Analysis of Ethnic Distribution in Different Regions

  • Demographers suggest that the 1910 censuses were biased towards the ruling nation in terms of ethnic distribution.
  • The census data of 1910 reveals the number of non-Hungarian and Hungarian communities in different regions based on their native language.
  • The population distribution in 1910 varied across regions, with different ethnicities dominating in each area.
  • ベストアンサー


Considering the size of discrepancies, some demographers are on the opinion that these censuses were somewhat biased in the favour of the respective ruling nation. Distribution of the non-Hungarian and Hungarian populations The number of non-Hungarian and Hungarian communities in the different areas based on the census data of 1910 (in this, people were not directly asked about their ethnicity, but about their native language). The present day location of each area is given in parenthesis. Region Main spoken language Hungarian language Other languages Transylvania and parts of Partium, Banat (Romania) Romanian – 2,819,467 (54%) 1,658,045 (31.7%) German – 550,964 (10.5%) Upper Hungary (restricted to the territory of today's Slovakia) Slovak – 1,688,413 (57.9%) 881,320 (30.2%) German – 198,405 (6.8%) Délvidék (Vojvodina, Serbia) Serbo-Croatian – 601,770 (39.8%) * Serbian – 510,754 (33.8%) * Croatian, Bunjevac and Šokac – 91,016 (6%) 425,672 (28.1%) German – 324,017 (21.4%) Kárpátalja (Ukraine) Ruthenian – 330,010 (54.5%) 185,433 (30.6%) German – 64,257 (10.6%) Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Muraköz and part of Baranya (Croatia) Croatian - 1,638,350 (62.3%) 121,000 (3.5%) Serbian - 644,955 (24.6%) German – 134,078 (5.1%) Fiume (Croatia) Italian – 24,212 (48.6%) 6,493 (13%) Croatian and Serbian – 13,351 (26.8%) Slovene - 2,336 (4.7%) German - 2,315 (4.6%) Őrvidék (Burgenland, (Austria) German – 217,072 (74.4%) 26,225 (9%) Croatian – 43,633 (15%) Muravidék (Prekmurje, Slovenia) Slovene – 74,199 (80.4%) – in 1921 14,065 (15.2%) – in 1921 German – 2,540 (2.8%) – in 1921 According to another source, population distribution in 1910 looked as follows: Region Main ethnicity Others Transylvania and parts of Partium, Banat (Romania) 2,831,222 Romanians (53.8%). The 1919 and 1920 Transylvanian censuses indicate a greater percentage of Romanians (57.1% / 57.3%) 2,431,273 "others" (mostly Hungarians – 1,662,948 (31.6%) and Germans – 563,087 (10.7%)). The 1919 and 1920 Transylvanian censuses indicate a smaller Hungarian minority (26.5% / 25.5%). Upper Hungary (restricted to the territory of today's Slovakia) 1,687,977 Slovaks [according to the 1921 census: 1,941,942 Slovaks] 1,233,454 "others" (mostly Hungarians – 886,044, Germans, Ruthenians and Roma) [according to the 1921 census: 1,058,928 of "others"] Croatia-Slavonia, Délvidék (today in Croatia, Serbia) 2,756,000 Croats and Serbs 1,366,000 others (mostly Hungarians and Germans) Kárpátalja (Ukraine) 330,010 Ruthenians 275,932 "others" (mostly Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, and Slovaks) Őrvidék (Burgenland, Austria) 217,072 Germans 69,858 "others" (mainly Croatian and Hungarian)

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1


  • ベストアンサー
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率80% (9522/11836)

>Considering the size ~ given in parenthesis. ⇒一部の人口統計学者の意見では、この矛盾(不一致)の大きさを考慮すると、これらの国勢調査はそれぞれの支配国家にとって有利になるように幾分偏向している、とする。  非ハンガリー人とハンガリー人の分布 1910年の国勢調査データに基づいて、異なる地域の非ハンガリー共同体とハンガリー共同体の数は以下のとおり(この場合、人々が直接質問されたのはその民族でなく、母国語についてである)。各地域の現在の場所(所属国)はカッコ内に記載されている。 >Region Main spoken language ∫ German – 550,964 (10.5%) ⇒地域名(以下、臨時に#をつけます) 主な話し言葉 ハンガリー語(原文では表示がない場合もカッコをつけて補充します) 他の言語 # トランシルバニアとパルチウム、バナトの一部(ルーマニア) ルーマニア語‐2,819,467人(54%) (ハンガリー語-)1,658,045人(31.7%) ドイツ語‐550,964人(10.5%) >Upper Hungary (restricted to the territory of today's Slovakia) ∫ German – 324,017 (21.4%) ⇒# 上ハンガリー(今日のスロバキア領に限定) スロバキア語-1,688,413人(57.9%) (ハンガリー語-)881,320人(30.2%) ドイツ語-198,405人(6.8%) # デルビデク(ボィボディナ、セルビア) セルボ=クロアチア語-601,770人(39.8%) *セルビア語-510,754人(33.8%) *クロアチア語、ブニェバクおよびツォカク-91,016人(6%) (ハンガリー語-)425,672人(28.1%) ドイツ語-324,017(21.4%) >Kárpátalja (Ukraine) ∫ German – 134,078 (5.1%) ⇒# カルパタリャ(ウクライナ) ルテニャ語-330,010人(54.5%) (ハンガリー語-)185,433人(30.6%) ドイツ語-64,257人(10.6%) # クロアチア王国-スロベニアとムラケシュとバラニャ(クロアチア)の一部 クロアチア語-1,638,350人(62.3%) (ハンガリー語-)121,000人(3.5%) セルビア語-644,955人(24.6%) ドイツ語-134,078人(5.1%) >Fiume (Croatia) ∫ German - 2,315 (4.6%) ⇒# フィウメ(クロアチア) イタリア語-24,212人(48.6%) (ハンガリー語-)6,493人(13%) クロアチア語とセルビア語-13,351人(26.8%) スロベニア語-2,336人(4.7%) ドイツ語-2,315人(4.6%) >Őrvidék (Burgenland, (Austria) ∫ German – 2,540 (2.8%) – in 1921 ⇒# オルビデク(ブルゲンラント、オーストリア) ドイツ語-217,072人(74.4%) (ハンガリー語-)26,225人(9%) クロアチア語-43,633人(15%) # ムラビデク(プレクムリャ、スロベニア) スロベニア語-74,199人(80.4%-1921年 (ハンガリー語-)14,065人(15.2%)-1921年 ドイツ語-2,540人(2.8%)-1921年 >According to another source, population distribution in 1910 looked as follows: ∫ Others ⇒別の情報源によると、1910年の人口分布は以下のようになっている。 地域名(#) 主な民族 その他 >Transylvania and parts of Partium, Banat (Romania) ∫ ~ smaller Hungarian minority (26.5% / 25.5%). ⇒# トランシルバニアとパルチウム、バナトの一部(ルーマニア) ルーマニア人 2,831,222人(53.8%)。1919年/1920年のトランシルバニア国勢調査は、ルーマニア人の割合が多いことを示している(57.1%/57.3%)。 「その他」2,431,273人(おもにハンガリー人 1,662,948人〈31.6%〉、およびドイツ人 563,087人〈10.7%〉)。1919年/1920年のトランシルバニア国勢調査は、ハンガリー人を少数民族(26.5%/25.5%)として示している。 >Upper Hungary (restricted to the territory of today's Slovakia) ∫ 1,366,000 others (mostly Hungarians and Germans) ⇒# 上ハンガリー(今日のスロバキアの領土に限定) スロバキア人 1,687,977 人〔1921年国勢調査では:1,941,942人〕 「その他」1,233,454人(おもにハンガリー人-886,044人、ドイツ人、ルテニャ人およびローマ)〔1921年の国勢調査では:1,058,928人〕 # クロアチア-スロベニア、デルビデク(今日のクロアチア、セルビア) クロアチア人とセルビア人 2,756,000人 その他 1,366,000人(主にハンガリー人とドイツ人) >Kárpátalja (Ukraine) ∫ 69,858 "others" (mainly Croatian and Hungarian) ⇒# カルパタリャ(ウクライナ) ルテニャ人 330,010人 「その他」275,932人(主にハンガリー人、ドイツ人、ルーマニア人、スロバキア人) # オルビデク(ブルゲンラント、オーストリア) ドイツ人 217,072人 「その他」69,858人(おもにクロアチア人、ハンガリー人)





  • 和訳をお願いします。

    The 1910 census The last census before the Treaty of Trianon was held in 1910. This census recorded population by language and religion, but not by ethnicity. However, it is generally accepted that the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary in this time were the Hungarians. According to the 1910 census, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 48% of the entire population of the kingdom, and 54% of the population of the territory referred to as "Hungary proper", i.e. excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Within the borders of "Hungary proper" numerous ethnic minorities were present: 16.1% Romanians, 10.5% Slovaks, 10.4% Germans, 2.5% Ruthenians, 2.5% Serbs and 8% others. 5% of the population of "Hungary proper" were Jews, who were included in speakers of the Hungarian language. The population of the autonomous Croatia-Slavonia was mostly composed of Croats and Serbs (who together counted 87% of population). Criticism of the 1910 census The census of 1910 classified the residents of the Kingdom of Hungary by their native languages and religions, so it presents the preferred language of the individual, which may or may not correspond to the individual's ethnic identity. To make the situation even more complex, in the multilingual kingdom there were territories with ethnically mixed populations where people spoke two or even three languages natively. For example, in the territory what is today Slovakia (then part of Upper Hungary) 18% of the Slovaks, 33% of the Hungarians and 65% of the Germans were bilingual. In addition, 21% of the Germans spoke both Slovak and Hungarian beside German. These reasons are ground for debate about the accuracy of the census. While several demographers (David W. Paul, Peter Hanak, László Katus) state that the outcome of the census is reasonably accurate (assuming that it is also properly interpreted), others believe that the 1910 census was manipulated by exaggerating the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian, pointing to the discrepancy between an improbably high