PROGRESS OF THE WAR

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 10008, 27 June 1918, Page 4

PROGRESS OF THE WAR

There is considerable discrepancy to-day in the accounts from Italy of the military situation. We do not refer to the number of prisoners taken by the Italians, which was stated at 45,000 by the latest accounts yesterday, and confirmed to-day by tho Italian Embassy in London. That point seem s to bo disposed of by the Italian official explanation, reported to-day, that a mistake was made of one cypher, the correct number being 4500, not 45,000. Tho difference is, of course, considerable, and must affect judgment as to tho effects of tho great Austrian defeat.

This, however is not a discrepancy.' The discrepancy tto refer to is the discrepancy between the accounts of tho situation. London says “tho Piavu Battle is apparently dying down to ■local actions,; and Romo says “the Italian troops have completely reoccupied tho west bank of tho Piave.” These imply that the Austrians have all recrosscd tho river to their own side. As to the effect on tho Austrians—who, according to some recent messages, had a million ■’and a-hulf of men engaged, a number reduced by a message to-day to 3/ divisions (ot 22,0U0 men), or 314,000 men in all (ol which, force 440,000 readied the west bank ot the Piave) —Loudon says that “it is understood that the Austrian defeat is so crushing that it will not bo possible to resume tho offensive for several weeks.’’ It is added! that tho spirit of tho troops is broken, and that some of the best Austrian units are no longer of any lighting value. Some of tho Austrian blunders are referred to, chief of which is “faulty judgment in placing the reserves," and the concluding information is that the lino of tho Piavo from Montello to the sea is so strongly held now that there is not tho least likelihood of tho Austrians attempting to rccross tho rivor. Another message gives tho substance of tho Italian general’s proclamation to his men before they started their general advance against tho Piavo, sketches that advance, and declares that the Italians are “proud of beating all the Austrian Army.”

Now those messages imply that tho whole business is over, that tho Austrians have been so heavily mauled that they cannot resume the offensive for weeks, and that when they do they are not in tho least likely to make another direct attack on tho lino of tho Piavo; that, in fact, that lino is too strong for thorn ever to look at it again. These accounts speak as if the initiative still remains with tho enemy, in spite of tho crippling ho has sustained; practically that bis whole army has sustained. It ia curious that no reference is made to tho possibility of any counter-offensive against troops so utterly ' shaken as these are described to ho. Am] this in face of tho report that several units of the Italian Army had crossed tho Piavo and wore harassing tho enemy to some extent on the west bank. Ono wonders whether the censor has interfered to prevent reference of any kind to some largo offensive movement which is preparing, if not actually in

progress,. as for example the maintenance of the advance heralded by the stirring proclamation of General Diaz.

A totally 'different complexion;—for tho enemy very much worse—is put upon tho situation by two Italian messages. These aro tho statements of the Exchange Telegraph Agency’s Rome correspondent and of tho “Giornalo dTtalia.” The first reports that tho Italian Miniister ihas informed* both Houses of the Italian Parliament that “tho Italian success continues, the Austrians still suffering enormous losses.” Tho “Giornale” reports that “the troops in the armies of the Archduke Joseph and General Wurm, aro practically surrounded and must surrender or he annihilated.”

These messages imply that- the Italian advance is moving on in strong, swift pursuit; that it has got the enemy in a tight place, and is about to inflict upon him a greater disaster that ho has yet endured; in fact, a decisive disaster.

According to one account the battle is definitely over, and the only question is of when tho beaten enemy will bo strong enough to try again. According to the other the battle is being maintained by the Italian advance to such purpose that two of the- Austrian armies aro in dire jeopardy..

One message of the latter and more hopeful account professes to quote tho Italian Prime Minister as authority for tho information. Tho other message of the same tenor strongly reminds us of Mr Lloyd George’s statement (in his speech reported yesterday, and discussed in this column) that tho only question was not whether the enemy was going to retreat, but whether ho can retreat at all. Tho difference between his statement and the “Giornalo’s” is that his was made before the messages readied here announcing that the enemy’s forces had all been driven over the Piave, "whereas tho “Giornale’s” was made after. Mr Lloyd George and the “Giornale” nevertheless . must be regarded as standing together, and with them Signor Orlando. If those three refer to the battle east of the Piave and were belated until the battle ended, the discrepancy, of course, disappears. But to decide that point we must have more information. Until the point is decided by further information speculation is useless. For tho moment we leave tho discrepancy as it stands in tho cable columns. »

