The political development of austro hungary in the 19th century. Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary in the 19th century
Page 2 of 2
The Hungarian elite managed to convince the emperor of the need to reach an agreement with Hungary. Defeat of Austria in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 accelerated the final decision. As a result of this war, the empire not only lost its last Italian possessions (Venice), but also had to abandon its claims to a leading role in Germany forever.
In order to achieve economic and political stability, the ruling circles were forced to make compromises. The united empire in 1867 was transformed into a two-center constitutional monarchy of Austria-Hungary, where Hungary received significant independence, had its own government, constitution and parliament. Both parts of the country were united on the basis of personal union - the emperor of Austria was the king of Hungary. Only three general ministries remained - foreign affairs, military and finance. This dualism was based on ensuring the leading role for the Austrian Germans in Cisleitania, and for the Magyars in Hungary.
Austria received a new constitution, which enshrined civil rights and freedoms, the principle of separation of powers, a ministry responsible to parliament. The Constitution of 1867 created the basis, which then made it possible to seek to expand the boundaries of constitutionality, primarily in terms of improving the electoral system.
After reaching an agreement with Hungary, the so-called "liberal era" began in Austria, which lasted until 1879. However, liberal governments underestimated national problems... At the same time, the non-German peoples of Cisleitania, in the context of the liberal economic and political reforms in the country, won more and more new positions and declared their rights to actively participate in political life. Relations in the Czech Republic, whose economy was developing dynamically, became especially aggravated. Attempts to settle the Czech question in 1871 by giving the Czech lands great rights were blocked by the irreconcilable position of the Austrian Germans.
In 1879, the conservative government of E. Taaffe came to power, which determined the policy of Austria for 14 years. Each Austrian government was faced with the most difficult problem - the need to pursue its own policy, maneuvering between various social forces and national movements, within which there was also no unity. Disputes over the rights of nationalities and the recognition of the equality of their languages, which found their most acute expression in the German-Czech conflicts, also took place in other lands of the empire. National problems intersected with social ones and, in turn, exacerbated them even more. In order to avoid an explosion of discontent among workers, the government was forced to pay considerable attention to social issues: it carried out reforms in the field of labor legislation, introduced social insurance, and improved the living conditions of workers.
In parallel, the expansion of the political rights of citizens took place. A series of reforms to the electoral system ended with the introduction in 1907 of universal (for men) suffrage. After the adoption of the constitution of 1867, the party system of Austria also took shape. Liberalism, which had surrendered its positions, was replaced by new movements. The most influential of them were the Social Democratic and Christian Social, which soon took shape in mass political parties. The Christian Social Party represented mainly the interests of artisans and the petty bourgeoisie, who until 1907 constituted the main body of voters and ensured the party's victory in parliamentary and municipal elections. Austrian Social Democracy rejected the Marxist thesis about the need for the violent overthrow of the existing system and advocated the tactics of gradual reform. In this regard, she saw her most important task in the struggle for universal suffrage.
Dualism extended the life of the Habsburg Empire. However, the accelerated modernization, which opened the way for a dualistic reconstruction, the aggravation of social and national conflicts, put the monarchy in front of the most difficult problems, which could be resolved only through fundamental structural reforms.
Difficult relations with Russia on the Balkan issue were decisive. 1903 agreement on Macedonia on the joint establishment of order there. The Foreign Ministry was headed by Erenthal, who knew Russian affairs well, and proposed rapprochement with Russia. He wanted to turn the empire into a trialist one - with the participation of Croatia-Slavonia, which in the long term reduced the separatism of the South Slavs. Conflict with Serbia - since 1906 it has taken an openly hostile position towards Austria (military orders in France).
Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina... During the Austrian occupation, a significant modernization of Bosnia - the development of the mining industry and the processing of raw materials, railways, communications, forms, urban development. The cities were Europeanized - the immigration of Czechs, Germans, Magyars, Italians - a drop in the proportion of Muslims. The role of Muslims in government remained. Belgrade also began to encourage the separatism of the Serbs of the empire, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Young Turkish Revolution of 1908 and the impending elections interrupted the Austrian occupation mandate. It was necessary to act immediately, and on October 5, 1908, Franz Joseph announced the annexation of the provinces. A stormy protest from the Russian Foreign Ministry, demanded in secret negotiations to open the straits in exchange for Bosnia. But London was dissatisfied with such independence of Izvolsky, and Russia received nothing. Refusal to recognize annexation, a diplomatic crisis threatened a continental war. however after Russo-Japanese War and the revolution, Russia was not yet ready to fight, the more Austria was supported by Germany. The tsarist government recognized the annexation, but the relations between the powers were hopelessly ruined.
The creation of the Balkan Union in 1912 under the auspices of Russian diplomats - the anti-Turkish coalition of Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece. The First Balkan War liquidated the possessions of the Turks in the South-East of Europe. Second Balkan - redistribution of production by the winners. Austria lost from these wars - the problem was solved without her participation Ottoman Empire- damage to the authority of Austria-Hungary, especially in the eyes of the Slavs. Strengthening of Serbia and Romania, and potential ally Bulgaria was weakened.
1913 Serbia tried to get access to the Adriatic at the expense of the Albanians, it was supported by Russia, but declared that it would not go into an armed conflict with Austria-Hungary. London demanded an end to the offensive, when Belgrade announced its annexation, Austria-Hungary carried out a partial mobilization. The London Conference rejected the Serbian claims and reaffirmed the independence of Albania. The war did not take place again.
56. The July crisis and the beginning of the First World War. The goals and plans of the two military blocs. War and public opinion
Parties' plans... Beginning in 1910, preparations were under way for the war. Strategic plans have been adjusted, appropriations for military purposes have been increased. The Balkan Wars clarified the final balance of power.
The most developed were the plans of Germany. Schlieffen's plan of 1905. The need for a war on two fronts, which cannot be won in principle. The desire to play on the difference in the timing of mobilization - in France it is 2 weeks, in Russia 6 weeks. Those. in 4 weeks, you need to throw 7/8 of the army through Belgium and Holland, bypassing the Maginot Line, and encircle the French. On day 39, Paris is to be taken - a very mathematical plan. After the Battle of the Marne, the plan will be thwarted completely.
France... More improvisation, more reliance on fortitude. "Victory is will." Full transition to the offensive - Plan 17, offensive to Alsace and Lorraine. An unrealistic plan, rather it was necessary to take up the defensive and wait for Russian mobilization. However, many French soldiers did not even know how to dig in and did not have khaki uniforms.
Russia... Occupy East Prussia, cross the Vistula. On the Austrian front, occupy the Carpathian passes and cut off the path to Krakow. In Russia, there was an obvious weakness in the management of large formations - the direction of the main attack was not chosen. Underdeveloped communications and communications, railways.
So all countries were preparing for a fleeting mobile war, not taking into account the peculiarities of the new industrial society. Erroneous calculations. Everyone saw 1914 as the most profitable, linking the beginning of the war with their readiness for it.
July Crisis of 1914... On June 28, 1914, the heir Franz Ferdinand is killed in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo (2nd assassination attempt on the same day). The outburst of indignation did not at first foreshadow war. On July 5, Austria's request to Germany for support. Germany found the pretext to be advantageous, since England will not intervene. Wilhelm sent consent and promised support, without which Austria would not have started the war.
On July 23, an Austrian ultimatum to Serbia for 48 hours, which was of a provocative nature. I blew up the situation - we have already seen the war here. All the points of the ultimatum were accepted except one, but Austria needed an excuse to start a war as soon as possible. They did not call a peace conference. On July 28, Austria declared war on Serbia, shelling Belgrade. Even German politicians began to hesitate, but the military insisted on an early strike. Long-term military planning determines policy. All decisions are made in an atmosphere of extreme nervousness - with the fatalism and apathy of politicians. Mobilizations pulled one another - mobilization by Moltke's personal decision, when the Kaiser had not yet agreed. Delay is tantamount to death for Germany. July 31 - mobilization in Russia and France. Ultimatums to them to stop mobilization. The ultimatum expires on August 1, the war begins.
England did not clearly define its position - there was no united front, the Kaiser fully counted on her non-interference.
France is trying to present itself as a defenseless victim. England remains silent: the crisis is largely to blame - the split in the cabinet, no conscription, the Irish crisis, the temptation not to intervene at all. On August 3, when Belgium's neutrality is violated, England enters the war.
Public reaction - the so-called. "military delight"... All governments address the peoples in a nationalist spirit, parties unite. Everyone votes for war credits. Even socialists support the war. The pre-war tension subsided - an unprecedented enthusiasm from the outbreak of the war. Sometimes it came to manifestations of mass psychosis. A huge number of volunteers, even up to 80% of "unreliable elements" went to the front. There was a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the coming war.
1) Domestic policy: aggravation of social and national problems.
2) Foreign policy: the struggle for a place among the leading powers.
3) Preparation of Austria-Hungary for the First World War and the reasons for the collapse of the empire.
Literature: Shimov J. Austro-Hungarian Empire. M. 2003 (bibliography of the issue, pp. 603-605).
