Vladimir Dergachev

The Austro-Hungarian Empire existed from 1867 to 1918. and had no overseas possessions. The population of the empire in 1910 was 52 million people, of which Austrians - 23.5%, Hungarians - 19.1%, Czechs and Slovaks - 16.5%, Serbs and Croats - 10.5%, Poles - 10%, Ukrainians - 8%, Romanians - 6.5%, Slovenes - 2.5% and others 3.4%. Multinational Austria-Hungary, in contrast to the old Habsburg despotism, was rebuilt into a federal state. Hungarians and Poles had self-government rights. The level of political freedom in Austria-Hungary was unthinkable for Tsarist Russia, but the Slavs passionately hated the “patchwork” and multi-tribal empire and fled to their national apartments at the first opportunity. Why did this prototype of a “common European home” turn out to be fragile?

Austria-Hungary was distinguished by moderate economic growth and was a moderately developed agrarian-industrial state with a huge bureaucratic apparatus. The processes of concentration of production and capital characteristic of Western Europe took place here. The empire was ahead of Great Britain and France in steel production, but its economic and military power was not comparable to the world powers. The main feature of the imperial economy was self-sufficiency. Domestic production did not experience international competition, which did not stimulate the development of new technologies; many local goods were inferior in quality to foreign ones. Foreign trade developed poorly, and there was a sharp differentiation in living standards between the capital and the provinces. Thus, wages in industry in Vienna were twice as high as in Galicia.
Austrian Vienna still retains the splendor of the imperial capital of the Habsburg era. Stefan Zweig wrote: “In hardly any other city in Europe was the thirst for culture as passionate as in Vienna... The Romans founded this city as a citadel, as an outpost to protect Latin civilization from the barbarians, and more than a thousand years later this The walls were broken by the Ottoman movement to the West. Here the Nibelungs rushed, here an immortal galaxy of musicians shone over the world: Gluck, Haydn and Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms and Johann Strauss; All currents of European culture converged here...”

The largest armed forces in Europe, Austria-Hungary was second only to the Russian Empire. The army consisted of military formations of mixed and national composition, which played a fatal role in the fate of the empire. Austria-Hungary survived the Napoleonic era and withstood the iron onslaught of Bismarck, but in 1918 it collapsed overnight into separate, including multinational states (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia).
The collapse of the dual monarchy was facilitated by the radiation of the national spirit, but the future of the newly recreated states was not so rosy. The revival of national identity did not lead to the emergence of new authoritative European powers. A national (by language) state is a rather rare phenomenon in history. National consciousness, according to Georgy Fedotov, strives to perpetuate chaos and is not capable of organizing the world.
This is how English Prime Minister David Lloyd George (1863 - 1945) described the consequences of the unforeseen collapse of Austria-Hungary and anarchy in Central Europe in his memoirs “The Truth about Peace Treaties”: “The authors of the Treaty of Paris had to resolve the issue not only justice should be received by the liberated peoples, but that it is in the interests of simple justice that should be liberated from their tenacious clutches when they overstepped the limits of national self-determination.” While the delegates of the Great Powers were discussing the provisions of the peace treaty with Germany, dozens of small wars were taking place in different places in Europe and sometimes so fiercely “as if man had become a barbarian again, as in the harsh days of Tamerlane and Attila. The newly liberated peoples of Southern Europe were ready to gnaw each other's throats in pursuit of the best pieces of the legacy of the dead empires... Poland again imagined itself as the undivided mistress of Central Europe. The principle of self-determination did not correspond to her harassment. She demanded Galicia, Ukraine, Lithuania and some parts of Belarus... The right of peoples to determine their own nationality was immediately rejected by Polish leaders. They argued that these different nationalities belonged to the Poles by right of conquest carried out by their ancestors. Like the old Norman baron who drew his sword when asked to show proof of his rights to the estate, Poland brandished the sword of its warlike kings, which has been rusting in their tombs for centuries...”
Small national Eastern European states have not been able to successfully integrate into the European economy. Before independence, 3/4 of the industrial production of Austria-Hungary was concentrated in the Czech Republic alone, and according to a number of indicators, Czechoslovakia in the early 20s was among the top ten highly developed industrial countries in the world. However, accelerated integration with European capital was suspended by the economic crisis of 1929.
The famous Hungarian thinker I. Bibo, in his article “The Poverty of the Spirit of Small Eastern European States,” gave the following explanation for the problems of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland after the collapse of Austria-Hungary. These states had to become convinced of their inability to introduce a single national consciousness in the historical territories they inherited due to the multilingualism of the population. Countries that pride themselves on democracy have given birth to a political monster - anti-democratic nationalism. The lack of certainty in the territorial status and the deformation of political culture had the most negative impact on the relations between these peoples.

Despite the enormous differences between Austria-Hungary and the Soviet Union, both federal states collapsed as a result of national disunity and insurmountable territorial differentiation in living standards
With the accelerated acceptance of the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe into the “pan-European house”, the EU turned into a new version of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy with deep differentiation in income and an outbreak of radiation of the national spirit. It is no coincidence that interest in the history of Austrian federalism has intensified in connection with the expansion to the east of the European Union.

"Geopolitics of Superpowers"

Vanished Empires

Irina Parasyuk (Dortmund)

“The Austrian and Russian emperors did not

must dethrone each other

and open the way to revolution".

Archduke Franz Ferdinand

It is unlikely that the young Serbian student Gavrilo Princip knew the Russian proverb: “kill two birds with one stone” or the English one – “kill two birds with one stone.” Or the German one - “two flies with one firecracker.” But who, if not he, illustrated this in such a way that the whole world shuddered...

Cperhaps the most famous and tragic shot in history (in fact there were seven shots)c struck not only the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Franz Ferdinand and his wife. It triggered the First World War and also inflicted mortal wounds on four empires. After a short time, they, one after another, disappeared into oblivion... They were:

German Empire, 1871–1918

The Russian Empire is the brainchild of PeterI, 1721 - 1917

Ottoman Empire, 1453 - 1922

Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867–1918

Pastor Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American poet, philosopher and thinker, once said: “There is essentially no history; there are only biographies...” Without denying the controversial nature of such a statement, let’s talk about the main characters of the historical drama called “Austria-Hungary.”

The Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets

This is how Charles V of Habsburg called his possessions back in the 16th century. By an evil irony of fate, the sun set on Austria-Hungary during the reign of Habsburg, whose name was also Charles.

How many of them were there, the Habsburgs at different times: the Albertine line, the Leopoldine line, the Styrian branch, the Tyrolean branch, the House of Habsburg-Lorraine...

Many rulers of Europe were their ancestors or descendants. Wherever they ruled... In Austria - since 1282. In Mexico - in 1864-1867. From 1438 to 1806 they occupied the throne of the Holy Roman Empire.

Almost always they were at enmity and fought with the French - the Capetians, the Valois, the Bourbons. It can be considered that the consequence of this enmity was the proclamation of the Austrian Empire by Francis II in 1804. As they would say now, to maintain parity in Europe. Because at the same time Napoleon was crowned Emperor of France. Why were the noble Habsburgs worse than the rootless Corsican?

Franz Joseph. Austrian Empire

Franz, who died in 1835, was succeeded by his son Ferdinand I. On December 2, 1848, he abdicated the throne in favor of his nephew, Franz Joseph, whose full title sounded very impressive: “ His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty Franz JosephI, by the grace of God, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Hungary and Bohemia, the King of Lombardy and Venetian, Dalmatian, Croatian, Slavonian, Galician and Lodomerian, Illyrian, King of Jerusalem, etc.

From this far from complete list (I omitted another 42 titles) it is clear how many peoples were under the rule of Austria. Different in origin, culture, religion. Perhaps they had one thing in common - hatred of the Austrians. (Let’s remember “The Gadfly,” our favorite book from childhood.)

18-year-old Franz Joseph began his reign with the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849. Nicholas I helped him in this, sending Paskevich’s Russian expeditionary force to Austria. Of course, this was not a pure blessing... The Russian monarch, who never forgot Senate Square, feared unrest more than death!

A year later, the “grateful” Franz Joseph wrote to his mother: “ M We will drive the power and influence of Russia to the limits beyond which it has gone. ...Slowly, preferably unnoticed by Tsar Nicholas, ...we will bring Russian politics to collapse. Of course, it’s not good to speak out against old friends, but in politics it’s impossible to do otherwise... ».

