Slavs' Absence: Would Austria-Hungary Still Exist Today?

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a multi-national constitutional monarchy in Central Europe that existed between 1867 and 1918. The empire was formed by a military and diplomatic alliance between two sovereign states, Austria and Hungary, with a single monarch who was titled both Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. While the empire was one of Europe's major powers at the time, it collapsed due to a combination of internal and external factors. The internal factors included growing social contradictions, a widening gap between Hungarian and Austrian interests, and chronic overcommitment, while the external factor was World War I, which led to crop failure, starvation, and an economic crisis. The empire's collapse also paved the way for the formation of new states, such as the First Austrian Republic and the Kingdom of Hungary, and the expansion of existing states like Italy and Romania.

The impact of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution

The Hungarian Revolution of 1848, also known as the Hungarian War of Independence, was one of many European Revolutions of 1848 and was closely linked to other revolutions of 1848 in the Habsburg areas. Although the revolution failed, it is one of the most significant events in Hungary's modern history, forming the cornerstone of modern Hungarian national identity. The anniversary of the Revolution's outbreak, 15 March, is one of Hungary's three national holidays.

The revolution had a profound impact on Hungary and the wider region. In April 1848, Hungary became the third country in continental Europe to enact a law implementing democratic parliamentary elections. The new suffrage law (Act V of 1848) transformed the old feudal parliament into a democratic representative body, offering the widest right to vote in Europe at the time. This law also erased all privileges of the Hungarian nobility.

The revolution led to a crucial turning point in relations between Hungary and the Austrian monarchy. The new Austrian monarch, Franz Joseph I, arbitrarily revoked the April laws, escalating the conflict with the Hungarian parliament. This unconstitutional act resulted in the fall of the pacifist Batthyány government and the rise of Lajos Kossuth's followers, who demanded full independence for Hungary. Austrian military intervention in Hungary further fuelled anti-Habsburg sentiment and led to a war for total independence from the Habsburg dynasty.

The Hungarian Revolution had significant diplomatic and foreign policy implications. The Hungarian liberals supported countries and forces that aligned with their modern liberal values, believing in the formation of an alliance against "feudal-type" monarchies. This outlook resembled modern liberal internationalism.

The revolution also had a lasting impact on Hungary's domestic politics and governance. Lajos Kossuth, a brilliant orator and leader of the Hungarian Parliament, played a crucial role in recruiting volunteers for the new Hungarian army. Kossuth's speeches and the Hungarian Declaration of Independence in April 1849 galvanised the Hungarian people in their struggle for independence.

The Hungarian Revolution caused a civil war that weakened the Magyars, who were fighting a war of independence against Vienna while facing opposition from other ethnic groups within their territory, including Croats, Slovaks, Serbs, and Romanians. The ensuing civil war and the intervention of Russian and Austrian armies ultimately led to the capitulation of the revolutionary army in August 1849.

The failure of the Hungarian Revolution had far-reaching consequences for the region. It contributed to the escalation of national animosities and mass executions ordered by the revolutionary courts. The Hungarian Honvéd units responded to guerrilla tactics by burning entire villages, leading to considerable bloodshed.

The impact of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 extended beyond Hungary's borders. It influenced the wider context of European revolutions and liberal movements. Additionally, the revolution's failure reinforced the dominance of the Austrian monarchy and the Habsburg dynasty in the region, setting the stage for future conflicts and nationalist aspirations.

The role of Slavs in the Austro-Hungarian military

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a multi-ethnic state, and its military was no exception. While the army was predominantly made up of officers from privileged" ethnic groups such as Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, and occasionally Poles, there were also many Slavs within its ranks. The Slavs played a complex role in the military, experiencing both loyalty and nationalism, which ultimately contributed to the Empire's collapse.

The Slavs' role in the Austro-Hungarian military was multifaceted due to the Empire's diverse ethnic makeup. On the one hand, many Slavs were loyal to the Empire and served as essential members of the military. The army encouraged officers to be familiar with multiple languages, and some Slavs held prominent positions, such as the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was a true believer in Austro-Slavism. Additionally, Slavs from certain regions, like Bohemia, were known for their loyalty to the Habsburgs.

However, the Slavs' presence in the military also contributed to ethnic tensions and nationalism, which created challenges for the Empire. The Slavs were not a monolithic group, and they often had their own national aspirations. For example, Czechs and Poles agitated for greater privileges or even independence, while Serbian, Romanian, and Italian communities sought to break away from the Empire entirely. These nationalist sentiments carried over into the military, impacting morale and the reliability of some units, especially as the war dragged on and casualties mounted.

The Slavs' complex relationship with the Empire extended beyond the military as well. Austro-Slavism, a political concept proposed by Czech liberals in the 19th century, envisioned peaceful cooperation between the smaller Slavic nations within the Habsburg monarchy, free from the dominance of German-speaking elites. While this idea gained some traction among Slavs within the Empire, it was never fully realized due to opposition from Hungarian elites and the eventual transformation of the Austrian Empire into the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1867.

The failure to address Slavic demands for autonomy and the rise of nationalist sentiments among Slavs ultimately contributed to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Emperor Charles I's inability to implement Austro-Slavist reforms, coupled with the chaos of World War I and the influence of US President Woodrow Wilson, led to the Empire's disintegration in 1918.

In conclusion, the Slavs played a critical and complex role in the Austro-Hungarian military. While some Slavs were loyal to the Empire and served as essential members of the military, others agitated for greater autonomy or independence, contributing to ethnic tensions and nationalism. The failure to address these tensions and the rise of nationalist sentiments ultimately played a significant role in the Empire's collapse.