1. The transformation of the unified Austrian empire into (dualistic) Austria-Hungary in 1867 allowed the country to maintain its position among the great powers. In December 1867, a liberal constitution was adopted. Emperor Franz Joseph I (1848-1916) had to abandon absolutist illusions and become a constitutional ruler. It seemed that the state had avoided collapse, but it immediately had to face new problems: social conflicts, a sharp exacerbation of the national question.
The national question was the most acute. ...
At the same time, the Austrian Germans were unhappy with the compromise of 1867. A small but very noisy National Party (Georg von Schonereir) appears in the country. The core of this party's program was pan-Germanism and support for the Hohenzollern dynasty as the unifier of all Germans. Schonereir invented a new tactic of political struggle - not participation in parliamentary life, but noisy street demonstrations and violent actions. Party members raided the editorial office of a Viennese newspaper, which mistakenly announced the death of Wilhelm I. This tactic was later adopted by Hitler's party.
A more influential political force was another party of Austrian Germans - Christian Socialists (Karl Luger). Program:
1. Exposing the vices of a liberal society that does not care about the poor.
2. Sharp criticism of the ruling elite, merged with the trade and financial oligarchy.
3. Calls to fight against the dominance of the Jewish plutocracy.
4. Struggle against socialists and Marxists leading Europe to revolution.
The social support of the party was the petty bourgeoisie, the lower ranks of the bureaucracy, part of the peasantry, village priests, and part of the intelligentsia. In 1895, the Christian socialists won the elections for the Vienna City Council. Luger was elected Burgostrom of Vienna. This was opposed by Emperor Franz Joseph I, who was irritated by the popularity, xenophobia and anti-Semitism of Luger. He refused three times to approve the election results and surrendered only in April 1897, having received from Luger a promise to act within the framework of the constitution. Luger kept his promise, dealing exclusively with economic issues and constantly demonstrating loyalty, he even renounced anti-Semitism ("who is a Jew here, I decide"). Luger becomes the leader and idol of the Austrian middle class.
The workers, urban and rural poor followed the Social Democrats (SDPA). The leader is Viktor Adler, who completely reformed the party. 1888 - the party declares itself with massive actions: the organization of "marches of the hungry", the organization of the first actions on May 1. The attitude towards the Social Democrats in Austria-Hungary is better than in Germany. Franz Joseph I saw the Social Democrats as allies in the struggle against the nationalists. Adler's personal meeting with the emperor, where he and Karl Renner proposed to the emperor their concept of solving the national question (the project of federalizing the monarchy):
1. Divide the empire into separate national regions with broad autonomy in the field of internal self-government (Bohemia, Galicia, Moravia, Transylvania, Croatia).
2. Create a cadastre of nationalities, give every resident the right to register in it. He can use his native language in everyday life and in contacts with the state (all languages must be declared equal in the daily life of citizens).
3. All peoples should be granted broad cultural autonomy.
4. The central government should be in charge of the development of a general economic strategy, defense and foreign policy of the state.
The project was utopian, but by order of the emperor, it began to be implemented in two provinces - Moravia and Bukovina. Strong protest from Austrian Germans and Hungarians. Such a close rapprochement between the leaders of the socialists and the emperor caused a sharp protest from the Social Democrats and led to a split in this party. Adler's opponents ironically called them "the imperial and royal socialists." SDPA is actually falling apart into several socialist parties.
Nationalism had a disastrous effect on the unity of the empire. After the recognition of Hungary's rights, Czech provinces began to claim such rights (Bohemia, Moravia, part of Silesia). Czech Republic is the third most developed after Austria and Hungary. The Czechs demanded not only cultural, but also national-state autonomy.
Back in the early 70s of the XIX century, the Czech elite split into two groups - old and young Czechs. The former soon founded their own national party, headed by František Palacky and Rieger. The main point is the restoration of the "historical rights of the Czech crown", the creation of trialism. The government is ready to negotiate. In 1871, the head of the Austrian government, Count Hohenwart, achieved an agreement with the elders on granting the Czech lands wide internal autonomy, leaving Vienna with supreme sovereignty. The Austrian Germans and Hungarians opposed it. The "Hohenwart Compromise" condemns the emperor's entourage. Franz Joseph retreated. On October 30, 1871, he transferred the solution of this issue to the lower house, where opponents of Czech autonomy prevailed. The question is buried, the resignation of Hohenwart. This intensified the activity of the Young Chechens, who in 1871 created their own "National Liberal Party" (K. Sladkovsky, Grehr). If the old women boycotted the elections to the Reichstag, then the young ones abandon this policy. In 1879 they entered into a coalition in parliament with the Austrian and Polish conservative deputies ("Iron Ring"), thus winning a parliamentary majority. Political support was provided to the Austrian Prime Minister E. Taaffe (1879-1893). "Era Taaffe" - the time of the greatest political stability, economic growth and cultural flourishing. Taaffe played on national contradictions. "Different peoples must be kept in a state of constant slight discontent." But as soon as he came up with a project to democratize the electoral system, the bloc that supported him collapsed. Aristocrats of all nationalities and liberal German nationalists were not ready to admit to parliament representatives of "unprivileged peoples", primarily Slavs, as well as social democrats. In 1893 anti-German and anti-Habsburg demonstrations swept through the Slavic cities. Reason for Taaffe's resignation. All subsequent governments have to solve a very complex national problem. On the one hand, the reform of the electoral system was inevitable, on the other, the government could not lose the support of the Austrian Germans. The Germans (35% of the population) provided 63% of the tax collections. The Badoni government (1895-1897) fell due to an attempt to introduce bilingualism in the Czech Republic. Czech cities are again swept by a wave of unrest. German politicians (von Monsen) called on the Austrian Germans not to surrender to the Slavs. Russia tacitly supported the struggle of the Slavs, relying on the Young Chechens. In the western part of the monarchy (Tsisleitania), universal suffrage was introduced in 1907, opening the way to parliament for both the Slavs and the Social Democrats. The struggle flares up with renewed vigor.
In addition to the Czech issue, there were other acute national problems in Austria-Hungary. In the South Slavic lands - Pan-Slavism, in Galicia - strife between Polish landowners and Ukrainian peasants, South Tyrol and Istria (700 thousand Italians) were swept by the movement for annexation to Italy (irredentism).
National problems constantly raised new questions for the government. Franz Joseph I was a master of the political compromise "Josephinism", but he struggled all the time with consequences, not causes.
2. Since the beginning of the 70s of the XIX century, there were 3 main problems in the foreign policy of Austria-Hungary:
1. Close alliance with Germany.
2. Careful advance to the Balkans.
3. Striving to avoid another big war.
An alliance with Germany was necessary for Vienna in order to ensure advancement in the Balkans and neutralize Russia's influence there. Prussia needed the support of Austria to oppose France. It remains to oppose something to the influence of Great Britain. Bismarck invites Franz Joseph and Alexander II to conclude the "Union of Three Emperors" (1873). however, the rivalry between St. Petersburg and Vienna in the Balkans significantly weakened this alliance. Austria-Hungary lost the opportunity to influence the affairs of Germany and Italy. She did not have colonies and did not seek to acquire them. It could only strengthen its position in the Balkans. She is frightened by the possibility of Russia using Pan-Slavism to strike at the Ottoman Empire. Vienna takes a course to support the Turks.
In 1875, the situation in the Balkans deteriorated sharply. The uprising of the Slavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Turks brutally suppressed the uprisings. In Russia, the public demands from the tsar to provide strong support to the Slavic brothers. Franz Joseph I and his foreign minister, Count Gyula Androssy, hesitated: they did not want to push Turkey away. Bismarck advised to negotiate with Russia on the division of spheres of influence in the Balkans. In January-March 1877, Austro-Russian diplomatic agreements were signed (Vienna received freedom of action in Bosnia and Herzegovina in exchange for benevolent neutrality during the Russian-Turkish war). The San Stefano Peace Treaty of 1878 provided for the creation of an independent Bulgaria, the strengthening of Montenegro and Serbia. In Vienna, this was regarded as a violation of the agreement. During the Berlin Congress of 1878, Austria received permission from the great powers to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina while formally maintaining Turkish sovereignty. The territories of Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro were cut. The triumph of Androshi's politics. The only time Austria-Hungary acquired land, but did not lose it.
Disadvantages of this acquisition: the new lands were poor, the existence of significant social and national problems. These lands became the "bone of contention" between Vienna and St. Petersburg. The "Alliance of the Three Emperors" was dealt a fatal blow. This throws Austria into the closest alliance with Germany. On October 7, 1879, a secret Austro-German agreement was signed in Vienna. Franz Joseph I finally falls into the sphere of influence of William I and Bismarck.