growth of the Hungarian-speaking population and the decrease of percentual participation of speakers of other languages due to Magyarization in the kingdom in the late 19th century. For example, the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia (only one year after the Treaty of Trianon) shows 21% Hungarians in Slovakia , compared to 30% based on 1910 census. Some Slovak demographers (such as Ján Svetoň [sk] and Julius Mesaros) dispute the result of every pre-war census. Owen Johnson, an American historian, accepts the numbers of the earlier censuses up to the one in 1900, according to which the proportion of the Hungarians was 51.4%, but he neglects the 1910 census as he thinks the changes since the last census are too big. It is also argued that there were different results in previous censuses in the Kingdom of Hungary and subsequent censuses in the new states.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    By the time the victorious Allies arrived in France, the treaty was already settled, which made the outcome inevitable. At the heart of the dispute lay fundamentally different views on the nature of the Hungarian presence in the disputed territories. For Hungarians, the outer territories were not seen as colonial territories, but rather part of the core national territory. The non-Hungarians that lived in the Pannonian Basin saw the Hungarians as colonial-style rulers who had oppressed the Slavs and Romanians since 1848, when they introduced laws that the language used in education and in local offices was to be Hungarian. For non-Hungarians from the Pannonian Basin it was a process of decolonisation instead of a punitive dismemberment (as was seen by the Hungarians). The Hungarians did not see it this way because the newly defined borders did not fully respect territorial distribution of ethnic groups, with areas where there were Hungarian majorities outside the new borders. The French sided with their allies the Romanians who had a long policy of cultural ties to France since the country broke from the Ottoman Empire (due in part to the relative ease at which Romanians could learn French)[64] although Clemenceau personally detested Bratianu. President Wilson initially supported the outline of a border that would have more respect to ethnic distribution of population based on the Coolidge Report, led by A. C. Coolidge, a Harvard professor, but later gave in, due to changing international politics and as a courtesy to other allies. For Hungarian public opinion, the fact that almost three-fourths of the pre-war kingdom's territory and a significant number of ethnic Hungarians were assigned to neighbouring countries triggered considerable bitterness. Most Hungarians preferred to maintain the territorial integrity of the pre-war kingdom. The Hungarian politicians claimed that they were ready to give the non-Hungarian ethnicities a great deal of autonomy. Most Hungarians regarded the treaty as an insult to the nation's honour. The Hungarian political attitude towards Trianon was summed up in the phrases Nem, nem, soha! ("No, no, never!") and Mindent vissza! ("Return everything!" or "Everything back!"). The perceived humiliation of the treaty became a dominant theme in inter-war Hungarian politics, analogous with the German reaction to the Treaty of Versailles.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    The territories of the former Hungarian Kingdom that were ceded by the treaty to neighbouring countries in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarian nationals, however the Hungarian ethnic area was much larger than the newly established territory of Hungary, therefore 30 percent of the ethnic Hungarians were under foreign authority. After the treaty, the percentage and the absolute number of all Hungarian populations outside of Hungary decreased in the next decades (although, some of these populations also recorded temporary increase of the absolute population number). There are several reasons for this population decrease, some of which were spontaneous assimilation and certain state policies, like Slovakization, Romanianization, Serbianisation.