Very little time will pass, and at the beginning of the Crimean War, Nicholas I will rely on the support of Franz Joseph, who had recently been rescued by him. But on May 20, 1854, Russia received an ultimatum from Austria to withdraw Russian troops from the so-called. Danube principalities - Wallachia and Moldavia. An Austrian army of 330,000 stood near the Russian borders. At the end of July, Russia fulfilled this requirement, and things did not come to a military conflict. But Austria diverted part of the Russian forces to itself. This facilitated the success of the Anglo-French armies near Sevastopol.

Leaving the moral component out of the equation (and is there such a thing in politics?!), we note that as a result, Austria was left without a powerful ally. And when France and Prussia supported the Sardinian kingdom in the war against Austria, the empire lost Lombardy in 1860.

In 1866, Austria started a war against Prussia. On July 3, 1866, Prussian troops defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Sadovaya. On July 26, Bismarck dictated his armistice terms. And on August 23, 1866, the Prague Peace was concluded. According to it, Austria no longer interfered in German affairs, recognized the supremacy of Prussia in Germany and pledged to pay indemnity. Venice came under Italian rule.

Franz Joseph. Austria-Hungary

There is a beautiful story that the Austrian Empress Elizabeth, the famous Sissi, loved Hungary. Under her influence, Franz Joseph, who adored his wife, signed the agreement of 1867, and the Austrian Empire became a dual Austria-Hungary.

Elizabeth truly loved Hungary. She spoke Hungarian perfectly, communicated with the leaders of the Hungarian opposition, and often wore national Hungarian costumes. And the emperor really loved his beautiful Sissi. This is all true. But this, of course, is not the reason for the creation of Austria-Hungary.

Austria found itself backed into a corner. On the one hand, the lost wars with France, Piedmont and Prussia. Hostile German Confederation. Broken relations with Russia. Essentially, Austria found itself isolated.

On the other hand, it is a large multinational country. Difficult living conditions for the majority of the population. The national nobility dissatisfied with the Habsburgs. Here and there there is talk about the federalization of the state, or even the separation of its individual parts from the Austrian Empire.

I had to make concessions. On October 20, 1860, a new constitution appeared, the so-called. "October Diploma". The autonomy of the regions was restored and the rights of local governments were expanded. The Hungarian State Assembly received the right of legislative initiative, and the Hungarian language on the territory of Hungary was declared official. But the Slavic regions of the empire were unhappy. Unrest also continued in Hungarian society. In a word, we were late...

The protest movement was especially strong in Hungary. Back in January 1861, some regions (comitat) declared Franz Joseph's rule in Hungary illegal. And it became clear that a compromise must be sought first of all with Hungary.

On March 15, 1867, an agreement was concluded between Franz Joseph I and the Hungarian delegation led by Ferenc Deák and Gyula Andrássy. The Austrian Empire became a constitutional dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary, divided into Transleithania (Hungarian crown lands) and Cisleithania (Austrian crown lands).

On June 8, Franz Joseph I was crowned King of Hungary in Budapest. Austria and Hungary had common ministries of finance, foreign affairs and military, as well as an army and flag. Each part of the country had its own constitution, parliament and government.

Galicia and the Czech Republic received partial autonomy. The property qualification that allowed participation in elections was lowered, i.e. b O More citizens of Austria-Hungary received the right to vote. Czech deputies appeared in the Austrian parliament. In areas with a mixed population, two languages ​​were introduced that officials were required to know. All religious denominations were declared equal.

Trial by jury and universal conscription were introduced. This strengthened the army. Finances have strengthened. The construction of railways led to an industrial boom. Great strides have been made in the fields of education, science and art.

It seems to me that Strauss alone is enough to glorify Austria-Hungary forever. But there were also Dvorak, Liszt, Mahler, Smetana...

The only thing missing was their own Mayakovsky, who would have written something like: “We say Austria-Hungary, we mean Franz Joseph...” For almost the entire history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire is connected with this name. One of his contemporaries wrote: “He sometimes forgot the promises he made, the obligations he assumed, the duty of his high position, but he never forgot one thing - that he was a Habsburg.”

He began his reign with the suppression of the revolution of 1848 - 1849. He was very skeptical about democracy, suffrage and the constitution. Nevertheless, he gave a constitution to Austria, and in 1867 to the Hungarians. Even though all this was done under the pressure of circumstances, it was possible to react to circumstances in different ways. It seems that the emperor did not want a repeat of 1848...

Franz Joseph was known as a tactful and kind-hearted person, a reasonable and non-tyrannical monarch. However, he was intolerant and merciless towards politicians who did not suit him in some way. He was considered wise and able to listen to the opinions of others. However, the Austrian writer Karl Kraus once wrote: “No one in his time fit the image of mediocrity more.”

In 1853, the Hungarian tailor Janos Libeni rushed at the then very young emperor with a knife. The attempt failed. The would-be murderer was hanged.

Johann Strauss' march "The Happy Rescue of the Emperor" was performed in the Viennese salons. On the streets of Vienna, the townspeople sang something completely different about the execution of Janos Libeni: “Punishment for the deed, who hits so clumsily?” However, as long as people sing humorous songs, even those with seditious content, the emperor can sleep peacefully...

He made fun of Franz Josef Hasek very angrily in Schweik. So what? I had the right...

Already today, in 2009, a monument to Franz Joseph was opened in Chernivtsi. During his reign, a steam mill, a furniture factory, a cathedral, a city theater, schools and a university, an electric tram and a railway connection with Lviv, a water supply system and a sewerage system were built in Chernivtsi...

But there was something else. In 1914, Bukovinians and Galicians suspected of sympathizing with Russia were taken to a concentration camp in the town of Talerhof. About three thousand people died there, and another 20 thousand returned home disabled. So everyone’s memory of Franz Joseph is different...

Franz Joseph: “Nothing has passed me by in this life”

This is what he said after the death of his wife. And what a beautiful beginning it was! The era of stagecoaches and convertibles. The young emperor in a brilliant uniform. Princess in love. A love marriage is rare for royalty. Three daughters. The son is the heir to the Habsburg dynasty.

At the end of his reign, airplanes flew in the sky, and submarines plied the sea. He, who called himself "the last monarch of the old school", ruled his empire for almost 68 years.

How much these long years have contained! Wars, uprisings, family tragedies...

In 1867, his brother Maximilian was shot in Mexico.

In 1898, the emperor's wife Elizabeth was assassinated in Geneva by the Italian anarchist Luigi Lukeni.

And 9 years before this, the imperial couple experienced a terrible tragedy. In 1889, Crown Prince Rudolf, their only son and heir, shot himself at Mayerling Castle. Franz Joseph wrote to European monarchs that the cause of the crown prince's death was an accidental shot while hunting. And only to Pope Leo XIII he told the truth about his son’s suicide. Franz Joseph's nephew Franz Ferdinand became the heir to the throne.

And another tragedy was the death of his nephew in 1914. The emperor had a cool relationship with his nephew. But it seems that 84-year-old Franz Joseph believed that Franz Ferdinand would rule the empire with dignity. Or he will be able to fulfill his behest: “If the monarchy is destined to perish, then let it at least die with honor.”

At the end of his life, Franz Joseph complained to the courtiers: “Everyone is dying, I, the unfortunate one, just can’t die...” This was not said by the emperor, but by a lonely old man... He died in November 1916 from pneumonia.

Franz Ferdinand. United States of Greater Austria

Ask anyone, who is Franz Ferdinand? Most likely, you will hear: “The one who was killed in Sarajevo...” What a pity that Franz Ferdinand is known mainly for his death. It's like he never lived at all...

Meanwhile, he was an intelligent, hardworking and decisive statesman. He hatched plans for serious reforms. Fate did not give him a chance to achieve his plans.

In Austria-Hungary, the heir was certainly considered a strong figure. The then Prime Minister Ernst Körber once said: “We have two emperors.”

Around the Archduke there was, as they would say now, a strong team. These were military men and politicians. They had their own ideas about reforming the monarchy. In modern terms, a state-political concept of the empire was being developed, at the head of which Franz II was to stand - under this name Franz Ferdinand wanted to ascend the throne.

Of course, there is no need to imagine Franz Ferdinand as an internationalist and a democrat. (Although he, married to a Czech, had a reputation as a “Slavophile.”)

