Another slightly leftfield (eastward) post today, fulfilling a promise made a couple of weeks ago about outlining my thoughts on what the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in 1918 should tell us as United Kingdom Unionists faced by His Imperial Majesty, Archduke Alex in 2008...no,I was only joking, that original blog title was ever so slightly tongue in cheek. Still, due to my part-time role as my partner’s laptop carrier, I’ve had the good fortune the last couple of years to travel through a fair bit of the old Austrian-Hungarian territory and also some of those other parts of the ex-Yugoslavia which were governed by the Ottoman Empire until 1918.
I’ve thought about this post basically since I came back from Maribor two weeks ago, (by my sheer good fortune, our trips to places like Bratislava and Zagreb have tended to coincide with my club's and country’s matches in the same cities!) and have found it incredibly difficult to write anything coherent or connected about our experiences. So, to spare you a 10,000 word diatribe, I’ve decided instead to set two (possibly rhetorical) questions for those who may be interested in the area's history; one about the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire and one about the ex-Yugoslavia:
1.The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was probably the most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-theistic state Europe has ever seen; today in much of its territory virulent ethno-nationalism remains strong 90 years on, despite the fact that most of the "successor-states" contain huge, ethnically homogeneous majorities. Why did the break-up of the Empire increase not decrease the level of ethnic hatred and national chauvinism throughout the region and why is this hatred still showing no sign of disappearing? (And in answer to an "Anonymous" question here: for many living in the east and south of the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the turn of the 19/20th century is looked back upon as a golden age; if they had the chance to vote back that era in contrast to the corrupt and uncertain system they live in now, I’m confident number a surprising number would).
2.If a referendum were to be held of all citizens of the ex-Yugoslavia, aged 15-30 in 1980, asking them that if in the perfect world they could return to the state they lived in 30 years ago, how many would now want to do so? How many, despite the trauma, mass-destruction and murder of the 90s, would be pleased the state they grew up in (and shared with all the various other now-separated nationalities) no longer exists?
Finally, for anyone interested in reading more about the region, I’d like to recommend the following books.
Milosevic: by Adam LeBor (Obviously a biography of the dictator, but also describes well the lead-up to the destruction of Yugoslavia).
The Uses of Adversity : by Tim Garton Ash (A set of essays from post-communism Europe).
Black Lamb and Grey Falcon: by Rebecca West (A journey through 1930s Yugoslavia, unusual in that the author’s pro-Serbian sympathies are never far from the surface).
Transitions with Contradictons: by various authors(At times, a scarey glimpse into the minds of the Hungarian nationalist intelligentsia shortly after the change of the political system in 1990)
Presently ploughing my way through One Morning in Sarajavo by David James Smith.
Back to UK affairs tomorrow.
7 comments:
Firstly could I be respectfully pedantic and point out that the Ottomans were kicked out of the Balkans in 1912 after the first Balkan War.
The result of this war and the second Balkan War of 1913 when the allies from the first one decided to shoot each other was that what is Macedonia, Kosovo and Southern Serbia passed to Serbia whilst Montenegro extended its southern area (notably taking the mainly Albanian port of Ulcinj).
Greece (notably Salonika) and Bulgaria gained territory (much gained from the 1st war lost in the second war) whilst Romania gained some northern Bulgarian territory in the second war.
Albania became independent rather than carved up as planned by the Allied Balkan forces thanks to pressure from the great powers. However as you know, many Albanians were outside the Albanian state's borders - but that is for another day.
Serbia's record in Kosovo is well known. What is not so well known is the oppression of their fellow Slavs the Macedonians who had their language, church and even name banned by Belgrade. Therefore the terrorist/patriotic militia IMRO that had been fighting the Turks turned their fire on the Serbs - ultimately it was an IMRO gunman backed by the Croat Ustasa who killed King Alexander of Yugoslavia in 1934.
Concerning the virtues of A-H, what you describe is true. Indeed the country's education system also created some of the world's greatest inventors.
The bulk of the population were not for the break-up of the Empire. However there was definately a demand for reform (something that tends to be reflected in opinion polls in Scotland and to an extent Wales). Unfortunately there were those of your disposition who saw any attempt to reform the state as undermining the integrity of the Empire. Any advance in political autonomy or even cultural autonomy (i.e. any official use of language, the setting up of national theatres - in those days the equivalent of broadcasting -) was seen as a threat.
The notions of Yugoslavianism (largely drawn up by Germanic Croat Bishop Josip Strossmeyer) and Czechoslovakianism (articulated by Tomas Masaryk) all started off as notions as entities within the Empire. Not as independent states.
This was built on the consensus of 1848 when the Slavs had backed the Empire against Hungarian, Italian and German nationalism which threatened to destroy it. This was called "Austo-Slavism" - the belief that the fate of the small Slavic nations such as the Czechs, Slovenes etc was best articulated within a reformed Empire - which never really came.
