Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 52. (2007)
FRIED, Marvin Benjamin: Feldmarschall Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf: A Memoir Analysis
Feldmarschall Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf misery and destruction upon the blooming continent.”113 While accusing Russia of beginning the “attack [on Austria-Hungary] politically already decades ago,”114 thus making clear to him and Austria-Hungary who its enemy was, he falls into a loophole by arguing that militarily a “deployment against Serbia [was] necessary, as Russia’s behavior [was] not yet illustrated.”115 Thus, as Stone points out, and as are clear by Conrad’s own mistakes in his accounts, “the documents make plain what Conrad and his apologists concealed: that Conrad had in effect decided to pursue his war with Serbia despite the obviousness of Russian intervention.”116 Nevertheless, Conrad proudly asserts that Russia had “miscalculated”117 by thinking it could “easily tread across”118 the armed forces of Austria-Hungary. (iii) When looking at Austria-Hungary’s international relations, Comad begins to idealize his country’s behavior. He states that “Austrian policy had only one goal: ‘to be on good terms with the whole world.’”119 If he merely meant stability, this argument is justifiable, but a look at Austro-Hungarian interests in the Balkans would seriously contradict this point. While arguing that “nothing could be further from her intentions than to ignite a world war,”120 he nevertheless propagates the myth that Austria-Hungary, “cleverly pushed by her enemies[,] finally stumbled into this war,”121 and blames England and France for not using their power to stop it. Thus, Austria-Hungary suffered “the fate of the irresolute[;] it fell into the danger when the danger was at its greatest, and was abandoned by her friends.”122 From this, Comad concludes that Austria-Hungary was not beaten militarily, but “succumbed to the outstanding policies of [its] enemies.”123 Again, this is the propagation of a myth, similar to Hitler’s ‘Dolchstoß’ or ‘stabbed in the back’ idea. Nonetheless, this supposed peaceful attitude of Austria is a defense and simultaneously a critique of Comad’s, who believes that the appropriate accusation against Austria-Hungary is that she did not “fight the struggle for survival at a time when there were still chances for success,”124 particularly to “break the might of Russia.”125 Thus, his argument is that Austria-Hungary was too lenient with Russia 113 Conrad von Hötzendorf, Franz: Private Aufzeichnungen, Pg. 66. 114 Ibid, Pg. 201. 115 Ibid, Pg. 152. 116 Stone, Norman: The Eastern Front, pg. 75. 17 Conrad von Hötzendorf, Franz: Private Aufzeichnungen, Pg. 147. 118 Ibid, Pg. 147. 119 Ibid, Pg. 163. 120 Ibid, Pg. 162. 121 Ibid, Pg. 165. 122 Ibid, Pg. 165. 123 Ibid, Pg. 158. 124 Ibid, Pg. 157. 125 Ibid, Pg. 145. 237