In the draft manifesto on the accession of the Archduke to the throne it was written: « Our principles of equal rights for all peoples and classes correspond to our desire to ensure that every nationality in the monarchy is ensured freedom of national development, if the desire for this freedom is carried out within its framework, the monarchy...» In other words, a step to the right, a step to the left... no, no!

In 1906, Franz Ferdinand and his advisers developed a plan to transform Austria-Hungary into a triune state - Austria-Hungary-Slavia. Or the United States of Greater Austria. This was the title of the book by the Archduke’s adviser, lawyer and politician, ethnic Romanian Aurel Popovich. Each major nationality was to receive autonomy. And the point, of course, was not Franz Ferdinand’s love for the Slavs. He hoped that, having received autonomy, they would stop fighting the Habsburgs.

The Hungarians were categorically against trialism. Yes, yes, those same freedom-loving Hungarians, rebels and revolutionaries who, together with the Germans, made up 44% of the total population and had political power in the state. In contrast, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Romanians... a total of 11 ethnic groups that had almost no political rights. The Prime Minister of Hungary, Count István Tisza, openly threatened: “If the heir to the throne decides to carry out his plan, I will raise a Magyar national revolution against him.”

There were rumors about Istvan Tisa's involvement in preparing the assassination attempt in Sarajevo, but they remained rumors... But, by the way, who was looking for evidence of this? After all, the murderer was grabbed by the hand, what else...

What would have happened if Franz Ferdinand had carried out his plans? Unfortunately, this is not possible to know.

But one thing he did not like Russia and Russians, predicted absolutely accurately: “I will never wage a war against Russia. I will sacrifice everything to avoid this, because the war between Austria and Russia would end either with the overthrow of the Romanovs, or the overthrow of the Habsburgs, or perhaps the overthrow of both dynasties..."

Austria-Hungary. End

We can talk endlessly about the reasons for the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: war, inflation, riots in the army and navy, economic crisis, social contradictions, separatist sentiments, etc. and so on.

On October 17, 1918, the Hungarian parliament dissolved the union with Austria and declared the country's independence. And off we go!

October 28 - Czechoslovakia. October 29 - State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. November 3 - Western Ukrainian People's Republic. November 6 - Poland. And again, and again...

The Treaty of Saint-Germain of 1918 put an end to the history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

P. S. At the trial of the participants in the Sarajevo murder, terrorist Nedeljko Gabrinovic said: “Don’t think badly of us. We never hated Austria, but Austria did not bother to solve our problems. We loved our people. Nine-tenths of it are slave farmers living in abject poverty. We felt sorry for them. We lived in an atmosphere that made murder natural..."

There is no justification for terrorism. But it would probably be right to think about these words. Both then and now...

Policy of Charles I. Attempt to make peace

The death of Franz Joseph was undoubtedly one of the psychological preconditions leading to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was not an outstanding ruler, but became a symbol of stability for three generations of his subjects. In addition, the character of Franz Joseph - his restraint, iron self-discipline, constant politeness and friendliness, his very respected old age, supported by state propaganda - all this contributed to the high authority of the monarchy. The death of Franz Joseph was perceived as a change in historical eras, the end of an incredibly long period. After all, almost no one remembered Franz Joseph’s predecessor; it was too long ago, and almost no one knew his successor.

Karl was very unlucky. He inherited an empire that was embroiled in a disastrous war and torn apart by internal strife. Unfortunately, like his Russian brother and adversary Nicholas II, Charles I did not possess the qualities that were necessary to solve the titanic task of saving the state. It should be noted that he had a lot in common with the Russian emperor. Karl was a great family man. His marriage was harmonious. Charles and the young Empress Cita, who came from the Parma branch of the Bourbons (her father was the last Duke of Parma), loved each other. And marriage for love was rare for the highest aristocracy. Both families had many children: the Romanovs had five children, the Habsburgs - eight. Tsita was her husband’s main support and had a good education. Therefore, evil tongues said that the emperor was “under his thumb.” Both couples were deeply religious.

The difference was that Charles had practically no time to transform the empire, and Nicholas II ruled for more than 20 years. However, Karl made an attempt to save the Habsburg empire and, unlike Nicholas, fought for his cause to the end. From the very beginning of his reign, Charles tried to solve two main problems: to stop the war and carry out internal modernization. In his manifesto on the occasion of his accession to the throne, the Austrian emperor promised to “return to My people the blessed peace without which they suffer so grievously.” However, the desire to achieve his goal as quickly as possible and the lack of the necessary experience played a cruel joke on Karl: many of his steps turned out to be poorly thought out, hasty and erroneous.

On December 30, 1916, in Budapest, Charles and Cita were crowned King and Queen of Hungary. On the one hand, Charles (as the Hungarian king - Charles IV) strengthened the unity of the dualistic state. On the other hand, having deprived himself of maneuver, tied himself hand and foot, Charles could now not begin to federalize the monarchy. Count Anton von Polzer-Hoditz prepared a memorandum at the end of November in which he proposed that Charles postpone the coronation in Budapest and come to an agreement with all national communities of Hungary. This position was supported by all the former comrades of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who wanted to carry out a series of reforms in Hungary. However, Karl did not follow their recommendations, succumbing to pressure from the Hungarian elite, especially Count Tisza. The foundations of the Hungarian Kingdom remained intact.

Cita and Karl with their son Otto on the day of their coronation as monarchs of Hungary in 1916

Charles took over the duties of supreme commander. "Hawk" Konrad von Hötzendorff was relieved of his post as Chief of the General Staff and sent to the Italian Front. His successor was General Artz von Straussenburg. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was headed by Ottokar Czernin von und zu Hudenitz, a representative of Franz Ferdinand's circle. The role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs increased dramatically during this period. Chernin was a controversial person. He was an ambitious, gifted, but somewhat unbalanced person. Chernin's views represented a strange mixture of supranational loyalism, conservatism and deep pessimism about the future of Austria-Hungary. The Austrian politician J. Redlich called Chernin “a man of the seventeenth century who does not understand the time in which he lives.”

Chernin himself went down in history with a phrase full of bitterness about the fate of the empire: “We were doomed to destruction and had to die. But we could choose the type of death - and we chose the most painful one.” The young emperor chose Chernin because of his commitment to the idea of ​​peace. “A victorious peace is highly unlikely,” noted Chernin, “a compromise with the Entente is necessary, there is nothing to count on for conquests.”

On April 12, 1917, the Austrian Emperor Karl addressed Kaiser Wilhelm II with a memorandum letter, where he noted that “every day the dark despair of the population is becoming stronger... If the monarchies of the Central Powers prove unable to make peace in the coming months, the peoples will do so - through them heads... We are at war with a new enemy, even more dangerous than the Entente - with the international revolution, whose strongest ally is hunger.” That is, Karl correctly noted the main danger for Germany and Austria-Hungary - the threat of an internal explosion, a social revolution. To save the two empires, peace had to be made. Karl proposed ending the war, “even at the cost of heavy casualties.” The February Revolution in Russia and the fall of the Russian monarchy made a huge impression on the Austrian emperor. Germany and Austria-Hungary followed the same disastrous path as the Russian Empire.

However, Berlin did not heed this call from Vienna. Moreover, in February 1917, Germany, without informing its Austrian ally, began an all-out submarine war. As a result, the United States received an excellent reason to enter the war on the side of the Entente. Realizing that the Germans still believed in victory, Charles I began to independently look for a path to peace. The situation at the front did not give the Entente any hope of a quick victory, which increased the possibility of peace negotiations. The Eastern Front, despite the assurances of the Russian Provisional Government to continue the “war to a victorious end,” no longer posed a serious threat to the Central Powers. Almost all of Romania and the Balkans were occupied by the troops of the Central Powers. On the Western Front, the positional struggle continued, bleeding France and England. American troops had just begun to arrive in Europe and their combat effectiveness was doubted (the Americans had no experience of a war of this scale). Chernin supported Karl.

As an intermediary to establish relations with the Entente, Charles chose his brother-in-law, Zita's brother, Prince Sixtus de Bourbon-Parma. Together with his younger brother Xavier, Sixtus served as an officer in the Belgian army. This is how the “Siktus scam” began. Sixtus maintained contacts with the French Foreign Minister J. Cambon. Paris put forward the following conditions: the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France, without concessions to Germany in the colonies; the world cannot be separate, France will fulfill its responsibilities towards its allies. However, a new message from Sixtus, sent after a meeting with French President Poincaré, hinted at the possibility of a separate agreement. France's main goal was the military defeat of Germany, "severed from Austria."