The 1867 Austro-Hungarian Compromise

The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, also known as the Ausgleich, established the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary, a military and diplomatic alliance of two sovereign states. The Compromise only partially re-established the former pre-1848 sovereignty and status of the Kingdom of Hungary, which was separate from, and no longer subject to, the Austrian Empire. The agreement restored Hungary's territorial integrity and its old historic constitution. It also re-established the Hungarian parliament, which had been the supreme legislative power in Hungary since the 12th century.

Under the Compromise, the lands of the House of Habsburg were reorganized as a real union between the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary, with a single monarch reigning as Emperor of Austria in the Austrian half of the empire, and as King of Hungary in the Kingdom of Hungary. The Cisleithanian (Austrian) and Transleithanian (Hungarian) states were governed by separate parliaments and prime ministers. The two countries conducted unified diplomatic and defence policies, with "common" ministries of foreign affairs, defence, and finance maintained under the monarch's direct authority.

The Compromise put an end to the 18-year-long military dictatorship and absolutist rule over Hungary instituted by Emperor Franz Joseph after the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Hungarian political leaders had two main goals during the negotiations: to regain the traditional legal and political status of the Hungarian state, and to restore the reform laws of the 1848 revolutionary parliament, which established modern civil and political rights and economic and societal reforms in Hungary.

The Compromise was the result of the weakened position of the Austrian Empire following its defeat in the Seven Weeks' War (Austro-Prussian War) of 1866, and the need to reconcile with Hungary to save the Habsburg Empire and dynasty. It was arranged by Hungarian statesman Ferenc Deák and Imperial Chancellor Beust, and was ratified by the restored Diet of Hungary on 29 May 1867.

The resulting dual monarchy was maintained until the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after World War I. Despite the Compromise, there were continuing pressures from ethnic groups within the empire, and nationalist movements that sought greater autonomy or full independence. The Compromise had restored more real internal independence to Hungary than it had enjoyed since 1526, but the monarch's powers in internal affairs were strictly limited, and Hungary still formed only a part of the monarchy in foreign affairs and defence.

The 1918 Corfu Declaration

The Corfu Declaration was an agreement between Nikola Pašić, the prime minister of Serbia, and Ante Trumbić, the president of the Yugoslav Committee, concluded on the Greek island of Corfu on 20 July 1917. The purpose of the agreement was to establish a method of unifying a future common state of the South Slavs living in Serbia, Montenegro, and Austria-Hungary after the First World War.

The declaration was motivated by Russia's decision to withdraw diplomatic support for Serbia following the February Revolution, as well as the Yugoslav Committee's sidelining by the trialist reform initiatives launched in Austria-Hungary. The positions of Pašić and Trumbić were disparate, with Pašić advocating for a centralist government, while Trumbić argued for a federal state, leaving significant powers to federal units and safeguarding national rights. The resulting declaration glossed over the matter of the system of government, specifying only that the common Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes would be a constitutional monarchy ruled by the currently reigning Serbian Karađorđević dynasty, deferring most questions to a future Constitutional Assembly.

The declaration stated that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were one "tri-named" people, and that the Karađorđević dynasty would reign in the new unified state, which would be organised as a parliamentary, constitutional monarchy. It also stated that the new government would respect the equality of "religion and alphabets", voting rights, and so forth. Trumbić proposed to establish a provisional government of the new state, but Pašić declined to avoid undermining the inherent diplomatic advantage Serbia enjoyed as an already-recognised state.

The Corfu Declaration was a political manifesto disregarded by the Serbian government with respect to the qualified majority needed to adopt a constitution but upheld when its provisions coincided with Serbian interests. It was hailed as a South Slavic Magna Carta for recognising the "tribal" names, three flags and religions, and two "alphabets". At the same time, the Declaration limited the powers of the future Constituent Assembly by deciding on the monarchy and the specific ruling dynasty. It also decided the name of the future state as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes – following Serbian objections to the name "Yugoslavia" as a Western invention designed to stamp out the name "Serbia".

The impact of the 1918 Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, was the primary treaty produced by the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I. The treaty was drafted in the spring of 1919 during the conference, which was dominated by the "Big Four": David Lloyd George, the prime minister of the United Kingdom; Georges Clemenceau, the prime minister of France; Woodrow Wilson, the president of the United States; and Vittorio Orlando, the prime minister of Italy. The defeated nations had no say in shaping the treaty, and even the associated Allied powers played a minor role. The German delegates were shocked by the severity of the terms, especially the "war guilt" clause and the reparation terms.

The Treaty of Versailles had a significant impact on the territorial, economic, and military landscape of Europe. In terms of territorial changes, Germany's population and territory were reduced by about 10%. Alsace and Lorraine were returned to France, and several other small areas were given to Belgium and Denmark. Poland was given significant territories, including most of West Prussia and Poznań, as well as a "corridor" to the Baltic Sea, separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany. Gdańsk became a free city. Germany also lost all its overseas colonies, which were taken over by Allied nations.

Economically, the treaty imposed heavy financial burdens on Germany. Germany was required to pay an unspecified amount in reparations, which proved ruinous and was eventually abandoned after the Great Depression. Additionally, Germany lost most of its ore and agricultural production, further straining its economy.

Militarily, the treaty severely restricted Germany's capabilities. Its military strength was crippled, and it was forced to accept limitations on its rearmament. These restrictions humiliated Germany and fostered a sense of resentment, setting the stage for the rise of nationalism and the eventual outbreak of World War II.

The Treaty of Versailles also led to the creation of the League of Nations, an international organization aimed at maintaining peace and preventing future conflicts. However, the League of Nations ultimately failed to avert international aggression and war, and it was replaced by the United Nations after World War II.

Frequently asked questions