Copyright 1998,1999, James Szabo
Disclaimer: I am not a historian!
Habsburgs first came into power in the 16th century as Holy Roman Emperors. That's right, the Hapsburg empire and the Holy Roman Empire were one and the same. The Holy Roman Empire was comprised of a loose confederation of German states, as well as some assorted other countries such as the Netherlands and Hungary. The Holy Roman Emperor was often, in fact, referred to as the German emperor. But to be honest, this was not a very honest title since the German states had a great deal of autonomy.
A friend recently pointed out to me that the Hapsburgs once ruled California, via Spain, via Mexico!
Anyway, the name Holy Roman Empire ceased to be used in the time of Napoleon, reflecting a military defeat which ultimately led to the rise of Prussia and a unified "German" state (60 years later, under Bismark) which excluded Austria. But in the wake of the ebbing Ottoman power, the Hapsburgs had re-conquered Hungary and later much of the Balkans. Austria was still the most important German state, but now it was also an eastern and south eastern supranational Empire. For the first time, it was called the Austrian Empire.
Now by this time, the Austrian Empire had evolved. It was strongly centrally controlled, having the most developed imperial bureaucracy of its time. This was most definitely not a loose confederation of nationalities. The ruling classes (the nobility) were not nationalists but imperialists; their power was derived from the status quo and they owed their allegiance to Vienna. In fact, in places like Bohemia there was no real national culture outside of the peasantry, or, if there was a culture, it was Germanic. In this way perhaps the name Holy Roman Empire had been appropriate. They even spoke Latin! The revival of nationalism did not come until the revolutions of 1848, and even then the country remained a (somewhat) cohesive unit for years.
Now the word Austria comes from Oesterreich, meaning, basically, the eastern region in German. This reflects the fact that Austria proper (today's Austria, that is) was fundamentally a German state. (In fact, did you know that the Austria people voted overwhelmingly to become part of Germany before WWII? The Austrian nationalism portrayed in "The Sound of Music" is a nice myth. This is a blaring example of historical revisionism, but who can blame them? A bitter German friend once told me that the Austrians have succeeded in convincing the world that Hitler was a German and Beethoven was an Austrian. Baloney, said I. I'll discuss this a bit more below, if you care to read further.) However, the Austrian Empire was much more; it was today's Austria, plus "Great Hungary" (Hungary, Transylvania, Slovalkia, Croatia), plus other lands which weren't part of "Great Hungary" but still under Austrian administration, including Bohemia (roughly today's Czech Republic), Galicia (the southern third of Poland before the eighteenth century partitioning, half of this land now being part of Ukraine), Slovenia, Bosnia, Serbia (i.e. Yugoslavia), and Dalmatia (also Croatia).
The Austrian Empire was no Switzerland.
Let's take a moment to look at what we mean when we talk about Hungary and the Hungarians. As I already mentioned, Great Hungary was comprised of not just today's Hungary, but also Transylvania and Slovakia and Croatia. Slovakia had, in fact, been part of Hungary for some 800 or 900 years. The Hungarian Diet had even met in Bratislava, today the capital of Slovakia. The Magyars (Hungarian for Hungarian) were the dominant ethnicity, while other ethnicities (e.g. Rumanians, Slovakians, and Germans, Jews) were really second class citizens.
Check out this ethnographic map!
The minorities were concentrated, naturally, in the outlying areas, the central region being dominated by Magyars. Austria was a better place to be a minority than Hungary. Anyway, as the nineteenth century wore on, the Magyars attempted to suppress the newly born nationalistic aspirations of the minorities which, after all, represented a majority in vast regions of Great Hungary. Kossuth's barbarity led the way. But Magyar efforts were, of course, doomed.
Where did those damned Magyars come from, anyway? Russia, basically. Check out this map to see the wanderings and conquests of the Hungarians. But remember this all happened over a thousand years ago.
After the revolutions of which swept Europe in 1848, Hungary under the "patriot" Lajos Kossuth achieved short lived degree of autonomy. The Magyars used it to try and ethnically cleanse their domain. Kossuth was soon defeated (with some perhaps unneeded help from Russia), but the path ahead had been scouted.
That the revolutions failed to achieve autonomy for Bohemia, for instance, is a reflection of the fact that the towns had essentially no living Czech culture; that had ended in 1620. Town language and culture was German. So the Czech nationalists had neither the momentum or the positioning of the Hungarian nationalists. That didn't stop them from trying. (Note: This is not to say that the Czech culture and language didn't exist. But it was peasant culture; it was not the culture of the ruling class.) But nationalism just hadn't really occurred to anyone except the Hungarians until then. Bohemia wasn't ready. In fact the mid nineteenth century German nationalists thought, with good reason, that Austria and Bohemia would both be part of their state.
In 1849 a constitution was proposed that would create new states along ethnic boundaries in the Austrian empire. A parliament would be elected on the basis of universal suffrage. However, it was not to be. Instead the teen emperor Franz Joseph led an authoritarian regime for a decade. As a man, he wasn't much better, being quite unimaginative. And yet his caretaker leadership perhaps only hastened the inevitable. He was unwilling to accept the idea of universal suffrage and a central european republic of states -- this idea had to wait another hundred and fifty years. As an empire controlled by the Habsburgs, Austria-Hungary could have only one fate.
Anyway, the Austrians, thought of themselves as the leaders of Germany. This was natural, given the historical context. But in the mid 1800s, they reached a compromise of sorts with the Prussians. Of course, the ueber-Prussian Bismark solved both the "German problem" (the problem of German weakness) and the "Austrian problem" (part of Germany or not?) in 1866 by defeating Austria in a war. By the Peace of Prague (August 23, 1866), Austria lost Venice and was excluded from Germany. It remained a Great Power, although it was without dispute one of the "sick men" of Europe. (Though not in the teminal ward, yet, as was Turkey).