To condemn the new possibilities, Charles summoned Sixtus and Xavier to Austria. They arrived on March 21st. A series of meetings between the brothers with the imperial couple and Chernin took place in Laxenberg near Vienna. Chernin himself was skeptical about the idea of ​​a separate peace. He hoped for universal peace. Chernin believed that peace could not be concluded without Germany; refusal of an alliance with Berlin would lead to tragic consequences. The Austrian Foreign Minister understood that Germany could simply occupy Austria-Hungary in the event of its betrayal. Moreover, such a peace could lead to civil war. Most Austrian Germans and Hungarians could perceive a separate peace as a betrayal, and the Slavs supported it. Thus, a separate peace led to the destruction of Austria-Hungary, as did the defeat of the war.

Negotiations in Laxenberg ended with the transfer of a letter from Charles to Sixtus, in which he promised to use all his influence to fulfill French demands regarding Alsace and Lorraine. At the same time, Charles promised to restore the sovereignty of Serbia. As a result, Karl made a diplomatic mistake - he presented his enemies with irrefutable, documentary evidence that the House of Austria was ready to sacrifice Alsace and Lorraine - one of the main priorities of the allied Germany. In the spring of 1918, this letter will be made public, which will undermine the political authority of Vienna, both in the eyes of the Entente and Germany.

On April 3, 1917, at a meeting with the German Emperor, Charles suggested that Wilhelm II give up Alsace and Lorraine. In exchange, Austria-Hungary was ready to transfer Galicia to Germany and agree to turn the Kingdom of Poland into a German satellite. However, the German elite did not support these initiatives. Thus, Vienna’s attempt to bring Berlin to the negotiating table failed.

The Sixtus Scam also ended in failure. In the spring of 1917, the government of A. Ribot came to power in France, which was wary of Vienna’s initiatives and offered to fulfill the demands of Rome. And according to the London Treaty of 1915, Italy was promised Tyrol, Trieste, Istria and Dalmatia. In May, Charles hinted that he was ready to cede Tyrol. However, this turned out to be not enough. On June 5, Ribot declared that “peace can only be the fruit of victory.” There was no one else to talk to and nothing else to talk about.

Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary Ottokar Czernin von und zu Hudenitz

The idea of ​​dismembering the Austro-Hungarian Empire

The First World War was total, intense military propaganda had one goal - complete and final victory. For the Entente, Germany and Austria-Hungary were absolute evil, the embodiment of everything that was hated by republicans and liberals. Prussian militarism, Habsburg aristocracy, reactionaryism and reliance on Catholicism were planned to be uprooted. The “Financial International”, which stood behind the USA, France and England, wanted to destroy the powers of medieval theocratic monarchism and absolutism. The Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires stood in the way of the capitalist and "democratic" New World Order, where big capital - the "golden elite" - was supposed to rule.

The ideological nature of the war became especially noticeable after two events in 1917. The first was the fall of the Russian Empire, the House of Romanov. The Entente acquired political homogeneity, becoming an alliance of democratic republics and liberal constitutional monarchies. The second event is the entry of the United States into the war. American President Woodrow Wilson and his advisers actively carried out the will of American financial leaders. And the main “crowbar” for the destruction of old monarchies was supposed to be the cheating principle of “self-determination of nations.” When nations formally became independent and free, they established democracy, but in fact, they were clients, satellites of the great powers, the financial capitals of the world. He who pays calls the tune.

On January 10, 1917, the declaration of the Entente powers on the goals of the bloc included the liberation of Italians, South Slavs, Romanians, Czechs and Slovaks as one of them. However, there was no talk yet of liquidating the Habsburg monarchy. There was talk of broad autonomy for the “unprivileged” peoples. On December 5, 1917, speaking to Congress, President Wilson announced his desire to liberate the peoples of Europe from German hegemony. About the Danube monarchy, the American president said: “We are not interested in the destruction of Austria. How she disposes of herself is not our problem.” In Woodrow Wilson's famous 14 Points, Point 10 concerned Austria. The peoples of Austria-Hungary were asked to provide “the widest possible opportunities for autonomous development.” On January 5, 1918, British Prime Minister Lloyd George noted in a statement on England’s military goals that “we are not fighting for the destruction of Austria-Hungary.”

However, the French were of a different mind. It was not for nothing that Paris supported Czech and Croatian-Serbian political emigration from the beginning of the war. In France, legions were formed from prisoners and deserters - Czechs and Slovaks, in 1917-1918. they took part in the fighting on the Western Front and in Italy. In Paris they wanted to create a “republicanize Europe”, and this was impossible without the destruction of the Habsburg monarchy.

In general, the issue of the division of Austria-Hungary was not announced. The turning point came when the “Sixtus scam” came to light. On April 2, 1918, Austrian Foreign Minister Chernin spoke to members of the Vienna city assembly and, in some impulse, admitted that peace negotiations were indeed underway with France. But the initiative, according to Chernin, came from Paris, and the negotiations were interrupted allegedly due to Vienna’s refusal to agree to the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine to France. Outraged by the obvious lie, French Prime Minister J. Clemenceau responded by saying that Chernin was lying, then published the text of Karl’s letter. The Viennese court was hit with a hail of reproaches for infidelity and betrayal, that the Habsburgs had violated the “sacred commandment” of “Teutonic loyalty” and brotherhood. Although Germany itself did the same and conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations without the participation of Austria.

Thus, Chernin rudely set up Karl. Count Chernin’s career ended here; he resigned. Austria was struck by a severe political crisis. In court circles there was even talk about the possible resignation of the emperor. Military circles and Austro-Hungarian “hawks” committed to an alliance with Germany were furious. The Empress and the Parma house to which she belonged were under attack. They were considered a source of evil.

Karl was forced to make excuses to Berlin, to lie that it was a fake. In May, under pressure from Berlin, Charles signed an agreement on an even closer military and economic union of the Central Powers. The Habsburg state finally became a satellite of the more powerful German Empire. If we imagine an alternative reality where Germany won the First World War, then Austria-Hungary would become a second-rate power, almost an economic colony of Germany. The victory of the Entente also did not bode well for Austria-Hungary. The scandal surrounding the “Sixtus scam” buried the possibility of a political agreement between the Habsburgs and the Entente.

In April 1918, the “Congress of Oppressed Peoples” was held in Rome. Representatives of various national communities of Austria-Hungary gathered in Rome. Most often, these politicians did not have any weight in their homeland, but they did not hesitate to speak on behalf of their people, who, in fact, no one asked. In reality, many Slavic politicians would still be satisfied with broad autonomy within Austria-Hungary.

On June 3, 1918, the Entente stated that it considered one of the conditions for creating a just world to be the creation of an independent Poland, with the inclusion of Galicia. The Polish National Council had already been created in Paris, headed by Roman Dmowski, who after the revolution in Russia changed his pro-Russian position to a pro-Western one. The activities of independence supporters were actively sponsored by the Polish community in the United States. A Polish volunteer army was formed in France under the command of General J. Haller. J. Pilsudski, realizing which way the wind was blowing, broke off relations with the Germans and gradually gained fame as a national hero of the Polish people.

On July 30, 1918, the French government recognized the right of Czechs and Slovaks to self-determination. The Czechoslovak National Council was called upon to be the highest body that represents the interests of the people and is the core of the future government of Czechoslovakia. On August 9, the Czechoslovak National Council as the future Czechoslovak government was recognized by England, and on September 3 by the USA. The artificiality of Czechoslovak statehood did not bother anyone. Although Czechs and Slovaks, apart from linguistic similarity, had little in common. For many centuries, both peoples had different histories and were at different levels of political, cultural and economic development. This did not bother the Entente, like many other similar artificial structures; the main thing was to destroy the Habsburg Empire.

Liberalization

The most important part of the policy of Charles I was the liberalization of domestic policy. It is worth noting that in war conditions, this was not the best decision. At first, the Austrian authorities went too far with the search for “internal enemies”, repressions and restrictions, then they began liberalization. This only worsened the internal situation in the country. Charles I, guided by the best intentions, himself rocked the already not very stable boat of the Habsburg empire.

On May 30, 1917, the Reichsrat, the parliament of Austria, which had not met for more than three years, was convened. The idea of ​​the Easter Declaration, which strengthened the position of the Austrian Germans in Cisleithania, was rejected. Charles decided that strengthening the Austrian Germans would not simplify the position of the monarchy, but vice versa. In addition, in May 1917, Hungarian Prime Minister Tisza, who was the personification of Hungarian conservatism, was dismissed.