After the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander III, Bismarck pushed Franz Joseph I to renew the "Union of the Three Emperors", but the Bulgarian question (the Austro-German protégé ceased to suit Russia) finally buried this union. Austria was able to significantly strengthen its position in Serbia, whose economy fell completely under Austrian control. The Serbian prince (king since 1881) Milos Abrenovich, who got entangled in debt, offered Franz Joseph to "buy" Serbia, but he refused, fearing the preponderance of the Slavs in Austria-Hungary. Bismarck pushed Austria to improve relations with Italy. In his opinion, Italy, in the event of a new Franco-German war, could divert part of the French forces to itself. On May 20, 1882, the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy is concluded in Vienna. Italy is a weak link, withdrew from the union in 1912. but until then her
assistance allowed Vienna to strengthen its advance in the Balkans.
After the death of William I and the resignation of Bismarck, Germany also began to look at the Balkans. This made Franz Joseph and his Foreign Minister Count Golukhovsky again turn their attention to improving relations with Russia. The rapprochement of the two countries was facilitated by the death of Alexander III and the accession to the throne of Nicholas II. During 1896-1897, the parties exchanged official state visits, agreements were concluded on non-interference with each other in the south-east of Europe. But this improvement in relations did not cancel Vienna's desire to completely annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia wanted to gain control over the Black Sea straits. The Austrian General Staff in the late 1890s began to develop plans for a war with Russia.
On June 11, 1903, a coup d'etat took place in Serbia. King Alexander Abrenovich and his wife Draga were overthrown and killed by conspiratorial officers ("People's Defense" and "Black Hand"). King Peter I Karadjordievich ascended the throne, who sympathized with the ideas of Pan-Slavism and Russia. Austrian influence in Serbia begins to wane. The Austrian government tried to change the situation with a customs war (pig), but the Serbs quickly found other trading partners such as France, Germany and Bulgaria, and Austria finally lost the Serbian market. The Serbs, with the support of Russia, begin to make claims about the creation of a "Great Serbia" with the inclusion of Bosnia and Herzegovina (occupied by the Austrians since 1878), as well as all the Austrian lands inhabited by Slavs (Slovenia).
The situation in the Balkans was rapidly heating up ("Europe's powder keg"). Three main problems:
10.the struggle of the great powers for the division of spheres of influence
11.contradictions between young, independent states: Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece were at enmity because of Macedonia, and Romania and Bulgaria because of Dobrudja (an area in the lower Danube)
12. Serbia and Italy claimed dominion over the Albanian lands, which worried Austria-Hungary.
Bosnian crisis of 1908-1909
The war with Serbia inevitably meant a clash between Austria and Russia. Vienna needed to get Berlin's support, but Berlin did not want to spoil relations with Serbia, since Germany began to actively develop the Serbian market. Vienna tried to attract Turkey to the union, but Turkey was weakened by the Young Turk revolution of 1908.
In this situation, the new Austrian Foreign Minister Baron (and later Count) Alois Lexa von Ehrenthal (1906-1912) set a course for the complete annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was a strategically important part of the Balkan Peninsula, inhabited by Orthodox Serbs (42%), Catholic Croats (21%) and Bosniaks (34%, Muslim Slavs). The Austrians were forced to act immediately by the events in Turkey, where parliamentary elections were scheduled after the successful revolution of 1908. On August 19, 1908, at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers, Erenthal announced the need to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was supported by the chief of the Austrian General Staff, General Konrad von Goetzendorf and the heir to the Austrian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand d'Este.
Emperor Franz Joseph I hesitated, fearing Russia's displeasure, but Erenthal was able to come to an agreement with the Russian Foreign Minister Izvolsky, who promised not to oppose the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in response, Erenthal promised to support St. Petersburg's demand to revise the status of the Black Sea Straits. Erenthal knew that Great Britain would be categorically against this. And so it happened. Izvolsky's mission to London ended unsuccessfully. And on October 6, Franz Joseph I announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This caused indignation in Serbia, and in St. Petersburg Izvolsky is sharply criticized in the State Duma. He justifies himself, claiming that Erenthal deceived him without specifying the exact date of the annexation, but the documents caught him in a lie. Petersburg felt deceived, but this acquisition also brought new difficulties to Vienna:
7. Berlin was extremely offended by the fact that France learned about the annexation earlier than Germany, due to the negligence of the ambassador in Paris, Kevenhüller.
8. Turkey did not accept this loss and declared a boycott of all Austrian goods on the Turkish market. Turkey was calmed down only by a huge compensation of 54 million marks.
9. Belgrade announces the mobilization of reservists and increases the military budget by 16 million dinars.
Serbia hoped for help from Russia, but Russia, weakened by the revolution of 1905-1907, could not fight. From St. Petersburg they tried to calm down the Serbs in every possible way, promising that Serbia would receive compensation for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Erenthal categorically refuses this, claiming that the Serbs have not lost anything. Vienna turns to Berlin for help, but Berlin is not going to fight either. Chancellor Bülow appeals to St. Petersburg with a proposal not to object to this annexation. If his proposal was not accepted, Bülow threatened to "leave events to their natural course." Petersburg was forced to retreat. London also influenced the Serbs to make them come to terms with this loss. On March 31, 1909, Serbia officially agreed to recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina. Erenthal won, but this only added problems to Vienna:
1) The Treasury suffered significant material losses associated with compensation to Turkey and the mobilization of reservists.
2) The hostility of Russia is acutely manifested.
3) Among the Bosnian Serbs, hostility towards Austria is escalating.
4) Austrian Germans and Hungarians are extremely unhappy with the sharp increase in the Slavic population of the Empire.
But there were also advantages of this accession. In particular, the alliance between Austria and Germany was significantly strengthened. Germany even for some time followed the Austrian policy (Bosnian crisis of 1908-1909).
3. The time that preceded the First World War, for Austria, is an almost continuous chain of large and small crises. The rivalry between the Entente and the Triple Alliance is becoming more and more acute. Moreover, in each of these blocks there was no internal unity.
By 1911 Vienna had finally come under the influence of Berlin, and Erenthal died in 1912 of leukemia. After that, the Austrian military elite strengthens its position, and Goetzendorf returns to the post of chief of the General Staff. In 1912 the Balkan problem escalated. The Ottoman Empire is falling apart, losing one province after another. In the summer of 1912 Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro created the Balkan Union directed against Turkey. From October 1912 to June 1913, the first Balkan War was fought. Turkey has lost almost all of its territories in the Balkan Peninsula. In Austria, this aroused shock and suspicion that Russia was stepping up its activities. But barely winning a victory in Turkey, the victors quarreled over the issue of Macedonia. In June 1913, the Second Balkan War begins against the aggression of Bulgaria by Serbia, Greece and Romania in alliance with Turkey. Bulgaria was defeated, losing most of the conquered territory, and Turkey was able to retain a small part of its European possessions, centered in Adrianople (Edirne). Austria-Hungary decided to use the results of the Second Balkan War to weaken Serbia. Vienna supported the idea of creating an independent Albania, hoping that this state would be under the Austrian protectorate. Russia, which supports Serbia, began to concentrate troops on the Austrian border. Austria does the same. It was about the prestige of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, without which it was impossible to solve the internal national question, but the position of Great Britain and Germany postpones the big war for a while. For a while, the interests of these states intersect. Both in that and in the other country they thought that it was foolish to start a war because of the minor conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Britain did not want to lose the profitable trade in the Mediterranean and feared for the path of communication with the eastern colonies. Germany is actively exploring the young Balkan states. Under the joint pressure of the great powers, Serbia agrees to create a formally independent Albania. The crisis of 1912 was resolved. But in Vienna the feeling of defeat reigns. The reasons:
6. Serbia did not lose its position in the Balkans and retained its claims to the unification of the Balkan Slavs. Austro-Serbian relations were hopelessly ruined.
7. The clash between Romania and Bulgaria destroyed the fragile system of relations, beneficial for Austria.
8. Between Austria-Hungary and Italy there are more and more contradictions that threatened the collapse of the Triple Alliance.
The abundance of insoluble problems makes Austria-Hungary hope only for a big war. The aged Emperor Franz Joseph I did not want war, but was unable to contain ethnic strife (the Austrian Germans, the Hungarian elite, and the Slavs were unhappy). Many of the Austrian politicians saw a way out in the transfer of the throne to the heir to Archduceg Franz Ferdinand (from 1913 he was appointed to the most important military post of inspector general of the armed forces). He spoke in favor of improving relations with Russia and at the same time was strongly anti-Hungarian.
In June 1914, he went on maneuvers to Bosnia. After finishing the maneuvers, he visited the Bosnian capital Sarajevo. Here he and his wife Countess Sophia von Hohenberg were killed on June 28 by the Serbian terrorist Gavrilo Princip from the Black Hand organization. This pushes Vienna to issue an ultimatum to Serbia, which becomes the formal reason for the outbreak of the First World War. Participation in the war has exacerbated internal problems Empire and led to its collapse in 1918.
1 slide
2 slide
3 slide
By the 30s - 40s. XIX century. The Austrian Empire was a multinational state. It included the territories of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, as well as part of the territory of modern Romania, Poland, Italy and Ukraine. In these lands, the desire for state independence, national independence was strengthened. The Habsburgs tried to preserve the empire at the cost of minor concessions to the peoples who inhabited it.