[citation needed] Other important factors were the Hungarian migration from the neighbouring states to Hungary or to some western countries as well as decreased birth rate of Hungarian populations. According to the National Office for Refugees, the number of Hungarians who immigrated to Hungary from neighbouring countries was about 350,000 between 1918 and 1924.Minorities in post-Trianon Hungary On the other hand, a considerable number of other nationalities remained within the frontiers of the independent Hungary: According to the 1920 census 10.4% of the population spoke one of the minority languages as mother language: 551,212 German (6.9%) 141,882 Slovak (1.8%) 36,858 Croatian (0.5%) 23,760 Romanian (0.3%) 23,228 Bunjevac and Šokac (0.3%) 17,131 Serbian (0.2%) 7,000 Slovene (0.08%) The percentage and the absolute number of all non-Hungarian nationalities decreased in the next decades, although the total population of the country increased. Bilingualism was also disappearing. The main reasons of this process were both spontaneous assimilation and the deliberate Magyarization policy of the state. Minorities made up 8% of the total population in 1930 and 7% in 1941 (on the post-Trianon territory). After World War II approximately 200,000 Germans were deported to Germany, according to the decree of the Potsdam Conference. Under the forced exchange of population between Czechoslovakia and Hungary, approximately 73,000 Slovaks left Hungary and according to different estimations 120,500 or 45,000Hungarians moved to present day Hungarian territory from Czechoslovakia. After these population movements Hungary became an almost ethnically homogeneous country with the exception of the Hungarian speaking Romani people.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    The Austro-Hungarians had ensured that Valjevo's defenses were fortified and had laid down artillery plans for the town's defense, but their lack of prior preparation meant that the hills surrounding the town were devoid of any significant defensive positions. The Serbs exploited this weakness by manoeuvring around the hills and encircling the Austro-Hungarians, suffering minimal casualties. The Serbian 3rd Army then broke through the defenses of the 6th Army at Mount Suvobor and stormed Valjevo. In Niš, the Bulgarian ambassador to Serbia reported: "The most improbable news from the battleground, sweet to the Serb ear, has been going around since this morning." He wrote that, in the last three to four days, the Serbian Army had captured one Austro-Hungarian General, 49 officers and more than 20,000 troops, as well as 40 cannon and "huge quantities of war matériel". By 9 December, the Austro-Hungarian counter-offensive around Belgrade lost its momentum and the Austro-Hungarians began to retreat back towards the city centre. One Austro-Hungarian soldier wrote: "We could not have imagined that the Serbs were on our heels, after all we had recently been victorious." On 10 December, the Serbian Army captured the lower reaches of the Drina, forcing the majority of surviving Austro-Hungarian troops to flee across the river. They did not stop until they had crossed the Sava and the Danube and entered the Banat. Very few Austro-Hungarian soldiers made it back into Bosnia. On 13 December, von Frank informed Potiorek that he considered it impossible for Austro-Hungarian forces to remain in Belgrade for much longer. As a result, Potiorek ordered the Austro-Hungarian forces in the city to withdraw. The Austro-Hungarians left Belgrade on 14 and 15 December and retreated back into Austria-Hungary under the cover of their river monitors on the Sava and the Danube. The Serbian Army re-entered Belgrade on 15 December and was in full control of the city by the end of the following day. The battle ended in a decisive Serbian victory. A directive issued by the Serbian Supreme Command on 16 December reported: "The recapture of Belgrade marks the successful end of a great and magnificent period in our operations. The enemy is beaten, dispersed, defeated and expelled from our territory once and for all.