Wo do so hopefully by reason of tho details of iho battle which keep coming" in the way usual with these battles. The “Daily Telegraph’s” Milan correspondent supplies some which show that the Italian, advance on tho Montcllo sector was splendidly carried out; that some" of the troops “crossed the Piayb north of the Montello, taking the enemy in the roar,” while others smashed the enemy in tho centre, driving him into the river, and “the right wing occupied Nervesa, one of tho bridgeheads where the enemy crossed from the east side in his advance. This account implies that a considerable force of the enemy was badly beaten, and while its centre was smashed" and its loft pushed over the river, tho Italian left crossed, got into tho rear, and practically surrounded ' it. There seems to be some support in this account of the more hopeful accounts based on Signor Orlando, Mr Lloyd George, and the “Giornale.lt may, of course, be possible that the “Daily Telegraph’s” Milan correspondent is ofily repeating the “Giqrnale.” But if he. is, that only shows that the “Giornale’s” views are not discredited in Italy. TSo “Telegraph's” correspondent’s other details give an air of probability to the “Giornalc’s” conclusions. These show that on tho third day of tho advance the Austrian position was seen to be that of an army in a trap; that for seven days tho Austrians could get nothing over the river; that long convoy columns brought up to tho west bank wore smashed up by the Italian guns while waiting a chance to get over. The incessant destruction of tho bridgeo is vividly shown, and ifthe systematic slaughter of tho GerTmm engineers bravely working to repair damage. So is the unceasing rain of shells on the unfortunate troops on tho exposed strip of land ever narrowing towards tho riv cr running hank-and-hank without abating its “spate” for an hour. All this points to just such a situation as would load up to a disastrous climax such as tho “Giornale” records. Add the account of tho spirited advance at the critical moment, and the crossing of tho Italian", left, and its envelopment of the enemy’s right on tho west bank, and the smash of his centre and the seizure of his Nervosa bridgehead by tho Italian right, and at all events tho story of tho “Giornale” does not appear at all improbable. But we forbear to speculate, waiting for further information.

Later accounts partially clear the air. That does not apply to the Austrian bulletin, which, if it means anything, means that tho enemy crossed tho I’iavc, captured 60,000 prisoners, and took them back to his own side after a little pleasant fighting. But lot us understand that tho Austrians must prefer ridicule to revolution, and pass on to tho accounts that do clear the air.

An Italian official message reports that on Monday tho Third Army compelled tho surrender of tho last enemy rearguard, after which “Wo occupied completely tho right hank of tho Piavo.” At tho same time an Italian attack north of tho Grappa position made some substantial progress. Tho Lofulon account takes a hand with ‘Tho latest detailed dispatches from the Italian front give the position on Monday evening, at 6 o’clock, when it was still obscure The Italians wore approaching Montello and 1 Monte Asolono, and the Austrians wore putting up a stubborn resistance hut six thousand prisoners had already been taken. The Austrians on the Piave sectors are already in their old lines. Italian sweeping-up operations are hampered hy tho flood in the Piavo Tho bridges aro washed away. It is not expected that General Diaz will risk big operations oast of the bridges.”

On these readings and all the others it appears (I) that tho statements of the “Giornale” were an exaggerated reference to the last rearguard, which, in due course, was compelled to surrender ; (2) that the statement of Signor Orlando and part of tho statement of the Milan correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” refer to an Italian advance in tho mountain sector north of Grappa and on tho Montello sector; (3) that at present the state of tho river prevents an Italian advance in

force on tho Piave line; (4) that the Austrians are now in their old positions west of tho Piave. To summarise, tho Italians are attaching the enemy in tho mountain region between tho Brenta and tho Piavo, while at the Piave, over which the enemy has been driven with huge losses, nothing can bo done, and it is thought that General Diaz will tape no unduo risk.

With the battle proceeding in the mountain region, it cannot be said that the Italians have desisted from pressing their advantage. As the fight is goiug against the enemy, it is a fair speculation that tho Italian attack may break his liuo at tho point where his lateral, communications are weakest. In that case they will be in a position to hold back the Trentino section of the Austrian armies and begin an offensive along the Piave when • tho river subsides. On that strategic supposition all tho Italian accounts can be regarded as being in rough agreement—which is all that can ho expected in tho confusion of tho Austrian defeat. About that defeat there is no doubt at all. There seems reason to believe that the Austrians have been very heavily handled. It is very probable that the Italian general may press forward in tho manner indicated.