Political Movements Among Some National Groups example essay topic

How did the Habsburg Monarchy cope with the demands of mass politics 1867-1914 The Habsburg Monarchy first had to deal with the Magyar demands of autonomy which culminated into the Compromise of 1867. From then the Emperor Francis Joseph would have the title of King of Hungary. This dual monarchy was to be a success in satisfying both the Habsburgs and the Magyars but had the effect of causing both disappointment and resentment to the significant national minorities in the empire. The Habsburg Monarchy managed to appease many nationalities such as the Poles and Italians (though they had always strive d for a unified Italy) by giving them a favoured position in the empire, in which their nobility and relative autonomy was sustained. I will split this answer up into two sections; the Cisleithania (Austrian) and the Hungarian parts of the empire. Both dealt with the nationalities within their borders differently and consequently were faced with varied political parties representing the demands of their group.

The Habsburg Monarchy ruled over a nations of poor, more backward countries of Europe; and in an age where small countries tend to get absorbed by their more powerful neighbours, national minorities were more willing to remain part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Sked points out that the majority of important political movements did not want a break from the Monarchy; rather they wanted either reforms such as the use of their cultural language in schools or proportionate representation in government. Another reason for the lack of any real demand for sovereignty within the empire by its various national minorities is that the division between the Slavs (which constituted roughly half the total population) meant they were unable to exert any real power as a unified nation. The Compromise of 1867 was the result of the weakness of the Habsburg Empire after the defeat of the battle of S adowa in 1866 in which its influences of control in Venetia and the German Confederation were lost. John W. Mason argues that the Compromise was a way for the Habsburgs to preserve itself against 'the Russians in the Balkans' (2) and was also a way of strengthening the empire against the rise of Slav nationalism. The Compromise however caused great outrage and resentment among the minorities in both halves of the empire.

The most significant outcome was the rise in Czech Pan-Slavism which Pala cky, their leader had predicted in 1865. The national groups within the empire were aware of the doubtful possibility of being granted autonomy after the Compromise which 'cramped the peoples and classes seeking political recognition'. (3) The nationality question in Austro-Hungary can be summarise d best by R. Kjellen,' A Great Power can endure without difficulty one Ireland, as England did, even three as imperial Germany did (Poland, Alsace, Schleswig). Different is the case when a Great Power is composed of nothing else but Irelands, as was almost the history of Austro-Hungary' (1). With no single leading, historically based nation to lead the empire sufficiently without operating some kind of repressive regime, we can see the conflicts that occurred since the creation of Austro-Hungary as deriving from this evident weakness. In the Kingdom of Hungary, the leading national group, the Magyars sought to sustain control by a process of Magyarization utilised best in schools where Magyar was the language of instruction is four times as many elementary schools as were non-Magyar languages.

Secondary education was further repressed considering Slovaks and Ruthenes had no educational system after elementary school. Bela Grunwald had commented that 'the second ay school isl ike a big engine which takes in at one end hundreds of Slovak youths who come out at the other end as Magyars' (1). Budapest was an example of how powerful Magyarization had become; in 1848 Germans constituted more than three-quarters of the city, by 1910 the Magyars had replaced them as the majority. Conversely, Germanization declined in Austria which may be a reflection of the unstable government and a stark difference in their nationality policies. The liberal years of 1867 to 1879 were dominated in Cisleithania by the German Liberals who advocated a unitary state as opposed to a federal one. Their policies were based around a central administration in which German is the official language and parliament controlled by a German constitutional party.

Before the Depression their policies of economic laissez-faire and a restriction on the power of the church were appealing. However in between the two Liberal ministries of Karl Auersperg (PM 1867-68) and Adolf Auersperg (PM 1871-79) were the few years of desperate change in the Monarchy to turn into a Federal state. The German liberal ministry of Karl Auersperg had angered all national minorities. As a result both the Czechs and Poles refused to sit in Vienna.

