New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 392 pages of information about New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915.

New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 392 pages of information about New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915.

All honor and credit are given by the Russians to the garrison of Przemysl and General Kusmanek.  Russian officers ever had the highest opinion of the personality of the commandant.  I heard from those who fought under General Radko Dmitrieff in the early stages of the Galician campaign that when our troops, after sweeping away the resistance at Lwow and Jaroslau, loudly knocked at the doors of the fortress of Przemysl, they met with a stern rebuff.  In reply to the summons of the Russians to surrender the keys the commandant wrote a curt and dignified note remarking that he considered it beyond his own dignity or the dignity of the Russian General to discuss the surrender of the fortress before it had exhausted all its powers of resistance.  During the second invasion of Poland by the Austro-German armies the enemy’s lines swept up to and just beyond Przemysl, interrupting the investment of the fortress.  The wave of the Austrian invasion began to subside at the end of the first week in November.  Only then could we begin the siege of the mighty fortress, which proved successful after the lapse of four months.

The first Russian attempt to storm Przemysl without previous bombardment, which followed immediately upon the commandant’s refusal to surrender, resulted in very great loss of life to no purpose.  Thereafter it was decided to abstain from further attempts to take the fortress until our siege guns could be placed and a preliminary bombardment could sufficiently facilitate the task of the besiegers.  Meanwhile, although the fortress and town were duly invested, our lines were somewhat remote from the outlying forts, and the peasants of adjacent villages were, it is said, able to pass freely to and from the town of Przemysl—­a fact which would enable the inhabitants to obtain supplies.  From all accounts neither the garrison nor the inhabitants were reduced to very great straits for food.  The announcement made at the time of the first investment of the fortress that provisions and supplies would easily last till May was, however, obviously exaggerated.

I understand that heavy siege guns were ready to be conveyed to Przemysl at the end of January, but that the Russian military authorities decided to postpone their departure in view of the determined attempts made by the Austro-German forces to pierce the Russian lines in the Carpathians in order to relieve the fortress, which, if successful, might have endangered the safety of the siege material.  Owing to this fact the bombardment of Przemysl began only about a fortnight ago, when the Austro-German offensive had so far weakened as to satisfy the Russian authorities that there was no further danger from this quarter.

The concluding stages of the siege have been related in the dispatches from the Field Headquarters during the past week.  The capture of the dominating heights in the eastern sector followed close upon the first bombardment.  The final desperate sortie led by General Kusmanek at the head of the Twenty-third Division of the Honved precipitated the end.  The remnants of the garrison were unable to man the works extending to a thirty-mile periphery.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.