# Diplomacy and the War/Part 2/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II.
Our Military Mistakes.
In addition to the mistakes that we made in our foreign policy, the result of which only increased the number of our enemies of whom we had a sufficiency, and which only decreased our slender hopes for peace, we also added military errors. We owe the greatest gratitude to our armies because they performed miracles. They fought almost unceasingly against superior numbers, and took more prisoners than our enemies. They conquered more fortresses, they won more battles, and they have occupied larger areas, than any army in this war or than any previous fighting force. I am also of opinion that our leadership was superior to that of the enemy. Certain campaigns will remain classics in the annals of military history. The masses justified themselves completely. There were far more heroes than one could have expected from the present generation. But we made such serious military mistakes that we were prevented from achieving such successes as might perhaps have led us to an advantageous peace.
The Austro-Hungarian armies suffered from such organic weaknesses as to deteriorate the capacity of the ​first-class material. These mistakes could be felt in the whole of the organism of the State. The long reign of Francis Joseph was not favourable to the development of such talent as existed. This ruler loved the punctual, assiduous bureaucrat, whereas he was rather shy of men who possessed profundity of thought and who were endowed with great gifts. In fact, one might almost say that he was afraid of the last-mentioned type. The so-called asses' ladder was the normal means of promotion during his reign. Influence, birth, and bureaucratic talent sometimes succeeded in obtaining preferential treatment; but genius and real power hardly ever succeeded in so doing. The spirit of bureaucracy lay heavily upon everything, and mediocrity stood the best chance of promotion. Francis Ferdinand, on the other hand, sought to discover talent and showed sound insight in many cases. Unfortunately, however, it happened very often that the personalities chosen by him combined talent with a tendency to intrigue. Baron Conrad, who was his right-hand man in military questions, possessed decided talent, an individualistic character, was by no means an intriguer or a flatterer, but he was not endowed with a great knowledge of men, nor did he possess the ability to make an end of the rule of mediocrity and intrigue in his immediate surroundings. The General Staff remained a special body within the body of the army. There was an absence of that healthy interchange between it and the troops, that organic cohesion which existed, for ​example, in the German Army. All advantages, distinctions and promotions fell to the portion of the General Staff, and all the dangers and suffering fell to the part of the troops. It was scarcely possible for officers commanding troops in the field to get into the General Staff, and they were always superseded by the successful candidates coming from the military schools. Heavy work and the uncertainty of the future ruined the nerves of the officers. The continuous effort for promotion, which could only be obtained over the corpses of friends, the desire to curry favour with superior officers, and the victory of the flatterer in this competition, all combined to weaken moral courage and to reduce the readiness to accept responsibility for its own sake. Enterprise became smaller and smaller, and one met far more often with lip-service among the General Staff and in the higher posts. In the German Army, where the iron discipline was certainly as strong as with us, independence and boldness were much more pronounced, and promotion was not only expected from above as was the case with us. One could note frequently during the war with dissatisfaction the hatred and distrust which officers in the field bore towards the General Staff.
The second great organic weakness of this army was the fact that the Hungarians, the race which fought with most enthusiasm next to the Germans, did not feel itself to be an integral part of this army, nor did they regard it as their own. Among the higher ranks of the officers there were only a few Hungarians, and ​among the highly placed Hungarians there were only a few of purely Hungarian outlook. The Hungarians returned from the war with a multitude of complaints. During the war I spoke to countless Hungarian politicians who used to be ardent exponents of a common army and who were in favour of the German language as the only language for the army, but now, after they had gained their experience, they regarded the creation of an independent Hungarian army as one of the most urgent problems. In many places where there was a lack of Hungarian officers, the Hungarian troops believed they were justified in detecting a hatred of Hungary. Thousands upon thousands of Hungarian soldiers gained the impression that they were selected for posts of danger, and that recognition fell to anyone rattier than themselves. All these experiences led to the fact that Hungarian troops rejoiced when they were detailed to go into portions of the German army, in spite of the rough treatment and the strong discipline of the Germans, which is naturally opposed to the Hungarian temperament. The military virtues of the Hungarians were not fully exploited, and the army did not develop that power of which it would have been capable under better organization and leadership. The experiences and impressions gained by the Hungarians in the theatre of war made them bitter and became one of the sources of the October revolution. This state of affairs is ever to be regretted, for the human material of the army was the best in existence. The Hungarian peasant, if he is com​manded by a correspondingly able body of officers, is the best soldier in the world. And in view of the circumstances he brought about miracles; but he would have been even better if one had placed him in purely national surroundings during times of peace.
One of the greatest advantages we enjoyed was our internal line of communications, which permitted us to move our forces, according to plan, from one theatre of war to another. Unfortunately, however, this advantage was exploited only rarely because, in order to do so, we would have had to have complete harmony in leadership, which we lacked. Without knowing any of the details, I nevertheless had the worrying impression that all was not well with us in this direction. Whenever I had an opportunity of discussing the subject with a leading personality of Germany or Austria, I generally heard the bitterest complaints against the ally. The political lack of harmony was also reflected in the military leadership.
The book written by Novak, which is a glorification of Conrad, throws an interesting light upon these quarrels and upon the mutual feeling. The book is a crystallization of the anti-German spirit which was dominant in our army. It is quite certain that also our enemies did not remain untouched by the weaknesses of the coalition. This is proved by many of the mistakes they made, which they were able to bear, whereas we, who had far smaller forces at our disposal than our enemies, could not afford to commit any errors. Nothing but complete harmony, faultless ​leadership and the favour of fortune could have secured a victory for us. I do not wish to enter the labyrinth of military questions, but I only want to point to some mistakes which were made on our side.