Francis Joseph had become to willing to strengthen and satisfy the non-German populations of Austria. The Fundamental Articles, under Count Hohenwart (PM 1871) was to give more autonomy to the Czechs and establish a general diet in the Bohemian Crown, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. The Czech language would have been given official status in the Czech Crown lands under a new nationality law. Even the emperor Francis Joseph proposed the construction of the Senate in Cisleithania, half the membership appointed by Francis Joseph, the other half in accordance with the diets. However the Habsburg Monarchy recognised this as the beginning of a federalization of the empire and therefore rejected it; with strong influence coming from the Hungarian Prime Minister, Count Andras sy, who was fiercely opposed to the Fundamental Articles as it threatened the existence of the dualism. But other groups opposed this attempt at constitutional change; the Germans of Bohemia, the Church, the army and the bureaucracy.

The consequence of the liberal years and the failure of the implementation of the Fundamental Articles was the development of a more radical Czech population. After 1871 radical groups such as the 'Young Czechs' organised themselves to achieve equality within the historically Czech territories. Under Taaf fe (PM 1879-93) however substantial changes to satisfy the Czechs were being made. The Czechs re-entered the Reichsrat and between 1880 and 1883 advances were being made in giving the Czechs equality in Bohemia and Moravia within the language and educational sphere.

However any real changes proposed to give the Czechs more political power in the Reichsrat left the Germans with just 47% of the deputies (a drop from two thirds in 1873). In 1897, Prime Minister Badeni - in a ploy to win Czech votes regarding the renewal of the Compromise - agreed to make the Czech language equal along with German in the internal administrations of both Bohemia and Moravia. However this would be a clear example of how, in giving more equality to one national group, you automatically detract from the more powerful groups which inevitably leads to a withdrawal of pluralistic policies that may have strengthened the empire. Consequently, German outrage exploded in 1897 with riots and protests. Eventually Badeni was removed from power and the decrees were withdrawn. Under the Gauche ministry in the early 20th century, the Compromise of Moravia in 1905 was successfully implemented because of a large Czech majority (71.3%); the Germans would be well represented disproportionately but the Czechs would assume electoral majority.

However this did not extend to Bohemia and can therefore only be regarded as a small success in the midst of far more evident struggles and tangles in the empire. Sked notes that the unsolvable conflict between the Germans and the Czechs should not be assumed to be a failure of the governments of Austria. Sked quotes Korn ish in his attempt to argue 'the governments patiently but unsuccessfully searched for a middle way acceptable for both, and the nationalists acquired the habit of blaming the government for the failure to achieve the settlement which they themselves had prevented' (4). Following the failure of the Fundamental Articles, the Polish were granted personal autonomy, they were also active in coalition parliaments up until 1918.

This can be explained as a consequence of their support for the German Liberals which shows that the Habsburg Monarchy were able to prevent the development of mass political movements among some national groups by giving them enough reform and sovereignty to keep them happy; another example would be the Compromise with reference to the Magyars. The biggest problem in satisfying all national groups within the empire is that all regions had a majority nationality yet with sizable minorities still present. Arguably the biggest success in providing a solution to the nationality question was in Bukovina where there was no predominating national group. In 1910 a new constitution and franchise law provided autonomy for all of its six nationalities.

1900 saw the official end to liberalism which, according to Schorske, had been 'crushed by modern mass movements, Christian, anti-Semitic, socialist and nationalist' (8). The largest political parties in Austria were The Social Democrats, The Christian Socials and the Pan-Germans. The Social Democrats, in the 1907 elections won 87 seats which made them the largest single party in parliament. Their calling for a transformation of the Habsburg Empire into a federation of autonomous national groups. Karl Renner and Otto Bauer were the leading members of the party who produced highly influential works promoting this proposition.