To be fair Franz Ferdinand was working on a project to reform the Empire which he intended to implement on his succession. Of course he was shot dead and the die-hards saw his death as an opportunity to crack down on autonomy in the Empire. The likes of Masaryk decided that reform was obviously impossible and plotted a course towards separation.
Maybe you should note this in your enthusiasm to shut down devolution. Such a move might even have Charles Kennedy, Ming and Wendy Alexander joining forces with his Eckcellency the Kingfish.
Concerning whether people would have wanted the Empire back, I think the Western Ukrainians would not mind considering what has happened to them since the break-up of the Empire and indeed even Croatia and parts of Bosnia. Amongst the Czechs, Poles, Slovaks and Romanians however no.
Speaking to a few Romanians the view is that Vienna gave them beautiful buildings, a great railway system and some sort of education system. However it was Vienna who connived to hand Romanians over to Hungarian rule who oppressed these people in their own land, banned their language (some leading Habsburg-Romanians were jailed by the Hungarians for petitioning Franz Joseph over language rights) and hassled their church. All in all a united Romania is a good thing in their view.
Of course the Hungarians would probably like the Empire back so that the Hungarian lanfs were not partitioned.
The ethnic violence you mention was well in hand even before the Empire broke up. Not only were Czechs and Germans were scrapping in the Czech Lands but also the Czech populace in Vienna were clashing with German nationalists there. Particularly over the issue of Czech language schools in the city.
Interestingly Otto von Habsburg tried to reunify the Empire after WWII with plans to unite Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Hungary into a federation with him as President. He reckoned that such a state would be neutral and act as a buffer between the West and Stalin. It unfortunately (as the situation behind the Iron Curtain unfurled) did not recieve backing.
Concerning Yugoslavia, I think the result would depend in which part of that former country you held it in. Slovenia seems to be a case of no regrets and to be fair the same in Croatia. As one Croat friend put it - independence was on the way - it was the way that it came about that was objectionable. Why did we not do it like the Czechs and Slovaks, peacefully?
(Answer: Czechs and Slovaks do not have a history of killing each other - the record of Croat and Serb hostility goes back into the 18th century).
However the other four republics I think look more benignly on that period. Even in Macedonia which did not suffer directly due to the war.
Although I believe most people would not want to go back to the political situation in 1980 (dictatorship, political assasinations), I am not denigrating the state's achievements. Tito was a relatively benign dictator but he knew he sitting on a tinder box which was why federated the once unitary Yugoslavia and created the rotating presidency to replace him.
It says a lot about Tito that every year on the anniversary of his death representatives of the successor states come to lay flowers on his tomb in Belgrade. Also from what I can gather there is now a market in Titograms - actors dressing up as Tito and going to parties (usually turning up in a limosuine), reciting one of Tito's speeches before waving goodbye and disapearing again in style. In one scene "Tito" sped off in a yacht!
Compared to Ceaucescu, Tito was Santa Claus. However those who opposed him usually found themselves in labour camps or on occassion at the end of a rope.
However he gave his people freedom and progress (compared to his Eastern neighbours). However he borrowed heavily (cheap money from the West to keep Yugoslavia sweet) so the country was practically bankrupt within a few years after he died. Once the money ran out, the problems began in earnest with quarreling over resources and the rise in nationalism advocated by Milosovic and Tudjman and to a lesser extent by Kucan and Izetbegovic.
Like you, I could write a dissertation on these topics. However I hope this a little to start off with!
I might add another thing. In 1945 Tito called on the Allies to allow Yugoslavia to annex Albania and so allow all Albanians to live in the same state and end the "Albanian problem/question". This was refused.
Two thoughts on this:-
1- The Albanians of Albania would have escaped the excesses of Enva Hoxa if this had happened.
2- Such an act would probably have eventually kicked off a civil war in Yugoslavia much earlier as the Albanians would probably have taken up arms at some point against "Slavic oppression".
"The Aberdonian"
As always, excellent comment. Fascinating insight into the history of the region.
Yes, thanks for that Aberdonian.
Several (minor) points I'll come back to you on though:
Of course the Hungarians would probably like the Empire back so that the Hungarian lanfs were not partitioned.
Actually no. Those who want the revision of Trianon tend to be only on the far-nationalist right and include some serious nutcases (such as those who stormed thr national Tv building a couple of years ago). None of the mainstream parties have the return of the ethnic Magyar areas as a policy, although there is obviously still concern at the educational and language rights of Hungarians in places like Szekely, Transylvania and especially now, lower Slovakia. I think the other partner in the empire, Austria likewise would be most reluctant now to take back its lost territories!!!
The ethnic violence you mention was well in hand even before the Empire broke up.
My point really was that the splitting-up of the empire actually in many cases increased inter-ethnic conflict (eg the Benes Decrees post WW2 expelled 100,000s of ethnic Germans and Hungarians from many parts of Czecholsovakia and even in the aftermath of Ceaucescu's downfall, serious rioting leading to deaths and involving Romanians, Hungarians and Roma took place in several places in Romania.)Much of the region remains highly segregated along ethnic lines to a degree, even I, as someone from Belfast, finds disturbing.
