Which was the worst Central Power?

Which was the worst Central Power?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    AH, obviously

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Ottomans

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        AH was a lot worse

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        They didnt militarily collapse like AH

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        This for sure.

        AH was a lot worse

        They didnt militarily collapse like AH

        The ottomans lost an entire combat corps trying to move through mountains without fighting any enemies. They didn't have to get knocked out because nobody took them seriously.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        This for sure.

        [...]
        [...]
        The ottomans lost an entire combat corps trying to move through mountains without fighting any enemies. They didn't have to get knocked out because nobody took them seriously.

        frick no, only redditors who got their history through memes thinks the ottomans was the worst central power.
        >because nobody took them seriously.
        you said it, pretty much nobody took them seriously and it makes sense, the ottoman has been unstable and in decline for so long they have less manpower, guns and logistics than fricking italy despite its size. the only thing the germans expect out of them is for them to distract allies for one months in the east and its a pretty grounded expectation considering after what i said above they would be fighting a three front wars in the balkans, caucasus and the middle east all while ALSO fighting arab/armenian rebels from within the country.

        despite all of this, they defeated coalition army on gallipolli, bloodied the british in mesopotamia at the siege of kut and held on to their caucasus long enough (until enver decided to march into the mountain during winter without supplies like what you said). overall they did well enough despite no one really expecting anything out of them. you cannot really compare them to disastrous performance austria-hungary did despite being the 2nd strognest central power

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          also only reason ottomans lost against italy in tripoli is balkan wars. Brwitian blocked ottoman fleet to land to tripoli so instead ottomans send officers to tripoli to create milita which was successful but they had to leave to fight at the first balkan war

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >you cannot really compare them to disastrous performance austria-hungary
          Reminder: A-H was fighting on three fronts against all the allied powers, Ottoman was a backwoods affair mainly faught against the weakest of the allied armies(Russia and UK)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            like i said both of them werent even comparable considering the manpower, arms and industrial capacity at the start of the war.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >fought against the weakest of the allied armies(Russia and UK)
            AH lost 2 million men fighting shitalians while defending a literal mountain

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Ottoman was a backwoods affair mainly faught against the weakest of the allied armies(Russia and UK)
            I assume the strongest entente armies were France and Italy?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The US didn't even bother to declare war on them.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being Germany and lashing yourself to these clowns

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Germans were diplomatically moronic and those are all the allies they can realistically get after pissing off every great powers

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw germany could have chosen Russia after the League of the Three Emperors broken down.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        That unironically could have prevented communism from ever happening.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        they would've been unstoppable
        the eternal anlgoid and frogoid would be pulling out every diplomatic trick in the book to try and divide them

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's not hard to imagine given they chose to go with Italy, Japan, post-Trianon Hungary and Romania in WWII.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    All of them

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The Austro-Hungarians, somehow, managed to be even more incompetent than the Ottomans.
    Take a few minutes to read up on their opening moves at the start of the war to get an idea of how bafflingly stupid their generals were.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    those who say AH, didn't they repeal Italy like 10 times?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, Italy was equally moronic
      Doesn’t mean AH wasn’t moronic

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Anon... I...

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Italy was rescued by British and French troops being diverted to shore up their shitty, collapsing army.

        >the worst Central Power?
        Obviously the Germans. Imagine spending 40 years planning for a war you seeded, a war you started, only to lose because the fricking Belgians of all people stood up to you and told you to frick off.

        tl;dr
        >a navy that won’t sail.
        >an army that doesn’t know how to fight (zero real plan to win after August 1914 except hopes and prayers).
        >a national economy that can’t outproduce its enemies.
        The other central powers deserved better.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Imagine spending 40 years planning for a war you seeded, a war you started
          that would be France Russia UK who already planned this war, brainlet

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            France wanted alsace back, didnt mean they wanted global war, they also won
            Uk didnt want war they just intervened due to wilhelms expansionism
            Russia didnt want war with central powers just ottos and to control slavs

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >only to lose because the fricking Belgians of all people
          Never underestimate Belgians, either Flemish or Walloon

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Italy was rescued by British and French troops being diverted to shore up their shitty, collapsing army.
          lol what a disingenuous homosexual.
          Austria-Hungary would have lost if they hadn't asked the germans to send their troops and attack at Caporetto.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Italians have been editing wikipedia again
        lol

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure Italy wrecked AH's shit. No amount of seethe and cope will make 500k casualties go away, buddy.

          Italy was rescued by British and French troops being diverted to shore up their shitty, collapsing army.