However the nationality question had once again weakened any powerful unified and made them unable to make any real changes; the conflict between the Czechs and the Germans which led to a Czech break from the party. The Social Democrats did not however call for an end to the Habsburg Monarchy; it was well believed that the preservation of Austria and the Habsburg dynasty to the Austro-Hungarians would ward off territorial predators of the Prussians and Russians. To the Germans, the Habsburg Monarchy and Austria as a 'bulwark against a Russian-inspired pan-Slavism' (5). Karl Lueger - Vienna's most popular mayor (1897-1910) - headed the Christian Social Party which along with the Social Democrats owes its origins to Austrian liberalism. Lueger managed to attract mass appeal by following a European Catholicism which advocates democracy, social reform, anti-Semitism and loyalty to the dynasty.

Mason believes Lueger was 'the first Austrian politician to mobilize the masses'. The Christian Socials succeeded in removing the nationality question from the major mission of unifying the lower-middle classes, shopkeepers and artisans which thrived off moderate politics (anti-Capitalist and anti-Socialist) and was a self-declaring pro-Habsburg political force. Another political mass movement which gathered support partly from an open-hatred of the Jews were the Pan-Germans; however their remaining policies differed completely. An extreme party, they advocated a break away from Slav territories and a unification with Bismark's Germany. The Linz Programme of 1882 called for closer links with Germany and social reform, although his real aims were far more ambitious. However their numbers were small, in 1885 they only managed to achieve five seats; this displays the weakness of political movements with extreme policies.

If a party attracts only one nationality and alienates the rest, their success in achieving parliamentary and governmental power would be severely limited. The Pan-Germans, unlike the Social Democrats and Christian Socials, rejected all of the elements of liberalism and monarchy. Vienna was the Empire's cultural centre in which during the decline of liberalism, mass political movements were born. The move away in 1870's from rationalistic thought and a revert back into the age of emotion, feeling and religion sparked the creation political movements in Vienna including Adler's Social Democratic Party.

The 1880's saw the beginning of the 'Young Vienna', in which artists and writers such as Schnitzler advocated the exploration of their inner feelings and a more questionable view on reality depicted in the work of impressionists. Schorske argues that although the cultural changes in Vienna was detached from the wider, mass political movements of the time, added to the deterioration of liberalism. However it was in the post 19th century period where Karl Kraus attacked the 'Young Vienna' for its over emphasis on rhetoric and the corrupted use of language. He notes groups like the Pan-Germans and socialism, even psychoanalysis as a determinant for cultural demise. Schorske believes the world of art in Vienna had substituted the real social problems of the empire,' art became almost a religion, the source of meaning and the food of the soul, as civic action became increasingly futile (9) '. Mason however ties politics and culture together,' Vienna... epitomized the breakdown of liberalism at the time and paved the way for the mass movements in politics and the beginning of the 'modern' movement in music, art, literature, psychology and philosophy.

(5) ' The impact on the Jews in Vienna was drastic, once a nation that assimilated into German culture, they now had to create defensive boundaries to cope with the mass rise in anti-Semitism. As a result, two political and cultural movements, lead by Jews were amassed: the Austro-Marxist and Zionist groups. By the turn of the century, Parliamentary government had become powerless; it could not survive in the unsolvable question of nationality seen in Badeni's fall from power. Similarly, Windischgratz's government fell in 1895 because of a small matter over language disputes between the Germans and Slovenes.

Following the political failures of the 19th century, Francis Joseph introduced electoral reform, which in 1907 and 1911 managed to even the playing ground between the Germans and Poles on one side, and the Czechs, Ruthenian's and Slovenes on the other. Socialist parties succeeded during this time; partially because they were irrespective of nationality (to some degree). In the 1907 elections, the Social Democrats won 87 seats, which included Germans, Czechs, Poles, Ruthenes and Italians, albeit in very different numbers. However it should not be assumed that this change in parliament had a positive impact on the complex issue of nationality.