Convening parliament was Charles's big mistake. The convening of the Reichsrat was perceived by many politicians as a sign of the weakness of the imperial power. The leaders of national movements received a platform from which they could put pressure on the authorities. The Reichsrat quickly turned into an opposition center, essentially an anti-state body. As parliamentary sessions continued, the position of the Czech and Yugoslav deputies (they formed a single faction) became more and more radical. The Czech Union demanded the transformation of the Habsburg state into a "federation of free and equal states" and the creation of a Czech state, including the Slovaks. Budapest was indignant, since the annexation of Slovak lands to the Czech ones meant a violation of the territorial integrity of the Hungarian kingdom. At the same time, the Slovak politicians themselves waited to see what would happen, preferring neither an alliance with the Czechs nor autonomy within Hungary. The focus on an alliance with the Czechs won only in May 1918.

The amnesty announced on July 2, 1917, which released political prisoners sentenced to death, mainly Czechs (more than 700 people), did not contribute to calm in Austria-Hungary. Austrian and Bohemian Germans were outraged by the imperial forgiveness of “traitors,” which further aggravated national contradictions in Austria.

On July 20, on the island of Corfu, representatives of the Yugoslav Committee and the Serbian government signed a declaration on the creation after the war of a state that would include Serbia, Montenegro and the provinces of Austria-Hungary inhabited by the South Slavs. The head of the “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” was to be a king from the Serbian Karadjordjevic dynasty. It should be noted that the South Slavic Committee at this time did not have the support of the majority of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes of Austria-Hungary. Most South Slavic politicians in Austria-Hungary itself at this time advocated broad autonomy within the Habsburg federation.

However, by the end of 1917, separatist, radical tendencies won. The October Revolution in Russia and the Bolshevik “Decree on Peace” played a certain role in this, which called for “peace without annexations and indemnities” and the implementation of the principle of self-determination of nations. On November 30, 1917, the Czech Union, the South Slavic Club of Deputies and the Ukrainian Parliamentary Association issued a joint statement. In it, they demanded that delegations from various national communities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire be present at the peace negotiations in Brest.

When the Austrian government rejected this idea, a congress of Czech deputies of the Reichsrat and members of the state assemblies met in Prague on January 6, 1918. They adopted a declaration in which they demanded that the peoples of the Habsburg Empire be given the right to self-determination and, in particular, the proclamation of a Czechoslovak state. Prime Minister of Cisleithania Seidler declared the declaration "an act of treason." However, the authorities could no longer oppose nationalism with anything other than loud statements. The train left. The imperial power did not enjoy its former authority, and the army was demoralized and could not resist the collapse of the state.

Military disaster

On March 3, 1918, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was signed. Russia has lost a huge territory. Austro-German troops remained in Little Russia until the fall of 1918. In Austria-Hungary, this world was called “grain”, so they hoped for grain supplies from Little Russia-Ukraine, which was supposed to improve the critical food situation in Austria. However, these hopes were not justified. The civil war and poor harvest in Little Russia led to the fact that the export of grain and flour from this area to Cisleithania amounted to less than 2.5 thousand wagons in 1918. For comparison: about 30 thousand wagons were exported from Romania, and more than 10 thousand from Hungary.

On May 7, a separate peace was signed in Bucharest between the Central Powers and defeated Romania. Romania ceded Dobruja to Bulgaria, and part of southern Transylvania and Bukovina to Hungary. As compensation, Bucharest was given Russian Bessarabia. However, already in November 1918, Romania defected back to the Entente camp.

During the 1918 campaign, the Austro-German command hoped to win. But these hopes were in vain. The forces of the Central Powers, unlike the Entente, were running out. In March - July, the German army launched a powerful offensive on the Western Front, achieved some successes, but was unable to defeat the enemy or break through the front. Germany's material and human resources were running out, and morale was weakened. In addition, Germany was forced to maintain large forces in the East, controlling the occupied territories, losing large reserves that could help on the Western Front. In July-August, the second Battle of the Marne took place; Entente troops launched a counter-offensive. Germany suffered a heavy defeat. In September, Entente troops, in a series of operations, eliminated the results of previous German success. In October - early November, the Allied forces liberated most of the territory of France and part of Belgium captured by the Germans. The German army could no longer fight.

The offensive of the Austro-Hungarian army on the Italian front failed. The Austrians attacked on June 15. However, Austro-Hungarian troops were only able to penetrate the Italian defenses on the Piava River in places. After several troops, the Austro-Hungarian troops, having suffered heavy losses and demoralized, retreated back. The Italians, despite the constant demands of the allied command, were unable to immediately organize a counteroffensive. The Italian army was not in the best condition to advance.

Only on October 24 did the Italian army go on the offensive. In a number of places, the Austrians successfully defended themselves and repelled enemy attacks. However, soon the Italian front simply collapsed. Under the influence of rumors and the situation on other fronts, the Hungarians and Slavs rebelled. On October 25, all Hungarian troops simply abandoned their positions and went to Hungary under the pretext of the need to defend their country, which was threatened by Entente troops from Serbia. And Czech, Slovak and Croatian soldiers refused to fight. Only the Austrian Germans continued to fight.

By October 28, 30 divisions had already lost their combat capability and the Austrian command gave the order for a general retreat. The Austro-Hungarian army was completely demoralized and fled. About 300 thousand people surrendered. On November 3, the Italians landed troops in Trieste. Italian troops occupied almost all of the previously lost Italian territory.

In the Balkans, the Allies also went on the offensive in September. Albania, Serbia and Montenegro were liberated. Bulgaria concluded a truce with the Entente. In November, the Allies invaded Austria-Hungary. On November 3, 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire concluded a truce with the Entente, and on November 11, Germany. It was a complete defeat.

End of Austria-Hungary

On October 4, 1918, in agreement with the Emperor and Berlin, the Austrian-Hungarian Foreign Minister Count Burian sent a note to the Western powers informing them that Vienna was ready for negotiations based on Wilson’s “14 Points,” including the clause on self-determination of nations.

On October 5, the People's Assembly of Croatia was established in Zagreb, which declared itself the representative body of the Yugoslav lands of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. On October 8, in Washington, at the suggestion of Masaryk, the Declaration of Independence of the Czechoslovak people was announced. Wilson immediately recognized that the Czechoslovakians and Austria-Hungary were at war and the Czechoslovak Council was the government waging the war. The United States could no longer consider the autonomy of peoples a sufficient condition for concluding peace. It was a death sentence for the Habsburg Empire.

On October 10-12, Emperor Charles received delegations of Hungarians, Czechs, Austrian Germans and South Slavs. Hungarian politicians still did not want to hear anything about the federalization of the empire. Karl had to promise that the upcoming manifesto on federalization would not affect Hungary. And to the Czechs and South Slavs, the federation no longer seemed like the ultimate dream - the Entente promised more. Karl no longer ordered, but asked and begged, but it was too late. Karl had to pay not only for his mistakes, but for the mistakes of his predecessors. Austria-Hungary was doomed.

In general, one can sympathize with Karl. He was an inexperienced, kind, religious man who was in charge of the empire and felt terrible mental pain as his whole world was collapsing. The peoples refused to obey him, and nothing could be done. The army could have stopped the disintegration, but its combat-ready core died at the fronts, and the remaining troops almost completely disintegrated. We must give Karl his due, he fought to the end, and not for power, since he was not a power-hungry person, but for the legacy of his ancestors.

On October 16, 1918, a manifesto on the federalization of Austria (“Manifesto of the Peoples”) was released. However, the time for such a step was already lost. On the other hand, this manifesto allowed us to avoid bloodshed. Many officers and officials, brought up in the spirit of devotion to the throne, could calmly begin to serve the legitimate national councils, into whose hands power passed. It must be said that many monarchists were ready to fight for the Habsburgs. Thus, the “lion of the Isonzo”, Field Marshal Svetozar Boroevich de Boina, had troops that maintained discipline and loyalty to the throne. He was ready to march on Vienna and occupy it. But Karl, guessing about the field marshal’s plans, did not want a military coup and blood.

