etc etc in October 1918... It is funny, in October 1918... France had still part of its land occupied by Germany...
In fact, Britain, France, Russia didn´t fight better than Austria - Hungary...
In 1914 - 1918, every army fought very similar (a little better the german one)... but Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia etc had the same level.

Austria-Hungary may not have been conquered, but World War I wasn't a blitzkrieg war, but a massive war of attrition.
 
Joined Mar 2011
437 Posts | 2+
Austria - Hungary was not conquered by nobody. Austria - Hungary was in krym, Macedonia, Ukrainia, Italy, etc etc in October 1918... It is funny, in October 1918... France had still part of its land occupied by Germany...
In fact, Britain, France, Russia didn´t fight better than Austria - Hungary...
In 1914 - 1918, every army fought very similar (a little better the german one)... but Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia etc had the same level.

I would argue that France, Britain and Germany performed well ahead of the other powers.

Austria only fought directly against one other great power, that being Russia, and as poorly as Russia performed in the war even Austria needed massive German support to avoid disaster.
 
Joined Aug 2012
2,156 Posts | 50+
I would argue that France, Britain and Germany performed well ahead of the other powers.

Austria only fought directly against one other great power, that being Russia, and as poorly as Russia performed in the war even Austria needed massive German support to avoid disaster.

Austria fought British, French and Italian troops.
 
Joined Dec 2014
8,941 Posts | 991+
Spain
I would argue that France, Britain and Germany performed well ahead of the other powers.

Austria only fought directly against one other great power, that being Russia, and as poorly as Russia performed in the war even Austria needed massive German support to avoid disaster.

And serbian, montenegrian etc..

France and Britain ahed... under any concept! France was unable to drive german out whitout massive american support (industry, money, food etc) and British help.
Britain had an excellent army in 1914.. but lasted till Ypres.. with the New Army... Britain lost quality.. fought bravely ... but without success... their victories came with overwhelming numerical superiority and very slowy (Mesopotamia).. History is not a Brad Pitt movie... Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Bulgary, Turkey etc had a very similar quality armies.. only Germany was a step above. I think.
 
Joined Jun 2014
6,170 Posts | 607+
US
Interesting topic. I chose WWII Italy. Relatively speaking, they had a larger arsenal and - I would argue, a larger responsibility. They had virtually no success. Given what they had, what was expected, and how they performed (bowing out of the war by 1943), they are, in my opinion, the far greater disappointment.
 
Joined Nov 2009
3,901 Posts | 56+
Outer world
Interesting topic. I chose WWII Italy. Relatively speaking, they had a larger arsenal and - I would argue, a larger responsibility. They had virtually no success. Given what they had, what was expected, and how they performed (bowing out of the war by 1943), they are, in my opinion, the far greater disappointment.

Far greater arsenal? Do you know how big and industrialised was Austria-Hungary in WWI?
 

Trending History Discussions

Top