4 slide
The Austrian Empire in the first half of the 19th century, the peasantry remained powerless, corvee reached 104 days a year, and a quitrent was also levied. The country was dominated by shop restrictions. There were internal customs duties. The construction of new manufactories and factories was prohibited. Severe censorship. The school was under the control of the clergy. The political and spiritual oppression of the peoples of the empire (the principle of "divide and rule" was applied to the oppressed peoples). Emperor of the Austrian Empire Franz I Austrian Chancellor Clement Wenzel Metternich
5 slide
1848 - revolutions in the Austrian Empire (Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic) The development of the industrial revolution was hindered by the old feudal order. The prohibitive policy of the Habsburgs in the field of economics Political repression. 1847 - world economic crisis("Hungry forties") The striving of the peoples of the empire for national independence. Causes Results of the Revolution suppressed by the troops of Austria and Russia Emperor of the Austrian Empire Ferdina nd I (1835 - 1848)
6 slide
Results of the revolutions in the Austrian Empire Emperor Ferdinand abdicated in favor of his eighteen-year-old nephew Franz Joseph (1830-1916). The introduction of a constitution that consolidated the integrity of the empire. Establishing a high property qualification for voters. Carrying out the peasant reform in Hungary: the abolition of corvee and church tithe, one third of the cultivated land passed into the hands of the peasants. All peoples of the Hungarian kingdom received political freedom and land. However, the peoples of the Austrian Empire did not receive national independence. Emperor of the Austrian Empire Franz Joseph
7 slide
1867 - Austro-Hungarian agreement on the transformation of the Habsburg empire into a two-pronged monarchy of Austria-Hungary, which consisted of two states independent from each other in internal affairs - Austria and Hungary. Defeats in wars with France, Piedmont and Prussia Unrest in Hungary Increased need to strengthen the integrity of the state Emperor of Austria-Hungary Franz Joseph
8 slide
Political structure Austria-Hungary Austria-Hungary - constitutional monarchy without universal suffrage Franz Joseph - emperor of Austria and king of Hungary But Austria and Hungary each had their own: constitution, parliament, government Austria and Hungary have a common: flag, army, three ministries: military, finance and foreign affairs. financial system. There were no customs borders between Austria and Hungary
9 slide
1868 - The Czech state (Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia) raised the issue of secession from Austria Austria agreed to carry out democratic reforms: The property qualification, which gave the right to participate in elections, was lowered, as a result of which wide strata of small owners of the city and village, part of the workers received voting right. The Czechs appointed their representatives to the Austrian parliament. In areas where there was a mixed population, two languages were introduced, and the officials of Bohemia and Moravia were required to know them. In general, the position of the Czechs, who raised the issue of complete separation from Austria, remained the same. Hungary, which was afraid of similar demands from "its" Slavs, also opposed their claims to independence.
10 slide
All Austrian governments pursued a policy of small concessions in order to keep the population of the empire in a "state of moderate discontent" and not lead them to dangerous explosions. Austria-Hungary became a federation, but the borders of Austria and Hungary did not coincide with the national borders.
11 slide
12 slide
13 slide
Austria-Hungary in late XIX- the beginning of the twentieth century From the end of the 1880s. accelerated the pace economic development... Large centers of transport engineering and weapons production have grown. In connection with the rapid railway construction, metalworking and mechanical engineering began to develop actively. In Hungary, food processing was the leading industry Agriculture... In 1873 three cities - Buda, Pest and Obuda - merged into one city of Budapest. In 1887 the first tram passed through the city, and in 1895 the metro was opened. By the beginning of the XX century. monopoly capitalism is rapidly developing in the empire (cartels were the main form of combining enterprises). England, France and Germany actively invested in the industry of the empire. The old nobility, in alliance with the new bourgeoisie, became the dominant force of the empire. A process of stratification of the peasantry was going on in the countryside.
14 slide
Problems of Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the twentieth century Government crises (from 1897 to 1914 in Austria, governments were replaced 15 times). There was practically no social legislation in the country. Only in 1907 did the Austrian parliament pass a new electoral law giving all men over 24 years of age the right to vote. In Hungary in 1908, only literate men were entitled to vote, and the owners of any property received two votes each. Landless and landless peasants left for cities or emigrated. The bulk of the peasants lived in dire poverty. In many areas the landlords and peasants belonged to different nationalities, and this increased the national enmity. Striving for national independence and state independence of the peoples that were part of the empire At the beginning of the XX century. the empire rested largely on the authority of the old emperor and on the bayonets of the Habsburg army. Emperor of Austria-Hungary Franz Joseph I
15 slide
Foreign policy of Austria-Hungary At the beginning of the XX century. Austria-Hungary began to increase its penetration into the Balkans. In 1878, the empire received the right to rule Bosnia and Herzegovina, which formally remained part of the Ottoman Empire. 1882 Austria-Hungary joined the Triple Alliance. In 1908, a revolution took place in Turkey, the emperor sent troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina and declared them part of Austria-Hungary. Tension in the Balkans was growing, where the interests of the leading European powers clashed. On June 28, 1914, Gavrila Princip, a member of the secret nationalist organization Mlada Bosna, killed in Sarajevo the nephew of Franz Joseph, heir to the Austro-Hungarian thrones, Franz Ferdinand and his wife, who was there during military exercises. This was the reason for the outbreak of the First World War.
17 slide
Homework§ 23. Workbook No. 2: No. 33-36 pp. 15-17
Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the 20th century
Territory and population of Austria-Hungary. - Occupation of the population of the monarchy. - A country's economy. - Military industry. - Trade of Austria-Hungary. - The budget. - Austrian imperialism. - The internal situation of the monarchy is the struggle of nationalities. - Labor movement. - State structure... - The bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy. - The personality of Franz Joseph. - Franz Ferdinand: his character and views. - Foreign policy of Austria-Hungary. - Union with Germany. - Union and relations with Italy. - The Balkan question. - Austria-Hungary and Russia. - Austria and Italy in the Balkans. - The hopeless situation of Austria-Hungary and its inevitable death.
“The fire of shots in Sarajevo, like lightning on a dark night, for a moment illuminated the path ahead. It became clear that a signal was given for the disintegration of the monarchy ”- this is how the former prime minister of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Chernin, figuratively writes in his memoirs.
The presentiment did not deceive this diplomat, and the monarchy, as a state union, left the scene and went into the realm of history. A few more years will pass, and the memory of this once mighty monarchy will increasingly fade away, going into the distant centuries.
The future of humanity, of course, lost a little with the disappearance of this remnant of the dark Middle Ages and will hardly remember its past life with regret. We ourselves would not want to awaken in the memory of our contemporaries the thoughts of the former monarchy of the Habsburgs, if only it were not for the task we set ourselves of studying the “brain of the army”. It is impossible, of course, to investigate the "brain" without touching on the corpse-empire of the Habsburgs itself, because the way of this state was reflected in the army, and, consequently, on its "brain matter" - the general staff.
In the hoary antiquity, the Habsburg monarchy was born, experienced a period of revival, the highest rise of its glory, and, finally, by the middle of the 19th century, it began to lose its luster.
We are not going to write the history of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, but we will get acquainted with its state by the beginning of the 20th century, and if we deviate into historical times, then only with the aim of clarifying this or that issue.
On an area of 675.887 sq. kilometers of the former empire of the Habsburgs lived a whole conglomerate of various nationalities. 47,000,000 Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slavs, Romanians and other nationalities were included in the course of history into one state union.
According to the data of 1900, the population was distributed according to the native language, as indicated in Table 1.
In addition, of the 1,737,000 inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina occupied in 1878, there were 690,000 Serbs, 350,000 croats, 8,200 Jews and 689,000 Mohammedans.
The data presented characterize the diverse composition of the population, which has long been a distinctive feature of Austria-Hungary. The name of the "patchwork" monarchy was the best fit for the former empire of the Habsburgs.
This is not to say that all "rags" were equal. Monarchist principles of building a state on the banks of the Danube could not, of course. recognize the self-determination of each of the nationalities. In the historical struggle for this self-determination, only the Hungarians managed to defend their independence and not only to break free from German oppression, but also to follow in the footsteps of their oppressors. The rest of the nationalities were slaves of these two carriers of the cultures of Austria-Hungary.
Table No. 1
The "Industrial Revolution", which in the 18th century initiated the formation of a new capitalist society in Western Europe, slowly penetrated into the life of Austria-Hungary. It retained its agrarian character for a long time, preferring to receive industrial products from outside than to develop their production at home. However, industry nevertheless imperiously invaded the conservative society of Austria-Hungary and, although slowly, won more and more place for itself.
By occupation, according to table No. 2, per 10,000 inhabitants were employed in 1900:
The above table, without unnecessary comments, characterizes the economy of Austria-Hungary. As you can see, industry was more developed in the Austrian half of the state. Large-scale factory production was developed mainly in Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and Voralberg, in areas that were therefore devoid of salt, oil and fuel. Iron production was concentrated in Lower and Upper Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Extreme, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia; mechanical engineering is mainly in Vienna, Venek Neustadt, Prague, Brunn and Trieste. In Hungary, the industry is less developed, however, and here its products gradually began to meet the needs of the local market.