          >the worst Central Power?
          Obviously the Germans. Imagine spending 40 years planning for a war you seeded, a war you started, only to lose because the fricking Belgians of all people stood up to you and told you to frick off.

          tl;dr
          >a navy that won’t sail.
          >an army that doesn’t know how to fight (zero real plan to win after August 1914 except hopes and prayers).
          >a national economy that can’t outproduce its enemies.
          The other central powers deserved better.

          The british and french didn't even represent 5% of italy's forces in the alps. Pure copium. You're gonna have to come to terms with the fact that a great german speaking power was literally militarily annihilated by Italy. It's as simple as that.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The british and french didn't even represent 5% of italy's forces in the alps
            He didn't mention the Alps.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >average habsburg soldier weighing ~50-60 kg
            >so hungry they hope for offensives so they can loot food
            >country is falling apart further every day
            >deserters crawling around the countryside raiding supply lines
            >entire formations literally march back home with their officers when they decide shit is fricked
            >italy attacks
            >after 2 years of failing to defeat and even being defeated by possibly the most incompetent central power
            >'wins' against an army that doesn't even exist
            >ayy mamma mia italia so powerful nonna did you hear what they said about us on la 4chongs!?!?!

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Attacks undefended border
            >Ends war with own land under occupation

            Lol.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          kys you fricking nordcuck

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Italians have been editing wikipedia again
        lol

        >to think Germany almost side with them before WWI
        Germans are terrible at picking teammates

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Weakest of the Entante powers bar Romania.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What happens when an easily stoppable force meats an easily movable object.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      For all those saying it was Austria, how well did the Bulgarians fare?

      The Italians would lose to a strong gust of wind.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >how well did the Bulgarians fare?
        They punched well above their weight as I understand it

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Gallipoli campaign is undoubtedly the best non-German win of the Central Powers. Outnumbered, outgunned, and still won.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Italy

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The worst as in most incompetent? AH easily. The worst as in killed the most civilians? Turkey.

      lmao you win

      Gallipoli campaign is undoubtedly the best non-German win of the Central Powers. Outnumbered, outgunned, and still won.

      Turkey had a well entrenched position at Gallipoli and the terrain all to their advantage, classic defense multiplier. The best non-German win was Turkey btfoing the Brits at Kut, that was total devastation on essentially a flat plane with the Brits having a defensive advantage and outnumbering the Turks.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >that was total devastation on essentially a flat plane with the Brits having a defensive advantage and outnumbering the Turks
        singapore before singapore, if you will

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Gallipoli was a campaign and Kut was a village skirmish. Allies had the initiative and surprise advantage in addition to their numbers and guns at Gallipoli.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >skirmish.
          >two 30,000-40,000 strong armies

          you are delusional. Also the Ottomans and Germans had already prepared for a British assault Liman had been training them for years prior to Gallipoli. There was no surprise whatsoever and the geography was all in favor of the Ottomans.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >>two 30,000-40,000 strong armies
            >you are delusiona
            Nope. In reality "also known as the first battle of Kut, was the besieging of an 8,000 strong British Army garrison in the town of Kut" and "Once it became clear the Ottomans had enough forces to lay siege to Kut, Townshend ordered his cavalry to escape south, which it did, led by Lieut. Colonel Gerard Leachman. The Ottoman forces numbered around 11,000 men". It was 11,000 besieging 8,000. Meanwhile more Allied soldiers were killed by Ottomans in Gallipoli than were ever present in this entire siege.
            >Also the Ottomans and Germans had already prepared for a British assault
            No they hadn't. They didn't even know where the landing was taking place. Gallipoli was also led by Ottoman generals.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The Ottoman forces numbered around 11,000 men" and were increasing steadily with additional reinforcements arriving constantly.

            lol you just copy pasted the wiki article and left out the bit that debunks your whole case. How are you this lazy? If you read the whole article, you'll see far more people were involved literally tens of thousands on each side.

            >No they hadn't.

