Was Austro-Hungarian performance in WW1 really that bad? Considering

>>2484008
Yes. Listing the reasons that their performance was bad does not alter the fact that their performance was indeed poor.

>>2484010
True, but I think OP's trying to say that they should have done much worse

>>2484008
Central and Southern Europe had lacked cohesive nation-states for centuries so it's almost depressing they still lacked even basic uniformity beyond perhaps Army Slavic.
>80% casualty rate
Yes it seems glorious to imagine a diverse, sprawling, autocratic Empire like AH but it turned up to be a failure in this war, especially domestically.
Thought some victories were impressive in Italy and Russia, this negates that anyone could've done what they did.

>>2484008
>Was Austro-Hungarian performance in WW1 really that bad?

It was pretty bad yeah

>I'd say it's a mirracle they endured the war for entire 4 years.

germanyshackledtoacorpse.jpg

Austria-Hungary did absolutely nothing except lose ground. By the end of 1914 it had lost half its officers. The Brusilov offensive practically destroyed its military capabilities and from that point until the end of the war Austria-Hungary was dependent on Germany to commands what was left of its military.

The only "good" it did was exist so that Russians and Italians had something other than Germans to shoot at.

File: CONRAD.jpg (8KB, 215x304px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 215x304px

I'd argue they did very well.

They did fail very badly in Serbia despite always gaining much ground they somehow managed to fail at defending it despite the defender having a huge advantage.

They held together until the very end.

Midway through the war they had gained ground on almost every front Russia, (until brusilov) Serbia, and Italy.

All this despite having the smallest military and smallest military budget with the biggest and most expensive military beaurocracy using up large portions of the small budget.

Conrad had big ideas and took risks and some of them didn't pan out but if they had he would have been considered the Ludendorff or Napoleon of the time.

If the allies had accepted the Kaiser's peace offer AH might even have survived to this day without Bosnia and some serbian areas. The allies however thought they could wait despite not intending the break up of AH.

The betrayal of Italy was decisive for AH ultimately in my mind. 3 fronts was just too many for the small army.

This empire is memed on for being on the way out but I believe it could have survived indefinately if not for the war and it also could have survived the war had peace came just a little sooner.

Its likely that the British Empire, Russian Empire, and French Empire would have broken up in similiar circumstances.

>>2484008
me on the right

>>2484394

A-H was hamstrung by an inefficient government. It faced the issue that the PLC faced, but it came much later and much more decisively.

>>2484394
You have a really warped definition of really well.

You act as if a country propped up by its powerful neighbour not collapsing is an achievement.

All those successes you talk of were only possible at the great expesne of Germany in blood gold and steel

>>2484440
kek

>implying slobodan deserves more medals then me
>he barely even keeps his rifle clean
>why is this photograph taking so long?
>is he filming?
>tfw slobodan gets a cape and i dont
>fucking slobodan