From the very beginning I was convinced that we ought to concentrate our forces against Russia, and that, unless the momentary position forced us to adopt different methods of procedure in other theatres of war, we ought to attack our strongest enemy on the continent until he collapsed completely.
Apart from the political reasons which I have given earlier on, I came to this conclusion in view of the strategic position of Poland. Our Eastern frontiers were suitable to an offensive and unfavourable to the defensive plan of campaign. The situation was unfavourable for defence because the kingdom of Poland is in such a central position that the Russian Army can from there threaten Berlin, Budapest and Vienna in a similar manner, and could force us to hold large forces in readiness in order to defend our capital. By exploiting the advantages of the internal lines of communication the Russian Army could defeat our forces separately. As soon as we confined ourselves to the defensive, we had to gather together enormous forces, and even they had to be exposed to the danger of being vanquished separately. For an attack, however, the strategic position was very favourable. The Russian Army marched into Poland in such a state of confusion that the army could almost be throttled, provided we attacked the army from both ends with energy. More​over, every tactical success could easily develop into enormous strategic results.
It appears that our military command intended to commence the attack in the Russian theatre of war, but they failed to enforce this plan with the Germans. It appears, moreover, that our military command at the beginning of the war was of the opinion that the Germans would direct greater forces towards the Eastern theatre of war than was actually the case. It was a serious disadvantage for us that this calculation turned out to be erroneous, and that the Austro-Hungarian Army, which was relatively weak compared with the army of Russia, had from the beginning to develop an attack of such a size as she should only have done if her army had been equivalent to that of Russia. This attack, moreover, was made in accordance with old principles of tactics and our soldiers did not dig trenches. Human life was not spared then as it was later. Consequently, we lost material and were pressed back at the same time. The Germans were forced to take more troops from the Western front and transport them to the Eastern front, the consequence of which was the failure of the Battle of the Marne and the German troops did not arrive in time in Galicia.
While the battle was still raging in Galicia which had been inaugurated in unfavourable circumstances, and while our army was suffering heavy losses which could never be replaced, we used excessive powers against the Serbs in opposition to the advice of the military command. In the Serbian theatre of war we ​conducted an offensive twice over, without having sufficient power to do it, and at a time when we needed every single soldier in a more important theatre of war. On the first occasion we shed more blood than was necessary without achieving a permanent success, and we excited the jealousy of the Italians. The second offensive led to a catastrophe which was perhaps the saddest in the whole of the war. When Potiorek had the victory apparently already in his hands, he risked everything. He divided his army into two parts, sent one portion towards the north in order to deliver the keys of Belgrade into the hands of the highest War Lord for the glorification of the Emperor's Jubilee (2nd December, 1914); whereas he committed the other portion, consisting of worn-out troops, who were far distant from their reserves and from munitions, to a battle which he lost completely. It was a tragic and classic example of lip-service and the menial spirit of the courtier. By this procedure small Serbia gained an enormous victory over her powerful neighbour.
The result was that in Galicia and in Serbia we lost the flower of our army without achieving a corresponding result. The defeat could be made good, but the dead could not be raised to life again. The good name of the army, moreover, suffered so severely that, notwithstanding many proofs of courage, many brilliant ideas and many fair victories, the blemish could never be removed completely. Our self-assurance, which was never too firmly rooted in Austria, began to waver. ​Many events would have developed along different lines if the war had been started with satisfactory results against Russia.
It would never have been correct to begin a serious offensive against two different enemies in two different theatres of war. The main attack should always have been directed against one object. This rule was also disregarded in the year 1916, when two attacks were launched simultaneously against Verdun and against the Italian Army. In my opinion, neither the one attack nor the other was desirable. I considered, rather, that after the defeat of Serbia, the offensive should have been resumed against Russia, especially as that offensive had achieved such brilliant results after Gorlice. Verdun resisted the onslaught. The offensive which had begun so successfully in Italy had to be arrested because Brussilow had penetrated our eastern frontier near Luck. This Russian success, which would not have occurred if we had not given the Russians time to reorganize themselves, and if we had exploited our great successes during 1915 with all our force, finally determined Roumania in entering the war.
It is a classical example of the unhealthy structure of the Coalition that—as Novak points out in his book—Baron Conrad knew nothing of the offensive of Verdun which had been prepared secretly by Count Falkenhayn.
Was it a mistake, or was it inevitable, that we did not continue the offensive in the year 1917 which we ​made upon the Italian front until the Italian army had been vanquished completely, and further, that we did not extend our offensive against Serbia as far as Salonica? I am not in a position to judge this question fully, but at any rate it was a misfortune. At the same time, I could not avoid the impression that we did not exploit our successes sufficiently, and that we changed the aims of our operations too often, and that the last attack against Italy was made without due preparation and that it was based upon a fundamental mistake originally. Finally, there is another question that must be asked: was the forcing of the last offensive in the West not based upon a complete misapprehension of the relation of strength, and would it not have been better at that time to confine oneself to the defensive and to aim at such resistance as would bring about a peace by negotiation rather than putting all the eggs into one basket?
The most serious mistake of the military command was certainly the absolutely erroneous calculations with regard to the effects of the submarine war and the ability of America. It was a mistake which ultimately developed into the final cause of the catastrophe.
In spite of all these mistakes, however, the final collapse did not take place in any theatre of war, as a result of the many clever ideas, the many admirable combinations and the incomparable material of our armies, but upon the internal front. When Bulgaria deserted us and paralysed our power of resistance, our troops were upon enemy territory and they had not ​been vanquished. We could record more glorious military successes than our victorious enemies. It was not a defeat of the military front which led to our failure, but it was the collapse of the internal front which led to the military catastrophe.
In order to understand the collapse, we must therefore turn our attention to the internal situation. We must examine what causes created the crisis in Hungary which led to the fall of the Monarchy.