Concerning Yugoslavia, I think the result would depend in which part of that former country you held it in. Slovenia seems to be a case of no regrets and to be fair the same in Croatia.
I agree with Slovenia and Croatia *proper*; with ethnic Croats in Bosnia and those few remaining in Serbia, I'm not sure. BTW I have been reading more about the incident you referred to a little while ago in Slovenia when they broke away, about the alleged wiping off the system of over 100,000 *non-pure* Slovenians records, it would appear even they were not completely blameless in the events which overtook Yugoslavia.
Fantastic comment Aberdonian, Thanks for that.
I agree with much of yor critique.
Whereas I would agree with you that mainstream Hungarian parties want no "reunification", a friend of mine who lived in Hungary and who has family said that Trianon was still a touchy subject amongst many Hungarians who are not nutcases, however as you say they are not keen in actively pursuing the situation.
In contrast as you mentioned, the "rump" of the Austrian are not bothered about the "lost territories".
This seems to be an attitude developed very early on after the collapse of the Empire. For example Hungary refused to accept the borders of Czechoslovakia in the inter-war years. In contrast the Austrian state signed friendship treaties with Czechoslovakia and it was on the back of Czechoslovakian loans and international advocacy for Vienna by Prague that Vienna escaped some of the worst economic problems that later rocked Germany.
I put this down to the rapport between Masaryk and then Austrian Chancellor Karl Renner. Renner would be a man you would admire as during A-H he was the chief advocate in trying to sort out the inter-nation squabbling within A-H.
Renner was Czech born and indeed came from near Masaryk's neck of the woods which helped build the rapport.
Partly the support was in part compensation for the "nostrafication decrees" when assets in Czechoslovakia owned by citizens of the new Austria and Hungary were confiscated with no compensation on the grounds they were owned by the citizens of "enemy states".
You are quite right to note the ethnic violence problem. Strangely there is hostility against the Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia where Hungarian rule was pretty nasty.
In comparison Magyers get treated pretty well in Croatia and very much so in northern Serbia - Vodvordinja. Street signs are bi-lingual and everyone gets on generally in the region as it is a hotchpotch of nationalities - Hungarians, Serbs, Slovaks, Ukrainians and Croats.
I think part of the reason for this is the region is very rich compared to the rest of Serbia - including Belgrade - and so less to quarrel about.
However I would point out that whilst the Benes decrees did expell the Germans from Czechoslovakia, the Allies vetoed their extension to the Hungarians. Hence the still large Hungarian population in Slovakia.
Concering Bosnia, it was quite strange last year when travelling from Sarajevo to Mostar and then Mostar to Dubrovnik you had the impression that large chunks of B-H considered themselves part of Croatia - particuarly the amount of Croat flags being flown and posters for the Croat general election - Bosnian Croats have seats in the Croat Parliament I believe. Bosnia, the eternal mess but at least the killing has ceased.
Yeah, I read about the Slovenians dealing with "non-Slovenians". The EU were responsible for them giving back the rights.
I forgot to mention that in my visits to Lviv in Western Ukraine, there is now a trend for Habsburg-themed restuarants. Examples are the Wien and the "Blue Bottle". The Blue Bottle is much a museum as a cafe with pictures of the Habsburg family and even an old Austrian border post marking its boundary with what was the old Russian Empire.
Recently I was in touch with the OSK - the Austrian equivalent of the Commonwealth Graves Commission about the A-H war dead buried in Lviv. The garrison section of the city cemetary was desicrated by the Red Army after WWII. However the OSK are now building a memorial over the site with the names of the those who lie buried there and who gave their lives for A-H.
An interesting study for you - and I think your partner would be interested too - is about the violence between the Czechs and Germans in Vienna in the last decades of A-H.
Apparently Hitler was extremely influenced by the events chronicled:-
http://www.porges.net/CzechsInVienna/CzechsInVienna1.html
However I would point out that whilst the Benes decrees did expell the Germans from Czechoslovakia, the Allies vetoed their extension to the Hungarians.
The vast majority expelled where ethnic Germans but there were also about 40,000 Hungarians, there was also a great deal of property expropriated. If anything it remains a more hot topic in the region than Trianon (it's a bit like the symbolism of granting the Palestinians "The right of return). Last year Slota, in response to Hungarian and German demands for a symbolic repeal/pardon, said that both groups remained a "cancer on the Slovak nation"- not leaving a great deal of room for compromise there!!
Yeah, I read about the Slovenians dealing with "non-Slovenians". The EU were responsible for them giving back the rights.
By that stage there was something like only 20,000 left out of a original 114,000- the Slovenians are kind of like the Swiss of the balkans in that respect.
Thanks for the link, I'll pass it on
Post a Comment