            lmao they had 5 weeks to prepare which was plenty of time to prepare for the (terribly planned) British assault. There were only a few viable beaches they could land on due to the terrain, so it wasn't difficult to figure out where to concentrate forces.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >lol you just copy pasted the wiki article
            Are you moronic? The wiki article details that "40,000" figure includes other battles that weren't involved in the siege.
            >lmao they had 5 weeks to prepare
            This is after the initial landings.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > The wiki article details that "40,000" figure includes other battles
            lol no you must actually be unable to read. This is sad.
            >This is after the initial landings.
            No that was after the initial failed attempt at forcing the straits. The landings took over a month to occur after it became obvious an invasion was imminent. Liman, Ataturk, etc had plenty of time to prepare.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >lol no you must actually be unable to read. This is sad.
            You're a dummy so I'll spoonfeed you. That "45,000" estimate includes the Battle of Sheikh Sa'ad, Battle of Wadi, Battle of Hanna, and the Siege of Kut. The actual siege of Kut never went more than 11,000 vs 8,000. Do you understand now?
            >No that was after the initial failed attempt at forcing the straits.
            Their initial recon took place and the Ottomans still didn't know where they planned to attack.
            >The landings took over a month to occur
            Either way the landing site wasn't known. Units were on both sides ready to relocate.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >. That "45,000" estimate includes the Battle of Sheikh Sa'ad, Battle of Wadi, Battle of Hanna, and the Siege of Kut.
            Which were all part of the same campaign, moron. Maybe you should read the article and see how 30,000 on both side were involved in the battle over the siege. Of course that would mean you being able to read.
            >Either way the landing site wasn't known
            nice backpedal, first you said it was a surprise and it wasn't now you say "they didn't know" where it would be when there was a very limited amount of space for a landing.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Austria only did poorly because of one massive homosexual selling out his country. Google Alfred Redl, the homosexual handed off attack/mobilization plans and border fortifications to the Russians. Imo it speaks well for AH that despite having been sold out completely to the Russians and Serbs (Russia shared info with Serbia), they still managed to not completely fall apart and held the line for as long as they did.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >A thousand year old polity was brought down by one homosexual
      Amazing.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Austria-Hungary was like 50 years old

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Direct continuations of two monarchies that were almost 1000 years old

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The Austria of 1914 has more in common with the Austria of 2022 than it does with the "Austria" of 914

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The Austria of 1914 has more in common with the Austria of 2022 than it does with the "Austria" of 914

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Genuinely delusional if you think 10th century Austria was relevant in any way whatsoever
            At least 21st century Austrians made my coffee machine

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Genuinely delusional if you think 10th century Austria was relevant in any way whatsoever
            >At least 21st century Austrians made my coffee machine

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            914:
            >mostly pointless but pretty chill not-germans hanging out in the alps
            1914:
            >ascendant industrial power crippled by its centuries long duty of keeping the ottoman and slavic hordes out of europe
            2022:
            >mostly pointless but pretty chill not-germans hanging out in the alps

            yeah.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Russian intel on attack plans is not what made the AH army hideously bad. They’re my favorite nation of the war as well but it was incompetence and tribalism that did their military in

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Ottomans lost at arabian peninsula because of arabian rebellions , they were holding in turkish majority lands

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Italy is by far the worst central power, fricking disgustingly shameful nation.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      they were Entente

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Definitely AH
    >serbien muss sterbien!!!!
    >get BTFO by Misic
    >have to drag in both the Germans and Bulgarians to actually win the shitfight you started

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    ottomans

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >italy assrapes the austrians
    >italy advances
    >italy assrapes the austrians
    >italy advances
    >italy assrapes the austrians
    >italy advances
    >italy almost wins
    >austrians call daddy germoids
    >germoids reluctantly lend a division
    >germoids mog italians
    >austrians advance behind germoids
    >germoids go away
    >italy assrapes austria
    >italy advances
    >italy wins

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Meanwhile, in reality:
      >First Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >15,000
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >10,000
      >Limited Italian advance
      >Third Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >66,998
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >41,847
      >Austro-Hungarian victory
      >Fourth Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >49,500
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >32,100
      >Austro-Hungarian victory
      >Eighth Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >55,000
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >38,000
      >Inconclusive
      >Ninth Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >39,000
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >33,000
      >Austro-Hungarian victory, Italian advance halted
      >Tenth Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >150,000
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >75,000
      >Limited Italian advance
      >Eleventh Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >158,000
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >115,000
      >Italian pyrrhic victory
      >Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo
      >Italian casualties
      >305,000
      >Austro-Hungarian casualties
      >70,000
      >Decisive Austro-Hungarian victory; end of the Isonzo Campaign
      >Central Powers victory, counteroffensives on the Piave river (First and Second battle)
      >Total Italian casualties:
      >950,180
      >Total Austro-Hungarian casualties:
      >520,532

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >italy taking a shit tonne of casualties only to advance a couple of hundred meters, if even that, counts as assraping the austrians
      Delusional.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    itt:

    >anons who appreciate austria hungary
    cultured men who enjoy understanding the conflicting dichotomies of history and life as much as they enjoy supporting their neighbors
    >anons who support italy
    proper lads willing to die for truth and beauty but will also have a pint with anyone no question
    >anons who stan germany
    schizoid nazi mutts

    battles of the isonzo were just locker room banter, italians and austrians brothers forever, g*rmans are the true enemies of europe

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The one which betrayed them and then had the nerve to whine that she got less than he wanted.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *