Page - 949 - in THE FIRST WORLD WAR - and the End of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1914 – 1918

The Army Disintegrates 949 tically never deserted during trench warfare but in the open country quickly raised their hands and capitulated ? This perhaps applied to periods of mobile warfare, but there had also been desertions on a mass scale at times when the front had become rigid. Was it a result of the identity crisis of several crown lands and the troops recruited there, which had not only been observed since the beginning of the war ? Was it a question of moti- vation, loyalty, errors in leadership, the language problem or, after all, mentalities ? Ques- tions upon questions. The commanders of the German Army were also unable to deal with the various phenomena. And how could they ? After all, the conduct of the peoples of the Empire was an utterly Austrian affair. It would not be possible to overcome the problem with disciplinary measures alone. It was also the case with the Russians that the officers had increasingly applied rigour and tried their luck by employing brutal disci- pline. It was precisely this example, however, that was to have a deterrent effect, since the unbridled application of violence only made officers and NCOs hated.2283 The difference in the conduct of the different national contingents continued. Here, there were also individual observations,2284 and it was reported perhaps with some as- tonishment that the otherwise so vaunted Bosniaks also occasionally failed. But this was the exception, and the reactions to it could not have been more severe, indeed merciless : when replacement personnel of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Infantry Reg- iments Nos. 3 and 4 as well as units of the predominantly Czech Infantry Regiment No. 98 from Vysoké Mýto (Hohenmauth) wanted to surrender to the Italians in the karst area of Doberdó, they were gunned down by their own comrades.2285 And when, in September and at the beginning of October 1916, cases of desertion also multiplied on the south-western front, the Army Group Commander, Archduke Eugen, issued an order on 8 October that culminated in the sentences : ‘Particular attention is to be paid to personnel of Italian, Serbian and Romanian nationality after returning from leave, as well as Romanians who originate from territories that are currently occupied by the enemy. The provisions of martial law are from now on to be announced on a weekly basis.’ The Archduke also ordered that the censoring of letters was to be handled strictly. In conclusion, however, the order stated that the overwhelming number of soldiers of all nationalities behaved ‘loyally and bravely’.2286 There was no mention of disbanding troop bodies or setting an example with constant punishments. As far as the mention of martial law jurisdiction was concerned, it could be assumed that it would remain a threat and nothing more. In 1916 and 1917, the war had become such a daily routine that everyday procedures also sufficed. Martial law had only been applied to cases that were evaluated as ‘crimes of deser- tion’ from March 1915. On 16 March 1915, an announcement was made by the Army High Command, according to which deserters, if found guilty, were to be sentenced to death in accordance with § 444, Paragraph 2 of the Military Code of Criminal Proce- dure.2287 The death penalty for desertion had been threatened during the second Car-