Mining both in Austria and Hungary developed gradually, fully providing the industry with raw materials and fuel. However, the distribution of mining resources, especially fuel, did not correspond to the industrial centers and therefore it was difficult to supply the latter with fuel material.
Agriculture and cattle breeding were developed mainly in Hungary, and this half of the monarchy was its granary. Although the Austrian lands also developed a lot of agriculture, they could not do without the help of Hungary or import from abroad in food products, and Russia and Romania were not the last suppliers of bread for Austria-Hungary. As for the purely military industry, that in Austria-Hungary, as it developed, gradually fell under the rule of German and then English capital.
Table No. 2
The largest military industrial enterprise in Austria was the Skoda plant in Pilsen (in Moravia). Founded in 1869 as a steel plant, and remaining a purely commercial enterprise until 1886, the Skoda plant began its military production with armor plates for land fortifications, and then in 1888 released its first howitzer installation for a 5.9 "mortar and took a patent. on a new machine gun.
In 1889, Skoda began production of field and other artillery for the Austro-Hungarian army, and in 1896, having built new cannon workshops, began the production of naval artillery. In 1900, Škoda is transformed into a joint stock company with the help of the Credit Institution and the Bohemian Registration Bank.
In 1903, the previously maintained connection with Krupn was consolidated by the exchange of patents, and Skoda actually turned into Krupn's department, supplying steel with it for our Putilov plant.
In 1908, Skoda was already supplying guns for Spanish warships, and in 1912, together with the Hartenberg Cartridge Company and the Austrian Arms Factory, received an order from China for artillery and hand weapons, in exchange for a loan arranged for him by Viennese bankers. Skoda is becoming as ubiquitous as Krupp himself.
In 1909, after the Bosnian crisis, the plant in Pilsen was significantly expanded and received government orders for 7,000,000 kroons, due to be completed in 1914. In 1912, the gun and machine shops were expanded again, and the following year the company entered into an agreement with the Hungarian government to build a large gun factory in Gyor, in which the Hungarian treasury was to invest 7 million. CZK, and the company - 6 million. CZK.
Closely associated with the Austrian Daimler Motor Society, in 1913 Skoda began installing its heavy howitzers (28 centimeters) on Daimler cars.
Another major Austrian military-industrial enterprise was the Vitkovica Coal and Iron Company in Moravia, which produced armor, gun barrels, shells, armored domes and gun mounts. This company was part of the Nickel Syndicate of Steel Breeders, headquartered in Vickers House in Westminster.
The third major firm is the Austrian arms factory in Steyer, headed by Mannlicher. The factory supplied the Austro-Hungarian army with a rifle of this designation. The factory was founded in 1830 and its rifle was adopted in 1867. In 1869, a joint stock company was formed, and in 1878 the productivity of the Steyer plant already reached 500,000 rifles per year, and it employed over 3,000 people. The plant was also part of the association with the "German arms and shell factory" and "Br. Boller and Co. ".
In Prague, there was a dynamite plant from the Nobel association, which widely spread its bonds in the countries of Europe.
Finally, in Fiume, Armstrong and Vickers had a torpedo factory.
There is no saying that the industry of Austria-Hungary could not enter into any competition with the world powers, but, in any case, its development was moving forward rapidly. Using its own capital, syndicating with foreign ones, the heavy industry of the Habsburg monarchy got on its feet every year, and, if only difficulties in domestic politics, the development of industry would have been faster than it actually turned out.
From what has been said about the development of industry, it is clear that in Austria-Hungary, on the one hand, a class of large capitalists was formed, and on the other, the proletariat was growing.
As for trade, Austria-Hungary, according to 1912 data, traded only 5.600 million on a global scale. brands, accounting for 3.3% of all world trade. The largest exchange of goods took place with Germany, England, Italy, the United States of America and then with the Balkan states (Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece). It should be noted that trade with the latter ran into resistance from the Hungarian agrarians, who saw the development of commodity exchange with abroad undermining their own well-being. Special prohibitive and high duties were introduced, which, on the one hand, helped the development of Hungarian agriculture, however, on the other, increased the cost of products, often creating crises and placing Austria in dependence on Hungary, not to mention the anger against the Danube monarchy, which was created in neighboring Slavic countries.
The budget of Austria-Hungary was formed from four budgets: the general imperial, Austrian, Hungarian and Bosnian. The general imperial budget was intended mainly for the maintenance of the all-imperial army, the general imperial government institutions and to cover the costs associated with the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the constitution, Austria and Hungary paid certain debts to the general imperial budget, while Austria's contribution was significantly higher than the Hungarian one. Compared to other European powers, the budget of Austria-Hungary in millions of francs, as shown in table 3, was as follows:
Table No. 3
Thus, only Italy alone had a budget smaller than Austria-Hungary, while other powers overtook the former Habsburg empire.
The growth of the budget did not correspond to the development of the productive forces of Austria-Hungary, as a result of which the national debt grew every year and in 1911 was expressed in the amount of 18,485,000 kroons, which was 359 kroons per inhabitant. In terms of the severity of the national debt, however, Austria-Hungary was overtaken this year by France, Italy, Germany, and only in England and Russia the population was less burdened with debt. However, if we consider that each French and German had a greater income than a citizen of Austria-Hungary, it becomes clear that the Habsburg Empire forced the forces of its population. What were the reasons for this, we will not disclose for now, since we will return to this issue even further.
We have no right to make further searches in the field of economic statistics, since we would have evaded our task. We need the foregoing as a basis for further judgments about the Danube Empire.
The multi-tribal composition of its population and the slow development of the productive forces speak for the fact that this state was not up to the imperialism of its European neighbors. If we can talk about Austrian imperialism, then only as a system with too limited dreams and goals, far from the capture of those colonies, the struggle for which was waged by other great European powers, and in particular, allies - Germany and even Italy.
Austrian imperialism, as such, scattered its nets only on the nearby Balkans, and its extreme desire was access to the Aegean Sea, and then attempts to get harbors in Asia Minor. The Austrian imperialists never dreamed of more. Despite the fact that the Austrian industry was getting on its feet more and more firmly every year, its representatives were not only interested in the wide expansion of their allies, the Germans, but were also afraid of it, they were satisfied with their local market. Thus, the representatives of the Austrian iron-making industry turned out to be very interested in their home market, since the prices for iron and steel in Austria are 100 percent more expensive than in Germany. Hungarian agrarians were afraid not only of German domination, but also sought to limit the import of agricultural and livestock products from neighboring Romania and Serbia. that there is no other way out, that they get some profits from the policy of their expansive ally.
Thus, if the internal market was still free, if there was still a lot of income at home for the capitalists of the Danube Empire, i.e. in other words, if there were no incentives for an aggressive policy outside the country, then it would seem that the Habsburg empire should be the “promised” country of the world, and not the burning torch that lit the world fire as it actually turned out to be.
The active policy of Austria-Hungary was based on something else: "a dynastically compulsory conglomerate of centrifugal national fragments" - Austria-Hungary was "the most reactionary formation in the center of Europe." Surrounded by nationalities, relatives that were part of the empire, Austria-Hungary, in order to save its unity, in its foreign policy preferred the path of enslavement of neighboring small states, but could not agree to its disintegration. This is the expression of the so-called Austrian imperialism. Argonauts from the banks of the Danube in military expeditions did not go in search of the golden fleece in distant countries, but to round their borders, to include in their composition those independent nationalities that, with their presence, embarrassed the loyal Habsburgs, disturbing the peace of the latter.
For a long time he was no longer at home - inside the state, and thus, for Austria-Hungary, foreign policy turned out to be most closely and directly related to domestic policy.
In view of the above, we consider ourselves obliged to cast a glance at the internal balance of power in the Danube Empire.
The once blissful and calm times for the Habsburg dynasty, which by marriages expanded their possessions on both banks of the Danube, had passed by the middle of the 19th century, and “my peoples”, as Franz Joseph called the conglomerate of his subjects, set in motion. The marriage bond ceased to exert its magical effect, and in 1848 the Hungarian revolution broke out with the idea of national self-determination. Suppressed with the help of the Russians, Hungary did not calm down in its struggle, and by 1867 had achieved independence.
According to the constitution of this year, on the banks of the Danube, instead of the former Austria, there was a dualistic (twin) Austria-Hungary, with a special Hungarian parliament, and then an army. Having won the victory, Hungary did not stop in its demands, and the subsequent years, up to the world war, were filled with internal parliamentary struggle. In other years, this struggle took on a fierce character on all fronts - political, everyday, economic, etc. In a word, the Hungarians did not stop their struggle for independence for a single day until 1918, when the actual separation of Hungary as an independent state.
