Page - 351 - in THE FIRST WORLD WAR - and the End of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1914 – 1918

The Prague ‘House Regiment’ 351 obedience, bravery and self-sacrifice stand out in particular. A broad spectrum of atti- tudes lies between these two poles. Some of them can be classified as noncompliance, which is described in sweeping terms as desertion. This desertion, as is expatiated in the case of Austria-Hungary, is in the case of soldiers of non-German nationality ‘often exclusively prevalent in political contexts as a result of a national political and national state preference’.822 The result was that desertion was at least in retrospect regarded as having had a political background. The assumption expressed in this context, that the debate conducted in relation to desertion from the German Wehrmacht during the Second World War has also been applied to the First World War and Austria-Hungary, cannot be denied. However, it is doubtful that such a comparison is useful. Quite clearly, there was a significant difference between the behaviour of officers, professional military staff of lower ranks and the ‘simple soldiers’, at least during the first years of the war, among those of whom evidence was sought that they had a ten- dency to desert from the outset. In the self-conception of the officers, honour was of great importance, and since desertion,and even more so cowardice, collided with the notion of honour in every way, such cases were rare among professional officers. Patri- otism and absolute commitment to the Supreme Commander were a matter of course. All this evolved against the background of the supra-nationality of Austria-Hungary. However, even professional officers were not free of national sentiments, even if they were classic ‘knapsack children’. The same did not apply to the reserve officers. Percep- tions of honour appropriate to officers were mixed with conceivably civilian work and professional ethics, and furthermore, as Ernst Hanisch wrote, placing emphasis on a sore point, the ‘nationalism of educated society […] increasingly penetrated the lower reserve officer corps and created a centre of conflict’.823 The high losses of professional officers had, as mentioned above, already led to a fundamental change in the army at the end of 1914 and the beginning of 1915. For the soldiers, matters looked different, but there is no doubt that they also had a highly personal code of honour, were not much impressed by the sentimental ideal of the hero portrayed in the war propaganda, and regarded survival as the most impor- tant goal of their existence in the war. Many were able to overcome their animal fear. However, often it was the fear that overcame them. Field and summary court-martials usually recognised this and passed lenient judgements  – and this in Austria-Hungary, which otherwise often appeared to act so harshly.824 Fear was also sufficient explanation for many cases in which soldiers were accused of failing to fulfil their duty. The oath, which was to be sworn by everyone, acted as a connecting link between officers and soldiers. It was a ‘holy oath’, and in a period and in a war in which religious feeling must be recognised as being highly valued throughout, there is no doubt that it was taken seriously. Here, lack of evidence of bravery or temporary failure of duty were still to some extent acceptable. However, desertion was another matter. The deserter