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    On 2 December, he ordered his forces to attack the Austro-Hungarians all along the front and informed his officers that the offensive was to have the specific purpose of improving Serbian morale. Determined to play his part, the aging Serbian king, Peter I, took a rifle and accompanied his troops to the front. The Serbian offensive caught the Austro-Hungarians by surprise, and at the time that the attack was launched they were holding a large military parade through the streets of Belgrade. The Austro-Hungarians now found themselves defending along an over-extended front as Potiorek had just begun strengthening his left flank, leaving the front line very lightly held. Potiorek knew that he could avoid a serious reversal on the battlefield by preventing the Serbian 1st Army from reaching the watershed of the Kolubara and Morava rivers, but the Serbs were confident. They discovered that the Austro-Hungarians had failed to adequately prepare for a Serbian counterattack, as their artillery was positioned well behind the front line. This meant that the Austro-Hungarian defenders would be unable to use their heavy guns to break up any Serbian advance. Rested and resupplied, the Serbs pushed forward towards Belgrade. By the night of 2 December, the Serbian 1st Army pushed several kilometres past Austro-Hungarian lines, taking a large number of prisoners and inflicting heavy casualties on the Austro-Hungarians. The 2nd and 3rd armies captured a number of important positions on high ground, while the Užice Army met fierce resistance but was ultimately able to push the Austro-Hungarians back. The offensive's initial success served to greatly enhance the morale of Serbian troops, just as Putnik had wanted. Significantly weakened, the Austro-Hungarians did not have time to recover before the offensive resumed the following morning and they were forced into retreat by the end of the day. On 6 December, the British ambassador to Serbia informed the British Government that the Serb offensive was "progressing brilliantly". That day, the Serbian Army had broken the Austro-Hungarians at their centre and on their right flank. Outmanoeuvred, the Austro-Hungarians were forced into a full retreat, abandoning their weapons and equipment as they went. Meanwhile, the Austro-Hungarians attempted to consolidate control around Belgrade. On 7 December, they attacked the right flank of the Serbian Army in the city's outskirts. On 8 December, the Austro-Hungarians fell back against Užice and Valjevo. The Serbs anticipated that their opponents would entrench themselves and attempt to block the Serbian Army's advance, but the Austro-Hungarians had failed to construct any defensive networks and, as such, were in no position to block the Serbian offensive.

  • 英文を和訳して下さい。

    Early in 1915, with the Ottoman defeats at the Battle of Sarikamish and in the First Suez Offensive, German Chief of the General Staff Erich von Falkenhayn tried to convince the Austro-Hungarian Chief of Staff, Conrad von Hötzendorf, of the importance of conquering Serbia. If Serbia were taken, then the Germans would have a rail link from Germany, through Austria-Hungary and down to Istanbul (and beyond). This would allow the Germans to send military supplies and even troops to help the Ottoman Empire. While this was hardly in Austria-Hungary's interests, the Austro-Hungarians did want to defeat Serbia. However, Russia was the more dangerous enemy, and furthermore, with the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side, the Austro-Hungarians had their hands full (see Italian Front (World War I)).