The defeated bearers of the Austrian idea - the Germans - saw their salvation only in reunification with a strong Germany. Once a solid stronghold for the Habsburg dynasty, the once dominant tribe in the state, its backbone, has now degenerated into an Austrian irredent. Instead of a binding force, the Germans were a centrifugal force, held only by Germany itself, who considered it more advantageous to have the Austro-Hungarian monarchy as a whole than to include an extra 10,000,000 single-tribal eaters. The expansion of the clerical south of Germany into the arch-clerical Austrian Germans would weaken the position of the Protestant north in the German alliance and, finally, economically, it would be more profitable for the Spree Germans to have a good customs union with the Danube Germans than to see them as competitors within Germany itself.
This was the position of the two dominant nationalities in Austria-Hungary. The rest of the nationalities were divided between them. However, such a division was not very pleasant for those deprived of the right to national self-determination. The struggle for autonomy with the announcement of the 1867 constitution began in both halves of the state. In Austria, the Czechs fought against the Germans, the Poles against the Rusyns, and the Italians tried to join Italy.
In Hungary, there was a long and stubborn struggle between the Hungarians and Croats, Slovaks, Serbs, and Romanians.
Finally, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, occupied in 1878, there was a clear discontent of the Serbs with the occupation regime and a gravitation towards an independent Serbia.
In a word, centrifugal national tendencies every year, as the productive forces developed on the territory of oppressed nationalities, developed more and more, creating difficulties in the state and threatening to somehow result in an armed conflict with the dynasty.
The internal position of Austria-Hungary was fraught with great dangers, which was not a secret for any sane statesman of the Danube Empire.
They only thought differently ways to improve: some saw the need to transform the state through internal reforms, as was done in Germany, others, relying on the experience of the same Germany, sought to create a state with borders that would include all independent single-tribal states into a single connection - the Danube empire of the Habsburgs. Representatives of the second trend were the Austrian imperialists mentioned above.
The "pacification" of the monarchy through internal reforms was understood in the sense of declaring autonomy for individual nationalities with the simultaneous grouping of those into large kinship associations. Thus, dualism was replaced by trialism, i.e. unification of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia from the Slavic tribes. However, such a division met with resistance among the Germans and Hungarians, who were afraid to let go of the Slavs they were guarding. Thus, Hungarian Prime Minister Tissa did not allow anyone to touch “my Serbs,” as he put it, emphasizing the rights of the Hungarian crown to the Slavic peoples that were part of its lands. Finally, it was difficult in general to reconcile the Slavs themselves with each other, not to mention the Romanians and Italians, whose fate, even with the new division of the state, promised the former dependence on certain foreign rulers.
The paths of statesmen from the banks of the Danube of the second group went along the outer lines, and therefore we will leave them for now.
Approaching the history of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, we are obliged to highlight the position of the driving force that came to the fore in all states at the beginning of the 20th century - this is the labor movement.
With the development of industry in Austria-Hungary, the working class grew, social democracy grew, more and more drawn into the internal struggle that bubbled up in the state. However, instead of leading the working class along the path of revolutionary internationalism, the Austro-Hungarian Social Democracy threw it into the arms of bourgeois nationalism, which was burning with struggle, and itself entered this struggle for the interests of nationalities.
However, despite all the struggle waged by individual nationalities in Austria-Hungary, the latter, as a state union, continued to exist. It was clear that her life path was shortening every day, but this required blows from the outside to the flabby body of the Danube Empire, while inside, everything was still poured into a fierce parliamentary struggle, sometimes accompanied by barricades and rifle fire in large settlements of the state.
According to the constitution of 1867, both halves of the state (Austria and Hungary) had their own independent representative institutions, their own independent ministries and their own armies. Bosnia and Herzegovina also had its own independent diet. Each of the "halves" singled out delegations, which in turn had meetings in Vienna or Budapest, solving general imperial issues.
The army and the ministries of foreign affairs and finance, supported by the general imperial budget, were recognized as general imperial institutions.
At the head of the entire state machine was Franz Joseph, who was, to some extent, the connecting force that for the time being did not allow the mechanism of the empire to recede into eternal rest.
As it should be for any bourgeois constitution, and in the Austrian constitution there was "paragraph 14", which gave the right of the supreme power to carry out certain measures in the direction desired by it.
National separatism incited hatred not only among the masses, but also penetrated the top of the bourgeois classes of the monarchy. True, a kind of international circle of the ruling court clique formed around the court, so to speak, but it was dominated by the same centrifugal national federalist aspirations. No matter how bourgeois and high in his nobility and origin the Hungarian dignitary of the Danube Empire was, he, above all, remained a Hungarian. Likewise, other nationalities were suspicious of one or another general imperial minister of a certain nationality, often seeing in the minister's projects a belittling of the rights and interests of their nation.
But no matter how the divisions in the upper circles of the bourgeoisie grew, it, however, was still firmly on its feet. The presence of a large number of large landowners in Hungary, Galicia, the formation of a circle of large industrialists, the development of banks, etc., replenished the ranks of the big bourgeoisie, which saw the preservation of the monarchy as the only way for its development.
This big bourgeoisie was followed by that huge army of officials, which was a characteristic feature of the former Habsburg monarchy. This army of bureaucrats, who lived at the expense of the state, was three times larger than all the military forces of Austria-Hungary, and according to Krauss's calculation in his book "The Reasons for Our Defeats": “every fifth or sixth person was an official. Half of Austria's income went to the maintenance of officials, who in the army saw the most dangerous enemy for their existence. " Wherever possible, this bureaucratic army went against the armed forces of the empire, proving the full gravity of the costs associated with maintaining the army.
There is not much to say about the general mass of the population. Her material well-being was far from satisfactory. True, in areas where industry developed, such as Bohemia and Moravia, the situation of the population improved, but still not enough. The reasons for the unsatisfactory material position of the masses were considered the bonds that the Constitution of 1867 imposed on national self-determination, those constraints within which it was impossible to speak of any rapid development of the country's productive forces.
As always happens in such cases, looking for a way out of the current situation within the state, the eyes of many, and above all of Franz Joseph himself, were looking for a supernatural person, a statesman who would save the crumbling empire.
“It’s my misfortune that I cannot find a statesman,” said Franz-Joseph.
But the misfortune, according to Krauss, lay not in the lack of such statesmen, but above all in the nature of Franz Joseph himself, who did not tolerate independent persons, people with an open look and their own opinions, people who knew their worth and held themselves with dignity. Such persons were not suitable for the Austrian court. Only "lackey natures" enjoyed love in him, as Krauss testifies.
Speaking of Austria-Hungary, one cannot go past the personality of Franz Joseph, who served to some extent as a cement for this state union. Despite the national struggle that was waged in the country, the personality of this elderly representative of the Habsburg dynasty was popular among the population. The latter was not in the merits of Franz Joseph, but rather in the habit to him, in the assessment of him as an existing factor of historical necessity.
The foregoing may lead to the conclusion that Franz Joseph had little influence on the course of affairs in the Danube Empire. However, it is not. Throughout his long tenure as head of state, Franz Joseph did not let go of the helm of the state machine. True, external and internal storms more than once threatened to snatch this instrument of control from his hands, but he stubbornly held on to it, swimming either against or with the flow.
In a severe internal crisis after the just-ended Hungarian revolution of 1848, having ascended the Habsburg throne as a young man, Franz Joseph immediately plunged into a life full of anxiety and dangers.
Having found a period of absolutism in the state, Franz Joseph from the very first steps had to experience the collapse of it (absolutism) and the transformation of the country into a constitutional state. Life forced us to adapt to new forms; Franz Joseph did not recoil from them and took a new path as much as inexorable circumstances demanded. Recognizing the victory of the Hungarians and becoming a dualistic monarch in 1867, Franz Joseph was far from any transition to other forms of government. The 1867 Constitution was his last concession. Faithful to her, the penultimate Habsburg could not reconcile with any further autonomy of nationalities other than Hungarians: the idea of trialism was alien to Franz Joseph.
Remaining faithful to the monarchical precepts of his ancestors, Franz Joseph with each year of his reign went further and further away from the life that was developing in Europe. The big steps of imperialism, the social movement - all this was not for the high-power monarch on the Danube. “His peoples” were to think of their true master with a sense of respect and devotion; who, in turn, should not violate monarchical etiquette and go "to the people", as his ally Wilhelm tried to do. Conservative etiquette was transferred from everyday life to the management of state affairs. Here, etiquette also had to be observed: everyone could speak only in the circle of his activities, but no more.
As a person with a far from strong nature, with a conservative way of thinking, Franz Joseph, however, did not overestimate his strength and did not shy away from energetic people who were fighting for him in the internal affairs of the state. One thing he could not forgive such people is violations of court etiquette and loyalty to the Habsburg dynasty. In fulfilling these requirements of the monarch, independent and strong-willed statesmen could pursue their policies without fear of losing the trust of the elderly Habsburg.
A conservative by conviction, Franz Joseph remained so in his relations with people. The person who received his trust did not soon leave his high state post, even if it did correspond to his appointment. On the contrary, people who were somehow antipathetic to the emperor, despite all their merits and qualities, could not count on their successful state activities.
Thus, in the testimony of Krauss, we must make some amendment in the sense that if "servility" was recognized by Franz Joseph as a form of expression of allegiance, then only as a form, but in essence of the matter, in certain for each official within the framework, they were allowed to freely express their thoughts and defend the proposed provisions.