Mason wrote regarding the ministry of Bienerth that it was 'one of the most barren periods in Austrian parliamentary history. ' (10) After 1908 there were no significant changes or reforms, only, as Mason puts it, 'muddling through'. The fate of the Habsburg Monarchy in the face of rising national requests for autonomy (along with the pan-German call for a unified German empire) was looking bleak in the late 19th century. Wilhelm II in 1887 claimed the 'German provinces would fall like ripe fruit into Germany's lap... the Emperor of Austria can, if he wishes live out his life as an insignificant monarch in Hungary' (6).

The monarchy themselves doubted their own future. Franz Joseph wrote to his mother in 1866,' One just has to resist as long as possible, do one's duty to the last, and finally perish with honour' (7). Sked points out that several years later, Franz Joseph had not lost his fatalistic outlook, seen in his will which stipulated his daughter to claim her fortune on his death. However the security of the Habsburg Monarchy wasn't so fateful, in fact Sked argues that only the Italians (constituting 0.75% of the population) wanted a total break from the empire. The nationalities in Austro-Hungary wanted only practical reforms that benefited their daily lives. No major political party called for an end to the Habsburg Monarchy; a combination of foreign, economic and domestic considerations meant that it was more desirable and secure to live within the boundaries of a Great Power.

Sked quotes one Hungarian historian, Dioszegi in dismissing common assumptions regarding the future of the Habsburg Monarchy after WWI,' Nationalism did not work towards the destruction of the Monarchy. ' Sked continues, 'there was no internal pressure between 1867 and 1914 for the break up of the Monarchy; no repudiation of the dynasty while in some areas problems were actually being solved or compromises reached' (10) In conclusion, the Habsburg Monarchy managed to cope with the demands of mass politics because they were fragmented and lacked any large, multinational body to exert any of their ambitious ideas. In the age of the triumph of the nation-state, a multinational Empire was bound to face enormous pressure', yet pressures on the Habsburg Monarchy were to reform, not dissolve. As a result, Sked, along with many other historians believe the monarchy would have survived beyond 1918 had the First World War not happened, it would have changed undoubtedly but the emphasis on loyalty to the dynasty would have been preserved. Wilson's notion of self-determination wouldn't have had the same impact had it not have been for the events that occurred within the war and the nationality question would have continued but degrees of autonomy would have satisfied the Slav masses in an age of Russian expansionism and an increasingly powerful Germany.

The development of mass politics yet their inability to achieve their aims is answered best by L.B. Namier,' more frontier and less coherence than any other state in Europe' (11). NOTES 1. R. Kjellen: Jas zi - The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (University of Chicago Press, 1929) 2. John W. Mason - The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 1867-1918 (Longman, 1997) p. 73. Mason, p. 84. Alan Sked - The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire 1815-1918 (Longman, 1989) p. 2235. Mason, p. 366.

Sked - The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire, p. 2297. Sked - The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire, p. 2298. Carl E. Schorske - Politics and Psyche in fin de siecle Vienna: Schnitzler and Hofmannsthal (American Historical Review: Vol. 66, No. 4, p. 930) 9. Schorske (American Historical Review: Vol. 66, No. 4, p. 935) Mason, p. 4110.

Sked, p. 23111. Mason, p. 1 (taken from L.B. Namier - 'The Downfall of the Habsburg Monarchy' in Vanished Supremacies, Penguin, 1962)

Bibliography

1. John W. Mason - The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 1867-1918 (Longman, 1997) 2.
Alan Sked - The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire 1815-1918 (Longman, 1989) 3.
Carl E. Schorske - Politics and Psyche in fin de siecle Vienna: Schnitzler and Hofmannsthal (American Historical Review: Vol. 66, No. 4, p. 930) 4. C.A. McCartney - The Habsburg Empire 1790-1918 (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968) 5.
Hans Kohn - The Habsburg Empire 1804-1918 (Van Nostra d, 1961).