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    Officially the treaty was intended to be a confirmation of the right of self-determination for nations and of the concept of nation-states replacing the old multinational Austro-Hungarian empire. Although the treaty addressed some nationality issues, it also sparked some new ones. The minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom were the major beneficiaries. The Allies had explicitly committed themselves to the causes of the minority peoples of Austria-Hungary late in World War I. For all intents and purposes, the death knell of the Austro-Hungarian empire sounded on 14 October 1918, when United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing informed Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister István Burián that autonomy for the nationalities was no longer enough. Accordingly, the Allies assumed without question that the minority ethnic groups of the pre-war kingdom wanted to leave Hungary. The Romanians joined their ethnic brethren in Romania, while the Slovaks, Serbs and Croats helped establish nation-states of their own (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia). However, these new or enlarged countries also absorbed large slices of territory with a majority of ethnic Hungarians or Hungarian speaking population. As a result, as many as a third of Hungarian language-speakers found themselves outside the borders of the post-Trianon Hungary. While the territories that were now outside Hungary's borders had non-Hungarian majorities overall, there also existed some sizeable areas with a majority of Hungarians, largely near the newly defined borders. Over the last century, concerns have occasionally been raised about the treatment of these ethnic Hungarian communities in the neighbouring states. Areas with significant Hungarian populations included the Székely Land in Eastern Transylvania, the area along the newly defined Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Oradea), the area north of the newly defined Czechoslovakian–Hungarian border (Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Subcarpathia and northern parts of Vojvodina. The Allies rejected the idea of plebiscites in the disputed areas with the exception of the city of Sopron, which voted in favour of Hungary. The Allies were indifferent as to the exact line of the newly defined border between Austria and Hungary. Furthermore, ethnically diverse Transylvania, with an overall Romanian majority (53.8% – 1910 census data or 57.1% – 1919 census data or 57.3% – 1920 census data), was treated as a single entity at the peace negotiations and was assigned in its entirety to Romania. The option of partition along ethnic lines as an alternative was rejected.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    Austria-Hungary's third invasion of Serbia commenced on 6 November 1914, with intense artillery fire strafing a series of Serbian border towns. On 7 November, the Austro-Hungarian 5th and 6th armies attacked across the Drina. Outnumbered and in desperate need of ammunition, the Serbian Army offered fierce resistance but was forced to retreat. The 3rd Army fell back against a road by the Jadar River in an effort to block the Austro-Hungarian advance towards Valjevo, while the 1st Army retreated southward into the Serbian interior and the Užice Army managed to prevent the Austro-Hungarians from crossing the Drina. On 8 November, the Austro-Hungarians attacked the Serbian 2nd Army near Cer Mountain and came within 1.6 kilometres (0.99 mi) of the Serbian frontline, entrenching themselves at the foot of the mountain. The 2nd Army was given orders to hold the Austro-Hungarians down for as long as possible and, if its position became untenable, retreat towards the right bank of the Dobrava River and position itself so as to block the approach to Valjevo. Elsewhere, the Austro-Hungarians drove a wedge between the 1st and 3rd Army and forced another Serbian retreat. Later that day, the Serbian Government held a joint session with the Serbian Supreme Command with regard to Serbia's worsening military position. Putnik stressed that it was critical for Serbia to hold the Kolubara and the towns within its vicinity and suggested that the Serbs make a separate peace with Austria-Hungary if this proved impossible. This notion was rejected by the Prime Minister of Serbia, Nikola Pašić, who urged further resistance to the Austro-Hungarians and threatened the resignation of his government if peace discussions began. The session ended with the Serbian Government and Supreme Command agreeing to fight on. Putnik reasoned that Austro-Hungarian supply lines would become overstretched as their forces pressed deeper into Serbia while the Serbs would continue to hold the railheads in the Serbian interior. On 10 November, he ordered a general retreat from the Jadar and withdrew the Serbian 2nd Army to Ub and positioned the 1st and 3rd armies north and west of Valjevo. Meanwhile, the Užice Army took up positions to defend the town from which it took its name. The Austro-Hungarians pressed after the Serbs, hoping to capture the Obrenovac–Valjevo railroad. Clashes ensued and the Serbian Army managed to prevent the Austro-Hungarians from taking the railroad for a time. It quickly became clear to Putnik that he had underestimated the Austro-Hungarians, who managed to bring their heavy artillery through the muddy Serbian country roads. They established firing positions on the Serbian side of the Drina and began targeting the Serbian Army, which suffered heavy casualties.