German by birth, Franz Joseph remained him in the foreign policy of the state, despite a number of defeats in the war with Prussia and other German states. Those external blows that fell to the lot of Austria in the first period of Franz Joseph's life made him to some extent lose faith in the military might of the Danube Empire. The impending world slaughter seemed to suppress him: in this war the monarchies were supposed to disappear, and Franz Joseph stubbornly rejected any actions that could lead to catastrophe. The stake on "peace" was more desirable for modern Abdul-Hamid than saber rattling; skillful diplomatic victories were more seductive in their bloodlessness than the deceptive and risky move of military happiness. And if Austria was the instigator of the world war, then one should not forget that the Sarajevo action was directed against the Habsburgs, in whose defense Franz Joseph was even ready to draw his sword, although he did not harbor particularly vague feelings for his future successor.
The latter, in the person of Franz Ferdinand, had already been in the government for several years, promising in the future to make a turning point in Austria's internal life and its external situation.
Distinguished by a nervous nature, embittered from childhood to the courtyard and who stood at the head of the department statesmen, especially the Hungarians, who often treated the future ruler of the state, Franz-Ferdinand had an unbalanced temperament. Sometimes cheerful and lively, and often harsh in dealing with those around him, the heir to the throne from childhood closed himself first in himself, and then in his family circle.
A stranger to any attempt to seek popularity, who despised mankind too much to value or reckon with his opinion, Franz-Ferdinand instilled terror and fear in the ministers and other persons involved in the government who came to him with reports. An irritable, unrestrained cleric, Franz-Ferdinand especially despised all the servility that was characteristic of the Austro-Hungarian state machine. However, with people who did not get lost and firmly defended their opinions, Franz-Ferdinand made himself different and willingly listened to them.
The future promised Austria a harsh ruler, if history itself had not turned the wheel in the other direction and the "greatest convulsion" had not swept away not only Franz Ferdinand, but also Austria-Hungary as a state union.
Having experienced the brunt of Hungarian harassment, not seeing salvation for the Danube monarchy in the system of dualism, Franz-Ferdinand was looking for such in a radical transformation of the state on the principles of federalism.
His attitude towards the Hungarian half resulted in one phrase: “They (the Hungarians) are antipathetic to me, if only because of their language,” said Franz-Ferdinand, desperate in his attempts to learn the Hungarian language. The personal antipathies towards the Hungarian magnates, learned from childhood, were transferred by Franz-Ferdinand to the entire Hungarian people. Possessing a political instinct, he understood all the harm that brought with it not only Hungarian separatism, but mainly the policy of Slavic oppression pursued by the stubborn Magyars.
This naturally led to the Archduke's constant desire to help the Romanians, Croats, Slovaks and other nationalities free themselves from Hungarian domination.
This policy of Franz-Ferdinand on the Hungarian issue did not remain a secret for Hungary, which paid the same coin of malice and hatred to the descendant of the Habsburgs.
The federalist policy of Franz Ferdinand did not meet with sympathy, first of all, in Franz Joseph himself, as already mentioned above, frozen within the framework of the 1867 constitution. Both differences of opinion in views on domestic politics and personal relations separated these two representatives of the Habsburg House from each other. If, according to the heir, he meant for the emperor “no more than the last lackey in Schönbrunn,” then on the other hand, Franz Joseph also definitely expressed his point of view on all the innovations of his nephew. "As long as I rule, I will not allow anyone to interfere," the old emperor summed up all sorts of arguments about any kind of reorganization of the state. The created alienation between relatives was further deepened by helpful people, who, of course, were not lacking in the bureaucratic machine of Austria.
Despite the sharp rebuff from his uncle, the nephew did not think to surrender his positions and leave the government of the country. “Someday I will have to answer for the mistakes I have made now,” said Franz-Ferdinand, considering it his duty to delve into state life everywhere and everywhere. Thus, two centers of control were created, two supreme powers - the present and the future, often found themselves on opposite poles, between which the delicate bureaucrats of the country's state machine had to maneuver. The last, already requiring overhaul, from all these friction creaked even more, slowed down even more, threatening final breakdown. The foreign policy of Franz-Ferdinand, both domestically and abroad, was associated with the idea of the militarism of the Danube monarchy. The heir to the throne was considered the leader of the Austrian military party. There are no words that the so-called Austrian imperialism was not alien to him; in his dreams, the archduke found himself again the owner of Venice and other regions of former Austrian Italy. Perhaps his dreams would have carried him even further, if not for the consciousness that without correcting the internal life of Austria-Hungary itself, without creating a strong army, it is too early to think about an active foreign policy. Behind his back, hiding behind his name, there really was a war party that was fanning the torch of war more and more every year, but Franz Ferdinand himself. if he was not alien to aggressiveness, then for the time being he considered it necessary to limit it.
Recognizing in foreign policy a necessary condition for the preservation of the independence of the two-pronged empire, Franz Ferdinand sought to limit its alliances only to those that led to the specified goal. Alien both inside the state and in foreign policy of the pan-German idea, he sought to peacefully eliminate the clashes between Austria and Russia in the Balkans, considering the ideal of the union of Germany, Austria and Russia. It should be noted that often personal antipathies, often based on family relations to a particular court of a foreign state, invaded foreign policy in the mind of Franz-Ferdinand. Wilhelm II found himself in the closest relationship with the Archduke, apparently hoping to later find an obedient vassal in Franz Ferdinand. It is difficult to predict the future, but it is unlikely that the heir to the Austrian throne, finding himself on the latter, would blindly follow the sovereign from the banks of the Spree.
It has already been said above that for Austria-Hungary, foreign policy turned out to be most closely and directly related to domestic policy. Indeed, the latter contained all the guiding lines for foreign policy.
In the middle of the 19th century, in the west and in the center of Europe, Austrian foreign policy received blow after blow, the consequences of which were the loss of Italy and the transfer of hegemony in the alliance of the German states to Prussia.
Austria now found itself face to face with two new states: the united Italy and the North German Confederation.
Most of the possessions of Austria and northern Italy became part of the new Italian kingdom, and only minor areas inhabited by Italians remained within Austria. The hope of returning the lost did not leave the politicians of Franz Joseph, and 1866 seemed to be favorable for this, if not for the decisive defeat in the fields of Kennigretz. Italy was saved by the power of Prussian arms and held on to its 1859 conquests.
Not daring to enter the war of 1870 on the side of France, restrained from this by the hostile position of Russia, Austria missed an opportunity to reckon with its two former enemies - Italy and Prussia. From now on, her policy entered a new road of rapprochement with these two states.
Having entered into an alliance with Germany in 1879, Austria in 1882 with the annexation of Italy became part of the Triple Alliance.
Thinking of "blood and iron" to achieve the unification of Germany under the hegemony of Prussia, its future chancellor Bismarck saw Austria as a dangerous enemy in the south. Having brought the matter to a resolution with his armed hand in 1866, Bismarck won a victory, but ... did not want to completely finish off the Danube Empire. He needed her for the future. Having eliminated the immediate danger in the person of Austria, Bismarck nevertheless reckoned with her as an enemy who could seek revenge. It was necessary to provide new guidelines for Austrian policy, which would distract from the West, and, incidentally, would contribute to the same in relation to Russia.
The victor at Kennigretz, shortly after the conclusion of the peace, rather transparently hinted to Austrian diplomacy about the possibility of finding solace for the lost Italian regions and for the defeat at Kennigratz on the Balkan Peninsula. This is where the future of Austria was, according to Bismarck, and what was to the taste and diplomacy of Franz Joseph. Needless to say, this move Bismarck achieved another benefit, namely: turning Austria to face Constantinople, he also turned Russia there, just as distracting her from Western affairs. From now on, Austria, a strong Austria, was to provide serious services to German diplomacy.
In 1872, at a meeting between the Austrian and German emperors, the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was already resolved, and in 1879, after the Berlin Congress, when Russia had considerably cooled down in its sympathies for Germany, an agreement was signed between the two German states, linking these states.
On the basis of this agreement and developed up to last days relations between Germany and Austria. True, in his policy of national unification, Bismarck did not dare to break with Russia for a long time. playing a double game between Vienna and St. Petersburg. However, Bismarck did not want to sacrifice Austria because of the beautiful eyes of Russia, and the alliance concluded in 1879, which soon turned into a triple alliance, retained its strength and vitality. Drawn into Balkan politics, Austria now also needed the assistance of a strong Germany, and no matter how wrong the alliance with her was at times, no matter how vivid the memories of the wounds of 1866 were, no matter how clear the role of the assistant in this alliance for Austria was, she was she considered it essential for herself now.
