Talk:Second Battle of the Piave River

message: 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.
:All nationalistic propoganda aside lets just look at the results. The million men they lost in 1916 during the Brusilov offensive didn't led to the disgregation of the Austrian army and of the Empire, and the Austrians fought for two years (and beyond) more. The Battle of the solstice did. If you want to point out the general causes of the defeat, a lot more damaging that the Brusilov offensive was the Italian fleet's bolckade of the Austrian ports. Without supplies, the defeat was only a question of time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.211.207 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This battle caused the disintegration of the Austrian Army?

message: 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)
thread_title: The most important and  overtime italian victory

message: 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)
replies: text: Two qualified sources dubbing this battle 'decisive' added now.--Darius (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Farewell to Arms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi having looked at the 2 sources for these figures I would say that the source used for the infobox is a far more reliable one than that used for the figure in the body. It is signed by Alessandro Massignani a modern day specialist in Italian Military History who has been cited in over 100 articles. The other source is a digest of contemporary sources written by Francis Whiting Halsey originally published in 1919 and the figures seem to be based on a dispatch written at the time of the battle by an American reporter to the New York Times. The real figures would not have been known until much later and the source actually says "it was reported that...". So I think we can safely remove this figure as being unreliable. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy in numbers of casualties