A.J.P. Taylor writes, "Austria committed a brainless suicide; and Bismark went to war in order to impose on Austria a decision which her rulers were incapable of making for themselves. The Austrian ministers feared victory as much as defeat; for victory would compel Austria to become without reserve the leading German power and so cause the eclipse of the cosmopolitan Austrian nobility." Still, few people wanted to see Austria disappear. Bismark wanted the German people divided; Austria was a Prussian necessity. "It was the essential barrier against the Pan-German program which would swamp the Prussian Junkers." He wanted to preserve Austria the way it was in 1866; defeated but still German.
The other major powers were also happy with the new arrangement. A seperate Austria meant a divided German people, a fact which the other powers found expedient, just as they did in the 20th century in the wake of WWII. Beyond that, Austria was better for the Czechs, Poles, and Sloves than a greater Germany would have been. And what was the alternative if Austria fell? Pan-slavism and an extension of Russian Power.
In the wake of Austria's defeat, dualism emerged. This was essentially a compromise between the Emperor and the Hungarians. The Hungarians agreed there would be a single great state for war and foreign affairs; Franz Joseph handed over control of internal affairs. His monarchy was still preserved, and that was what mattered most to him. "Magyar hegemony was the price Franz Joseph was willing to pay for the preservation of his own power; and since this Magyar hegemony brought the Habsburg Monarcy to destruction, Francis Joseph was the maker of his own ruin."
The Austrian Empire had thus morphed into what's commonly known as "Austria-Hungary," a name which reflects the "separate but equal" status of Hungary. Previously they had enjoyed privileged status involving a greater degree of autonomy than the other provinces, but they were still ruled from Vienna. Now, under the "dual monarchy", they had a totally separate parliament. Franz Joseph presided over the Hungarians not as the Austrian Emperor, but as King of Hungary.
But it was really just the beginning of the end for The Austrian Empire. The only good justification for the Austrian Empire's continued existence was something most Europeans would have resisted: "The discovery of a way of cooperation between people of different nationalities, not based upon the hegemony of a privileged nation or class." (129) None of the ruling class could contemplate this, least of all Franz Joseph.
But perhaps we are too harsh on the Austrians; I truly believe they were ahead of their time. They were just unable to take the final steps to democracy. They were creatures of the 19th century. After all, how many Europeans had actually contemplated true democracy by this time? This was the colonial age, when the British shot "sub-human" residents in the South Pacific for sport, when the Americans drove Native Americans thousands of miles on foot so they could have their lands for themselves. America had SLAVERY up until 1865!
The collapse of Austria was inevitable because nobody believed in it anymore.
A tottering Austria-Hungary sided with Germany in WWI. After defeat in 1918, the predominantly non-German lands that for centuries had defined the Empire seceded.
Great Hungary, despite the grandiose aspirations of the Magyars, was stripped of fifty percent of its territory and became the more or less homogeneous Hungary we know today. Czechoslovakia was born. Yugoslavia was born. Rumania took Transylvania (which had gone back and forth for centuries). Italy took lands in the Alps and next to Croatia (e.g. Trieste). Nationalism was served -- sort of. The irony was that lines were not redrawn based on ethnicity. (Was it possible?) Instead, new multi-national states were born. Yugoslavia was nearly as ethnically mixed as Austria-Hungary had been! Lands which Italy took were nearly devoid of ethnic Italians. Hungarians were now a large minority in Transylvania and Slovakia. Germans were a large minority in Czechoslovakia.
Ah, the wisdom of the French and British! The new Europe they helped create was based on greed, prejudice and fear -- fear of the Germans, fear of a re-united Habsburg empire. Without Versailles, would there have been a Hitler?
In 1918, the provisional government of "German-Austria" declared itself a constituent part of Germany. However, the allies wrote a clause into their peace treaties which forbade the "Anschluss" (the connection). Austria was even required to remove the prefix "German" from its name. Nevertheless, plebiscites for Anschluss won majorities of 90 percent and 78 percent, respectively, in Tyrol and Salzburg in 1921. But the federal government banned the vote and renounced Anschluss for 20 years as the price for desperately needed international loans. (Riedlsperger).
Hitler's first "conquests" were accepted by the Western nations, perhaps, because they were not outrageous and hardly conquests. The Anschluss of 1938 was something that the overwhelming majority of Austrians wanted. Few inside or outside Austria were going to bemoan the demise of what was then a fascist cathoic police state. As far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, Bohemia had been part of Austria just a few years before. Large areas of Czechoslovakia were still predominantly German. How much can one really fault Chamberlain for not starting a war over Czechoslovakia? Was England in a position to dictate terms to Germany? Chamberlain showed weakness, but it was only a reflection of reality. The British Empire was collapsing just as the Ottoman and Austrian Empires had collapsed twenty years before. Britainnia was unsustainable, a relic of a bygone era. Germany was a modern, streamlined nation-state.
But my interest wanes. Meine Familie war schon weg.
So let us return to the first decade of the twentieth century. The European Union is still a century away -- Austria-Hungary is the closest thing around. Inside the Empire, prejudice in the guise of nationalism has been rising. Poverty is everywhere. But eight individuals have had enough. They leave a dying multi-cultural empire for another which is just beginning its greatness.
Step forward in time.
You're back!
Sources: The main source for this article was
The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809 - 1918, by A.J.P. Taylor.
New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
Many of the facts surrounding the relationship
between Austria and Germany were found in
"Austria and Germany: A Not-So-Foreign Relationship," by Max
E. Riedlsperger, which appears in the book,
"The Germans and their Neighbors" Westview
Press, 1993.