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    16–26 November The Kolubara River in Valjevo. The Austro-Hungarians reached the Kolubara on 16 November and launched an assault against Serbian defensive positions there the following day. The Serbs managed to force the Austro-Hungarians back and over the course of the next five days, the two armies fought a series of battles under heavy rain and snowfall. Both sides suffered heavy casualties, with a large number of soldiers succumbing to frostbite and hypothermia. The Austro-Hungarian assault began at Lazarevac, a strategically located town just south of Belgrade whose capture would have given them access to the Mladenovac railway line and the ability to outflank the Serbian forces holding the road to Belgrade. Further south, the Austro-Hungarians attacked the Serbian 1st Army. During this assault, they made the mistake of attacking its stronger right flank and were met with determined Serbian resistance which prevented them from gaining any ground. Military historian David Jordan notes that had the Austro-Hungarians attacked the junction splitting the 1st and Užice armies, they might have been able to split the Serbs down the centre and gotten hold of an unimpeded passage to the Morava River. The Serbian 1st Army was quick to reinforce its left flank, realizing that any subsequent attack against it would be far less easy to repel. During the night of 18 November, the Austro-Hungarians moved into position to carry out a further assault, which began the following morning. The Austro-Hungarians' main goal was to break through the defenses of the Serbian 2nd Army, concentrated primarily around Lazarevac, and to drive the Serbian 1st Army back towards the town of Gornji Milanovac while simultaneously assaulting Serbian positions around the villages of Čovka and Vrače Brdo which threatened the Austro-Hungarian flank. The Austro-Hungarians gained a foothold at Vrače Brdo by the evening of 19 November, and seized higher ground from the Serbs further to the south. The Serbian 1st Army was forced to retreat the following day, giving the Austro-Hungarians the ability to advance down the main routes leading to Kragujevac. Potiorek believed it was possible that Putnik was trying to lure the Austro-Hungarians deeper into Serbia for the purpose of encircling them and then attacking their flanks, but correctly assessed that the Serbian Army was in no position to carry out such an attack.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    The memoirs of General of Artillery Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein were published in 2001 in German language in Tbilisi, Georgia - Editor Dr. David Paitschadse, publishing house Samschoblo, ISBN 99928-26-62-2, online version can be found here The Second Battle of the Piave River, fought between 15 and 23 June 1918, was a decisive victory for the Italian Army against the Austro-Hungarian Empire during World War I. Though the battle proved to be a decisive blow to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and by extension the Central Powers, its full significance was not initially appreciated in Italy. Yet Erich Ludendorff, on hearing the news, is reported to have said he 'had the sensation of defeat for the first time'. It would later become clear that the battle was in fact the beginning of the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. With the exit of Russia from the war in 1917, Austria-Hungary was now able to devote significant forces to the Italian Front and to receive reinforcements from their German allies. The Austro-Hungarian emperor Karl had reached an agreement with the Germans to undertake a new offensive against Italy, a move supported by both the chief of the general staff Arthur Arz von Straußenburg and the commander of the South Tyrolean Army Group Conrad von Hötzendorf. In the autumn of 1917, the Germans and Austrians had defeated the Italians at the Battle of Caporetto. After Caporetto, the Italians fell back to the Piave and were reinforced by six French infantry divisions and five British infantry divisions as well as sizeable air contingents.Italy's defeat at Caporetto led to General Luigi Cadorna's dismissal and General Armando Diaz replaced him as Chief of staff of the Italian Army. Diaz set up a strong defense line along the Piave. Up until this point in the war, the Italian army had been fighting alone against the Central Powers; with the defeat at Caporetto, France and Britain sent small reinforcements on the Italian front. These, besides accounting for less than a tenth of the Italian forces in theater, had however to be redirected for the major part to the Western Front as soon as the German Spring Offensive began in March 1918.The Austro-Hungarian Army had also recently undergone a change in command, and the new Austrian Chief of Staff, Arthur Arz von Straußenburg, wished to finish off the Italians. After Caporetto, the Austro-Hungarian offensive had put many Italian cities, including Venice and Verona, under the threat of the Central Powers. The Second Battle of the Piave River 第二次ピアーヴェ川の戦い