Talk:Battle of Vittorio Veneto

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: The Imperial army asked for an armistice on 29 October, two days before 31 October, when Hungary broke their union with Austria, effectively ending the Empire (and not on 27 October as mentioned). The armistice petition -accepting all Wilson's preconditions for peace- could have never come about had the battle not taken place, thus the military defeat predates Austria-Hungary's dissolution by at least 48hs. One of the cited sources uses the term "thereafter", so I see no reasons to claim that the statement is against NPoV policy. The same for Ludendorff's quote: "In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself..." The offensive lasted until 4 November (a ceasefire had been arranged 24hs before) only because the Italian army commanders wanted to gain as much terrain as possible, but the Imperial troops had already conceded defeat by 29 October. We can discuss ad aeternum what was first, i.e. Italian victory or Habsburg collapse, but Wikipedia relies on sources, and cited sources are quite clear if not explicit on this point.--Darius (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Rosario Azzolina of Santo Stefano Di Camastra Messina Sicilia Italia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.39.150 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Knight of of Vittorio Veneto

message: I'm not a student of this battle, but in reading the various entries around this part of WW1, it appears that the numbers of casualties are inconsistent, maybe incorrect. The summary boxes seem to put the Italian casualties somewhere in the 150K-200K region. But the background section of this entry cites 300K and uses "losses" instead of deaths or casualties. It's unclear to me why there is a difference, and after reading the discussion above on this page, I also wonder whether Italians were also encountering large numbers of desertions. Perhaps the author is figuring this in as well? Tim Warner (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty accuracy

message: I think no one discuss that it was a Italian victory, as was a British, French, and American one. Don't know a place where a single country is preferred over a multi-national one. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Try hidden text attached to the "result" entry. Bulk of sources say "italian victory" in any Google search, so this is the correct assessment per Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, we are given undue weight to the minority opinion. Additionally, the commander-in-chief, seven out of nine generals in charge of Army Corps were Italian, and more than 90 percent of the troops involved were also Italian, thus this was not a "multi-national force", it was the Italian Army reinforced by Britain, France, USA and the Czechs. Don't forget that the attrition of resources in the Western Front prevented the Allies to send substantial help to the Italian front.--Darius (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the fact that it was a Italian victory and whatever source call it, don't have any relation with 5 nationalities fighting a battle. If there's a guideline saying that this can be ignored I would really like to see it. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in more information about what the reliable sources say. To the uninitiated, it appears that the British and French-led armies played significant roles ie created the bridgehead and pursued the enemy. Their casualties weren't as heavy, but there could have been a lot of reasons for that. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 04:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that the Duke of Aosta apparently told Lord Cavan, "Without the presence of you and your troops, there would have been no Vittorio Veneto". Gooch, J. (2014) The Italian Army and the First World War Cambridge University Press, p. 297. This conversation is also recorded in Cassar, G.H. (1998) The Forgotten Front: The British Campaign in Italy 1917-1918 p. 215-216, where Aosta is also quoted as saying "If the British had not crossed the Piave, the Italians would not have crossed the Piave. After the war other things will be said. But I know and I shall never forget." Cassar mentions that Comando Supremo's story of the battle has deliberate omissions and self-serving distortions. It seems to me that "Allied victory" is probably more appropriate. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 05:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Individual assertions and statements are fine, but in cases like this WP relies on WP:WEIGHT, namely, what the majority of sources say. Any subjective interpretation of facts is irrelevant.--Darius (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

text: P/S: Try Battle of Britain. In spite of the Canadian support and a good number of Allied individual pilots involved, it is considered a British victory.--Darius (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing WEIGHT falling on the side of "Italian victory" myself. Perhaps you could explain the basis of that assertion? Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 00:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian victory

message: FWIW, related articles are :it:Battaglia di Vittorio Veneto and :de:Schlacht von Vittorio Veneto. The Italian one in particular has a lot of detail, though somewhat limited sourcing. (I haven't added expand tags given this is a live article). Cheers, ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 10:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian and German interwiki articles 

message: The battle was fought by 57 divisions, of which 51 were Italian: 1,400,000 Italian men in a total of 1,485,000. In cases like this, I think we should write that it was fought by Italy and with (minor) support from the Allies, as many other similar pages write it. Moreover, they were all under the command of the Italian general Armando Diaz.
 DavideVeloria88 (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is perfectly fine as it is, if there is any argument the result should be labelled as an 'Entente Powers victory'. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle fought mainly by Italy 

message: Parameter 'result' should only contain 'Italian victory'. See IBX. To say the result was also the dissolusion of AH is OR. The quote given in one of the citations confirms this OR, and I assume there is similar misinterpretation in the other citations. These citations are used later (ie <ref name>) so removing them needs an element of care, if anyone has the time and/or skill? Citations should not generally be used in the infobox anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I could not find it in German, in his memoires? Alex1011 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludendorff quote mentioned but without source: https://pdfcoffee.com/paolettia-military-history-of-italy9780275985059-pdf-free.html--Alex1011 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludendorff quote