On October 21, the Provisional National Assembly of German Austria was created in Vienna. It included almost all the Reichsrat deputies who represented the German-speaking districts of Cisleithania. Many deputies hoped that soon the German districts of the collapsed empire would be able to join Germany, completing the process of creating a unified Germany. But this was contrary to the interests of the Entente, therefore, at the insistence of the Western powers, the Austrian Republic, declared on November 12, became an independent state. Charles announced that he was “removing himself from government,” but emphasized that this did not constitute an abdication of the throne. Formally, Charles remained emperor and king, since refusal to participate in state affairs was not tantamount to renunciation of the title and throne.

Charles “suspended” his powers, hoping that he could regain the throne. In March 1919, under pressure from the Austrian government and the Entente, the imperial family moved to Switzerland. In 1921, Charles made two attempts to return the throne of Hungary, but failed. He will be sent to the island of Madeira. In March 1922, Karl fell ill with pneumonia due to hypothermia and died on April 1. His wife, Tsita, will live a whole era and die in 1989.

By October 24, all Entente countries and their allies recognized the Czechoslovak National Council as the current government of the new state. On October 28, the Czechoslovak Republic (CSR) was proclaimed in Prague. On October 30, the Slovak National Council confirmed the accession of Slovakia to the Czechoslovakia. In fact, Prague and Budapest fought for Slovakia for several more months. On November 14, the National Assembly met in Prague and Masaryk was elected President of Czechoslovakia.

On October 29 in Zagreb, the People's Assembly announced its readiness to take all power in the Yugoslav provinces. Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia and the lands of the Slovenes seceded from Austria-Hungary and declared neutrality. True, this did not prevent the Italian army from occupying Dalmatia and the coastal regions of Croatia. Anarchy and chaos ensued in the Yugoslav regions. Widespread anarchy, collapse, the threat of famine, and the severance of economic ties forced the Zagreb Assembly to seek help from Belgrade. Actually, the Croats, Bosnians and Slovenes had no choice. The Habsburg Empire collapsed. Austrian Germans and Hungarians created their own states. It was necessary either to take part in the creation of a common South Slavic state, or to become victims of territorial seizures by Italy, Serbia and Hungary (possibly Austria).

On November 24, the People's Assembly addressed Belgrade with a request to include the Yugoslav provinces of the Danube monarchy into the Serbian Kingdom. On December 1, 1918, the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the future Yugoslavia) was announced.

In November, Polish statehood was formed. After the capitulation of the Central Powers, dual power arose in Poland. The Regency Council of the Kingdom of Poland sat in Warsaw, and the Provisional People's Government in Lublin. Józef Pilsudski, who became the generally recognized leader of the nation, united both power groups. He became the "chief of state" - the temporary head of the executive branch. Galicia also became part of Poland. However, the borders of the new state were determined only in 1919-1921, after Versailles and the war with Soviet Russia.

On October 17, 1918, the Hungarian parliament broke the union with Austria and declared the country's independence. The Hungarian National Council, headed by the liberal Count Mihaly Károlyi, set a course for reforming the country. In order to preserve the territorial integrity of Hungary, Budapest announced its readiness for immediate peace negotiations with the Entente. Budapest recalled Hungarian troops from the collapsing fronts to their homeland.

On October 30-31, an uprising began in Budapest. Crowds of thousands of townspeople and soldiers returning from the front demanded the transfer of power to the National Council. The victim of the rebels was the former Prime Minister of Hungary István Tisza, who was torn to pieces by soldiers in his own home. Count Károlyi became prime minister. On November 3, Hungary concluded a truce with the Entente in Belgrade. However, this did not stop Romania from capturing Transylvania. Attempts by the Károlyi government to reach an agreement with the Slovaks, Romanians, Croats and Serbs on preserving the unity of Hungary on the condition of granting its national communities broad autonomy ended in failure. Time was lost. Hungarian liberals had to pay for the mistakes of the former conservative elite, which until recently did not want to reform Hungary.

Uprising in Budapest October 31, 1918

On November 5 in Budapest, Charles I was deposed from the throne of Hungary. On November 16, 1918, Hungary was declared a republic. However, the situation in Hungary was difficult. On the one hand, in Hungary itself the struggle of various political forces continued - from conservative monarchists to communists. As a result, Miklos Horthy became the dictator of Hungary, who led the resistance to the 1919 revolution. On the other hand, it was difficult to predict what would remain of the former Hungary. In 1920, the Entente withdrew troops from Hungary, but in the same year the Treaty of Trianon deprived the country of 2/3 of the territory where hundreds of thousands of Hungarians lived and most of the economic infrastructure.

Thus, the Entente, having destroyed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, created a huge area of ​​instability in Central Europe, where long-standing grievances, prejudices, hostility and hatred broke free. The destruction of the Habsburg monarchy, which acted as an integrating force, capable of more or less successfully representing the interests of the majority of its subjects, smoothing out and balancing political, social, national and religious contradictions, was a great evil. In the future, this will become one of the main prerequisites for the next world war.

Map of the collapse of Austria-Hungary in 1919-1920.

Ctrl Enter

Noticed osh Y bku Select text and click Ctrl+Enter

Part two. Empire

Introduction

The Habsburgs had to manage for a very long time - from the beginning of the 16th century until the end of the First World War - a conglomerate of lands inhabited by peoples belonging to different language groups - Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Finno-Ugric - and with largely dissimilar cultures. Of course, such diversity existed, for example, in Tsarist Russia, not to mention the British and French colonial empires. However, in the possessions of the Habsburgs, unlike the colonial empires, there was never a metropolis, and unlike the continental empires, in particular Russia, there was not even a predominant, state-forming ethnic group (By “state-forming ethnic group” the author undoubtedly means “Russians”, however, it should be remembered that in accordance with the state policy of the Russian Empire, “Russians” were divided into “Great Russians” (actually Russians in today’s understanding), “Little Russians” (Ukrainians) and “ Belarusians." Thus, the ethnic situation in Russia was brought closer to Austrian realities - there was no “state-forming ethnic group” as such, because the Russians were not the predominant people in the empire - approx. D. Adamenko ). The embodiment of the metropolis, the only center of power here, was the dynasty, and devotion to it for many centuries literally replaced national identity for Habsburg subjects. To be an Austrian under the Habsburgs meant to be a kind of Central European cosmopolitan. The Habsburg emperors were served by outstanding statesmen and commanders representing a variety of nations. One can name at least the Germans Tilly, Schwarzenberg and Metternich, the Czechs (if not in language and culture, then at least in origin) Wallenstein, Kaunitz and Radetzky, the Italians Gattinaru and Eugene Savoysky, the Croats Jelačić and Borojević, the Hungarians Tisu and Andrássy, the Poles Sedlnicki and Golukhovsky and many others.

The Habsburgs themselves never forgot their German origins; The famous phrase of Emperor Franz Joseph: “ I am a German prince" But most of them were alien to the policy of Germanization, the desire to bring their subjects to a common German denominator. (The exception is certain historical episodes - for example, the increased Germanization and Catholicization of the Czech lands after the defeat of local Protestants in 1620 at the Battle of the White Mountain). Even the “enlightened despot” Joseph II, the most zealous Germanizer of all the Habsburg monarchs, saw the German language as a means of strengthening state unity, but not of subjugating the rest of the empire’s peoples to the German minority. However, objectively, the Germanization efforts of the crown contradicted the rise of national self-awareness of the Slavic, Italian, and Hungarian subjects of the empire that began at the end of the 18th century, and therefore these efforts were not only unsuccessful, but also led to an aggravation of interethnic contradictions, and ultimately to the collapse of the empire. Nevertheless, the very fact of the centuries-long reign of one dynasty in lands so diverse in national composition is unique, not to mention the social, economic, and even climatic differences between different regions of the empire.

The Habsburgs managed to successfully fight against an invincible enemy - time - for an unusually long time. Formed in the 16th–17th centuries, their Central European empire, not much changed in terms of territory, existed until 1918, surviving Turkish invasions, the Thirty Years' War, the battles with Napoleon, the revolution of 1848 - shocks that would have been enough to collapse even less heterogeneous in its internal structure of the state. What is the secret of this unprecedented strength of the Danube monarchy created by the House of Austria ( Casa de Austria)?

