Page:Diplomacy and the War (Andrassy 1921).djvu/205

 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