With the transition of Germany to an imperialist policy, in which Austria turned out to be relatively little interested, the allies were disappointed in each other. For Germany, Austria was needed as a vanguard for its penetration to the east, into Asia Minor, as a counterweight to Russian policy in the Balkans, and for Austria, an alliance with Germany provided support that was needed in the same Balkan policy, on the path of which Austria had already entered long. Despite the fact that at times, with the development of trade relations between Germany and the Balkan states, the interests of ce significantly collided with the trade interests of Austria, the union continued to exist as before. If its strength even raised doubts among any side, then Austria was such, while the other side, given the existing political situation, was confident in its Danube ally. Indeed, despite the attempts of the English king Edward VII to breach the alliance and wrest Austria from the embrace of Germany, Franz Joseph remained faithful to the treaty of 1879 and rejected diplomatic offers.
Having linked its fate with Germany, Austria-Hungary also entered the imperialist policy of the Western states of Europe with it, if not taking an active part in it, then as an ally of Germany, ready to support her on the path of a future armed conflict. Austria's relations with France and Britain were built, on the one hand, on the settlement of the Balkan question, and on the other, on the support of Germany in her world politics.
Since 1882, having found itself in an alliance with Italy, its former enemy, Austria-Hungary had more points of contact with it than with other Western European states.
The wars of 1859 and 1866, as noted above, did not allow the national unification of Italians, and a significant number of Italian speakers remained in Austria with a passionate desire to be together with their fellow tribesmen. This is how the Italian irredent was created.
Already at the Berlin Congress in 1878, Italy sought to get Trent for Austria's concession to Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Italian diplomacy had to postpone the dream of this for many years, limiting itself for the time being to the hopes of acquiring Tunisia, supported by the favorable assurances of England. However, Tunisia was already attracting a stronger France, which also secured the consent of the same England and Germany in this.
The property of a "sick person", which Turkey has long been recognized as; after the Berlin Congress, they were subject to further division and seizure by the main states of Europe.
In 1881, Tunisia was ceded to France, and “the offended Italy found it necessary in its policy to rely on the Central European states, entering in 1882 into the Triple Alliance, which at that time seemed to have no special claims, except in the Balkans, on African possession of the Sultan and, thus, would not have posed special obstacles to the Roman government in its African adventures.
The aggravated relations between Italy and France fully corresponded to both the views of Bismarck and England, which saw in the reviving Italy a good companion against the same France.
The Italian irredent, despite Italy's entry into the Triple Alliance in 1882, served as a great hindrance in relations between the new allies - Austria and Italy. True, at this time the attention of Italian diplomacy was diverted by other goals - the policy of national unification was replaced by an imperialist policy - and the Italians should not have let go of the division of Turkey's African possessions.
In 1877, the Austrian Prime Minister Andrassy, discussing with the Italian Prime Minister Christie the causes of the conflicts arising between these states, presented as one of them the aspirations of Italian irredentists and remarked: “It's amazing how these people do not understand that they don’t do it with the help of grammar. politicians ", ie what modern politics in fact, it is not at all determined by the desire for national unification alone, in other words, the point is not to use one grammar.
Agreeing with this point of view, Christie, for his part, pointed out: "we were revolutionaries to create Italy, we became conservatives to preserve it." By the word "conservative" Christie meant a supporter of the imperialist policy, on the path of which Italy had already entered, dreaming of conquering Tunisia.
Thus, for the time being, Italian irredentism lost its edge, the Italian government wanted to use Austria as its ally.
Until the end of the 90s, Italy turned out to be the front turned towards France, and diplomatic conflicts constantly took place in the relations of these states, which even entailed a customs war. Since the beginning of the rapprochement between England and France, Italian policy also changed its course: relations between Italy and France began to improve again, ending with the secretly concluded Italian-French treaty in 1901, according to which France was given freedom of action in Morocco, and Italy - in Tripoli.
Since this year, Italian policy has become active against Turkey, and after it against Austria, as interested in the affairs of the Balkan Peninsula. The inevitable consequence of the beginning of the fall of Italy from the Triple Alliance was the development of Italian irredentism and the western regions of Austria and the preparation of Italy for a possible armed conflict with the Habsburg monarchy.
Another focus of Italy's struggle with Austria-Hungary turned out to be the Balkans, and with them the Adriatic Sea, the predominance of which was one of the important goals of Italian politics.
In the Balkans, the interests of Austria, Russia and Italy, as well as other European states, crossed.
As you know, Austria and Russia since the 18th century guarded each other in Balkan politics: each step forward by one caused a reciprocal movement by the other.
Under Nicholas I, the idea of dividing the inheritance of a "sick person", which was then recognized by Turkey, was sharply perfected more and more sharply, ending with the Crimean War.
By 1876, the Balkan question escalated again. It was noted above that since 1866, Austria, facing the Balkans, henceforth considered its Balkan policy to be the most important in its external relations with neighboring states. From now on, with a jealous gaze, Austrian diplomats watched every step of Russia on this peninsula.
In 1875, the Slavic movement in the Balkans flared up again, resulting in a series of uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Mohammedan landlords, led by Catholic priests, not without support, of course, from Austria and even Germany. The Austrian government presented a reform project before a "concert" of European states. But the "concert" itself failed, and meanwhile the idea of dividing Turkey was sharpened again. In the summer of 1876, Alexander II went to Vienna for personal negotiations, which resulted in a written agreement on the formation of independent Slavic states in the Balkans; on compensation to Russia by Bessarabia and in M. Asia, and Austria was given the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Austria-Hungary Question 1.93 Concerts of the violinist and composer Niccolo Paganini were triumphant in Vienna, but once the famous Italian virtuoso postponed his concert because he had a dangerous rival that attracted the attention of the public.
From the book From Bismarck to Margaret Thatcher. History of Europe and America in Questions and Answers the author Vyazemsky Yuri PavlovichAustria-Hungary Answer 1.93 The viceroy of Egypt gave the Austrian emperor a giraffe. Curious visitors, who had never seen this animal, flocked to watch the curiosity in droves.By the way, for several years everything in the capital of the Danube Empire was done a la giraffe -
the authorNapoleonic France and autocratic Russia at the beginning of the nineteenth century In order to characterize the foreign policy situation in Europe, let us begin with the coming to power in 1799 in France through a government coup (18 Brumaire) of an ambitious and talented general
From the book Napoleonic Wars the author Bezotosny Viktor MikhailovichThe Russian Imperial Army at the beginning of the 19th century In Russia, in pursuing an active foreign policy, the army has always played a very important role. In Russian history, military force has often been the most powerful argument. And here a very important question arises - how much
From the book Essays on the priesthood the author Pechersky AndreyVIII. DEDICATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE XIX CENTURY. RYAZANOV The need to have a bishop was recognized primarily in the deacon's consent of the priesthood. In this sense, the attempts to obtain the bishopric were mainly undertaken in the last century. From the very deacon Alexander,
From the book The Brain of the Army. Volume 1 the author Shaposhnikov Boris MikhailovichChapter II. Austro-Hungarian army and navy at the beginning of the 20th century Wallenstein's camp is the backbone of the Habsburg army. - Generals' fear of the Habsburgs. - Fundamentals of the Austro-Hungarian army soldering. - Revolution of 1848 and the army. - The Constitution of 1867 and the division of the army. - Basics
From the book Volume 7. End of the century (1870-1900). Part one author Lavisse Ernest From the book Borderlands in the system of Russian-Lithuanian relations at the end of the 15th - first third of the 16th century. the author Krom Mikhail MarkovichChapter Three Orthodox princes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the beginning of the 16th century We turn to the study of the position of Orthodox ("Russian") princes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the beginning of the 16th century. In connection with our topic, we will be especially interested in the question of the place and role
From the book Russian Holocaust. The origins and stages of the demographic catastrophe in Russia the author Matosov Mikhail VasilievichChapter 4 RUSSIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY. FIRST WORLD
From the book Breath of Dragons (Russia, China and the Jews) author Rusakov RomanAt the beginning of our century So, by the turn of the century in China, in addition to the Kaifeng community, there were also Jewish colonies in Shanghai and Manchuria. In this regard, the question of how many Jews there are in this country was quite vividly discussed at that time. For example, the attaché of the Chinese
the author Bezotosny Viktor MikhailovichNapoleonic France and autocratic Russia at the beginning of the 19th century In order to characterize the foreign policy situation in Europe, let's start with the coming to power in France in 1799 by a government coup (18 Brumaire) of an ambitious and talented general
From the book All battles of the Russian army 1804-1814. Russia against Napoleon the author Bezotosny Viktor MikhailovichThe Russian Imperial Army at the Beginning of the 19th Century In Russia, in pursuing an active foreign policy, the army has always played a very important role. In Russian history, military force has often been the most powerful argument in interstate disputes. And then it rises
by Kuhl Hans From the book German General Staff author Kul HansIV. Austria-Hungary During the period from 1889 to 1912 little was done to strengthen the Austro-Hungarian army. Military affairs suffered mainly from a shortage of funds allocated for it. The contingent of recruits was equal to 139.500 people. Peacetime Armed Forces in 1909
From the book Austria in the twentieth century the author Vatlin Alexander Yurievich2. Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the twentieth century Colossus on feet of clay - Three political camps - Years of the First World War - The last autumn of the empire Colossus on feet of clay Austria-Hungary entered the twentieth century, having already celebrated the half-century anniversary of being on the throne of Franz Joseph.