Initially, the dynasty's possessions were a typical feudal domain, and a rather small one at that: by the end of the 14th century, the Habsburgs were in the hands of only a few strategically important, but not the richest and most fertile Alpine provinces, which were called - domen Austriae (For more details see: Petrov E.V. The Austrian state in the X–XIV centuries. Formation of territorial power. M., 1999 ). Other royal families of Europe had similar estates, sometimes much larger. For example, the English Plantagenet dynasty in the XIII-XIV centuries. belonged to vast territories in France, which were given as fief (temporary possession) to the vassals of the English kings. The multinational state of the Habsburgs as such arose in later times, at the dawn of modern times: the basis of the “empire on which the sun never sets” - the Netherlands, Spain, the Czech Republic and Hungary - the House of Austria acquired through a series of dynastic marriages in the late 15th - early 16th centuries

In this era, European countries were characterized by a clear class social structure. Therefore, the Habsburg monarchs were forced to make concessions and compromises, respect the laws and traditions of their peoples, or more precisely, their class elites.

In this regard, the most striking example is Hungary, where the Austrian dynasty remained in power for almost four centuries solely through compromises with the recalcitrant Magyar nobility. The power of the Habsburgs in Central Europe (the Spanish branch of the family died out in 1700, and Spain and its colonies passed to the Bourbons) can therefore, without much of a stretch, be called hereditary and contractual - especially after, at the beginning of the 18th century, the sovereign rights of the Austrian house in its possessions and order successions to the throne were formulated in the Pragmatic Sanction of Emperor Charles VI and officially approved by the estate assemblies of the Habsburg lands. " It was established that as long as the Habsburg dynasty was the house of Austria, the Pragmatic Sanction remained in force and all Habsburg lands belonged to one sovereign» ( Kapp R.A. The Multinational Empire: Nationalism and the National Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy. New York, 1950.Vol. 1. P. 11 ). This agreement became the most important guarantee of the unprecedented political longevity of the Austrian dynasty.

Another factor that helped the Habsburgs remain at the center of European history for many centuries was the sacred aura with which the dynasty managed to surround itself. Of course, the “divine right of kings” served as the basis of monarchical power throughout Europe until the era of bourgeois revolutions. However, the Habsburgs supplemented the “grace of God” with the historical, political and ideological authority of the Holy Roman Emperors, making this medieval title hereditary in the House of Austria after 1437. Although the Habsburgs never succeeded in becoming the unifiers of Germany, and after the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) the circle of real power of the emperor was steadily narrowing, the ancient crown of the universal Western Christian empire itself gave the power of the Habsburgs additional shine and a certain higher legitimacy.

The special position of the Habsburgs among European ruling dynasties was cemented by the events of the second half of the 17th century, when the imperial armies played a leading role in defeating the Turks and stopping the devastating expansion of the Ottoman Empire in Europe.

However, the internal weakness of the state built by the Habsburgs in their hereditary lands and areas conquered from the Turks did not allow them to turn it into a first-class European power at the beginning of the 18th century. Moreover, in the middle of the same century, the conglomerate of Habsburg lands almost disintegrated under the blows of new external enemies, the most dangerous of which was Prussia. The dynasty was faced with a choice: either continue the struggle for dominance in Germany - with unclear prospects and little hope of success - or strengthen the hereditary lands. The Habsburgs, always distinguished by pragmatism, preferred the second, retaining the title of German Emperor until 1806 only as a sign of their nominal primacy among the German princes. (However, the last echoes of the struggle for primacy in the former Holy Roman Empire subsided only 60 years later, after the defeat of the Habsburgs in the “seven-week” Austro-Prussian war).

In addition to this geopolitical choice, the radical reforms carried out in the 18th century by Maria Theresa and Joseph II were very important for strengthening the Habsburg Empire. The state, previously united only by the dynastic principle, gradually acquired greater unity, which, however, was exclusively legal and state-bureaucratic in nature. For the coming new era, this was no longer enough. New times were marked by the industrial revolution, urbanization and, as a consequence of these processes, the emergence of new social groups with their own economic interests, political goals and ideology. From now on, it was not so much the dynasty that created the empire, but rather the society, which changed under the influence of new social phenomena and processes, shaped the appearance of the Habsburg state. The dynasty was forced to adapt to socio-political evolution, to the gradual and often perceived by the Habsburgs as an undesirable degeneration of the noble-bureaucratic monarchy, which developed under the “enlightened despots”, into a liberal-constitutional monarchy, class society into a class society, and the “silent” peoples of the era ancien regime - into modern nations.

It was nationalism, generated by the era of the industrial revolution, mass education and liberal ideas, that became the demon of the Danube monarchy. In the long struggle with him, the Habsburgs, for all their amazing political flexibility, failed to win. Although at times it seemed that the state created by the House of Austria would be eternal - precisely because this dynasty, as already said, did not personify any nation. This situation allowed the Austrian emperors for a very long time, on the one hand, to play the role of supreme arbiters in disputes between the peoples subject to them, and on the other hand, to personify the historical tradition, to serve as the embodiment of continuity and connection of times, which contributed to the preservation of the fragile unity of Central Europe, the main guarantor of which and there was the Habsburg dynasty. Obviously, this is why the House of Austria was able, in the era of electricity, telephone, cars and airplanes, to preserve its huge estate, called the Austrian Empire, and since 1867 - Austria-Hungary. However, apparent “eternity,” according to the famous English historian A. Toynbee, is a visual effect characteristic of many empires at the stage of decline: “ The universal state tends to appear as if it were the ultimate goal of existence, when in fact it represents a phase in the process of social disintegration» ( Toynbee A. J. Comprehension of history. M., 1991. pp. 485–486. BerengerJ. A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1700–1918. L. New York, 1997. P.288 ).

However, the “dualization” of the monarchy, the so-called Ausgleich, i.e. the equalization of the Hungarian kingdom in rights with the western part of the country, ruled from Vienna, indicated that even the Habsburgs were not able to constantly win the battle over time. From that moment on, the Danube monarchy ceased to be a classical empire, and the Habsburg emperor, from the bearer of the highest absolute power, turned into only one of the political institutions of a dual state. The imperial attributes of external power and great-power foreign policy were increasingly less consistent with the inner essence of the dualistic monarchy. In its eastern part, the Magyar political elite tried to create a national state on the territory of historical Hungary, inhabited by representatives of two dozen nationalities, while in the western part there was a tireless struggle for dominance between the Austrian Germans and the Slavs. The Habsburgs were unable to resolve the contradiction between the imperial form and the post-imperial content of their state.

The unity of Austria-Hungary could be preserved only if the advantages of the joint existence of the peoples of Central Europe were combined with the satisfaction of their desire for independence. This could happen within the framework of a federation or confederation based on the principles of democracy and self-government - albeit with the preservation of the monarchy as the highest authority and symbol of historical continuity. However, the creation of such a state entity turned out to be impossible for many reasons, not the least of which was the conservatism of the Austrian dynasty, which was unable to transform the state it created from an incubator of peoples, which it was in the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries, into their common home.

However, history is an open process, so historical events are very rarely completely predetermined. Half a century of the history of Austria-Hungary has given so many arguments for and against the participants in the debate about whether the collapse of the Danube monarchy was inevitable that a clear answer to this question will obviously never be given. It is only clear that the Habsburg state was a living, developing organism, burdened by many internal and external problems, the resolution of which required real political virtuosity from the ruling dynasty and its advisers. At times, the authorities of the monarchy managed to demonstrate it. However, in 1914, having become involved - partly of their own free will, partly due to circumstances - in a war with Serbia, which quickly escalated into a European and world conflict, the Habsburgs made a mistake that erased all their achievements. The elderly Emperor Franz Joseph and most of his advisers still thought in terms of the “concert of European powers” ​​as it existed in the early and mid-nineteenth century. The dynasty and the noble-bureaucratic elite, both Austrian and Hungarian, did not seem to notice the emergence of new forces on the historical stage, the transformation of European society into a mass one (in the socio-psychological sense), in which the traditional elites and the institutions they created could no longer play dominant role.

Entering their last war, the Habsburgs did not imagine that the next battle between empires and dynasties would result not just in a conflict of unprecedented scale, but in a clash of ideologized masses, a battle for survival, in which the vanquished could not count on leniency and fair peace terms. By the end of the war, the Central Powers - Germany and Austria-Hungary - became for their Western opponents not just enemies, but the personification of those principles that, according to the ideologists of the victorious Entente, had no place in the new Europe - monarchical traditionalism, Christian conservatism and militarism. Since the end of the 18th century, since the time of the Great French Revolution, the Habsburgs have been consistent opponents of revolutionary radicalism, which did not prevent them from carrying out moderate liberal reforms in their own state. The battle against the revolution, which began in 1792 at the Belgian village of Valmy, where Austrian troops first encountered the armies of the French Republic, ended in 1918 with the defeat of the Habsburgs. " The political disaster [of Austria-Hungary] is largely explained by external factors, the triumph of the principles of the French Revolution, which was the result of many years of struggle» ( Berenger J. A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1700–1918. L. New York, 1997. P. 288 ). The battle with time was lost, and historians can only argue whether the House of Austria still had a chance to win it.

In addition to the above two historical factors that distinguish the Habsburgs from the monarchical dynasties of Europe, it is necessary to note some other factors of a more specific nature.

First of all, this is the extraordinary unity and, so to speak, discipline of the Austrian dynasty. The thousand-year history of the Habsburgs contains very few examples of open conflicts and civil strife. One can, of course, mention the murder in 1308 of the German king and Austrian Duke Albrecht I by his nephew Johann, nicknamed the Patricide ( Parricida), - but this will be almost the only case when a Habsburg, who was also the youngest in age and position in the family, raised his hand against another Habsburg. One can also recall the speech of Archduke Matthias in 1606 against his elder brother, Emperor Rudolf II, but this “rebellion” was largely caused by Rudolf’s obvious inability to govern and was approved by the overwhelming majority of members of the House of Austria.

For centuries, the authority of the head of the family was unquestioned among the Habsburgs. This often led to conflicts and even personal tragedies. Two striking examples are the story of Crown Prince Rudolf, the son of Franz Joseph, who never found a common language with his cold, “buttoned up” father, and the relationship of the same Franz Joseph with his nephew and heir Franz Ferdinand d'Este, which became sharply complicated due to unequal marriage of the latter. On the other hand, the authoritarianism of the august family brought it undeniable political benefits. Thus, Joseph II, being co-ruler of his mother Maria Theresa in 1765–1780, did not agree with her on most issues of state policy, but due to family traditions he was forced to obey, thereby maintaining unity in the administration of the empire. However, the Habsburgs also knew how to negotiate amicably - take, for example, the peaceful division of the huge possessions of the dynasty under Charles V between its Spanish and Austrian branches.

Moreover, the amazing feature of this outstanding family is that for the most part it consisted of people who were not at all outstanding. Of course, there were extraordinary personalities in the history of the Habsburg dynasty - you can name Maximilian I, Charles V, Maria Theresa, Joseph II, Archduke Charles, who once defeated Napoleon himself, Franz Ferdinand d'Este and some others. But the giants who gave their name to an entire era, great commanders and diplomats, figures of the caliber of Gustavus Adolf of Sweden, Louis XIV, Peter I, Frederick II of Prussia or Napoleon were not seen among the Habsburgs. It is not for nothing that not one of them in history has been given the nickname “Great”.

This dynasty is great precisely as a dynasty, a powerful and well-functioning family mechanism, the work of which was aimed at achieving one goal - strengthening and expanding hereditary possessions, perpetuating the rule of the Habsburgs in the center and southeast of Europe. This integration, unification task can be called the Habsburg Cause. At first glance, this business failed, although it left a very deep mark on the history of many European countries and peoples. On the other hand, it can be said that the Habsburg Cause is growing in a surprising way in our era, when Europe is once again united. Although the principles of this unification differ markedly from those on which the multinational Habsburg empire was founded, its unique experience cannot but deserve attention. As British historian Alan Sked notes, " ...in an era when Europe, albeit rather timidly, is trying to unite, it is very unwise (especially for a person living in Eastern Europe) to neglect the history of the largest European multinational empire» ( Sked A. Upadek a pad habsburske rise. Praha, 1995. S. 13 ).

Recent history has shown: in 1918, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater; not only Austria-Hungary, the monarchical principle and the Habsburg dynasty as its bearer were sacrificed to nationalism, but also the cultural, economic and political ties that had been created and strengthened for centuries between the peoples of Central Europe region. This brought nothing but misfortune to all of Europe - first Nazi expansion, and then 40 years of communist rule.

Why is the history of the House of Austria, which has not been ruling for almost a hundred years, interesting for the modern Russian reader - not only a professional historian, but also just a person interested in how and why the modern world became the way it is? In my opinion, studying the lives of neighbors in the distant and recent past always helps to better understand not only them, but also ourselves. The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union that replaced it, like the Habsburg monarchy, were multinational states, and the relations between the peoples of each of these states often left much to be desired. Modern Russia is also multinational, and the process of getting rid of the negative elements of the imperial legacy is far from complete. Therefore, despite the passing of the years, the experience of the Habsburgs as politicians and rulers who led a community of heterogeneous nations, the achievements and mistakes of the House of Austria are of interest and remain relevant to this day, especially for Russia.

Another important point is the already mentioned geographical and historical proximity of Russia and Danube Europe. The Habsburgs and their state were quite closely connected with Russia - if not by dynastic ties ( The only marriage concluded between representatives of the Habsburgs and the Romanovs was the marriage in 1799 of the palatine (governor) of Hungary, Archduke Joseph, the son of Emperor Franz II, to the daughter of Paul I Alexandra; the young Archduchess died in childbirth before she was 18 years old. Much later, in 1953, Rudolf, the youngest son of the last Austrian Emperor Charles, married the Russian aristocrat Ksenia Bezobrazova. This is where the history of “Russian” marriages in the House of Austria ends for now - approx. Author ), then military alliances, political and trade agreements that had a significant impact on the history of both empires and their peoples. There have been periods of cooling and times of mutual hostility in the history of our states. The last such clash, the World War of 1914–1918, led to the collapse of the Habsburg and Romanov monarchies. The collapse of their empires became one of the most important factors that determined the fate of all of Europe in the 20th century.

In these events, the consequences of which we still feel to one degree or another, a significant role was played by both deep-seated social processes and the resulting alignment of socio-political forces, as well as individuals who found themselves at the decisive moment on a shining, but dangerous and slippery peak power, advantages and disadvantages, greatness and stupidity of these people. From a philosophical point of view, we can say that this book is dedicated to the eternal question of personality and its role in history.

The fact that the Habsburgs managed to gain a foothold in the space from the Alps to Transylvania and from Galicia to Dalmatia, to give the peoples inhabiting this space a common state and legal framework and to create conditions for their economic, political and cultural cooperation (and later competition), became determining for the further development of Central Europe. We can say that Central Europe, in a historical-political and partly cultural sense, is a consequence of the interaction of the Austrian dynasty and the peoples of the region, the fruit of their historical marriage, which was concluded more out of convenience than out of love, but turned out to be surprisingly long and lasting. Thus, the task that the author of this book tried to solve can be formulated as follows: to write an outline of the history of Central Europe in the 16th–20th centuries, making it the main characters of the Habsburgs and their peoples, the relationship between which not only determined the appearance and historical fate of this region, but also significantly affected the course of European and world history.

The Austrian Empire was proclaimed as a monarchical state in 1804 and lasted until 1867, after which it transformed into Austria-Hungary. Otherwise, it was called the Habsburg Empire, after the name of one of the Habsburgs, Franz, who, like Napoleon, also proclaimed himself emperor.

Inheritance

The Austrian Empire in the 19th century, if you look at the map, looks like this. It is immediately clear that this is a multinational state. And, most likely, as often happens, it is devoid of stability. Looking through the pages of history, one can be convinced that this happened here too. Tiny multi-colored specks collected under one border - this is Habsburg Austria. The map especially shows how fragmented the lands of the empire were. The Habsburg ancestral allotments are small regional areas inhabited by completely different peoples. The composition of the Austrian Empire was something like this.

• Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic.
• Transcarpathia (Carpathian Rus').
• Transylvania, Croatia, Vojvodina (Banat).
• Galicia, Bukovina.
• Northern Italy (Lombardy, Venice).

Not only did all peoples have different origins, but their religions also did not coincide. The peoples of the Austrian Empire (about thirty-four million) were half Slavs (Slovaks, Czechs, Croats, Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs. There were about five million Magyars (Hungarians), about the same number of Italians.

At the junction of history

Feudalism had not yet outlived its usefulness by that time, but Austrian and Czech artisans could already call themselves workers, since the industry of these areas had fully developed to capitalist.

The Habsburgs and the nobility surrounding them were the dominant force of the empire, they occupied all the highest positions - both military and bureaucratic. Absolutism, the dominance of arbitrariness - bureaucratic and security forces in the form of the police, the dictates of the Catholic Church, the richest institution in the empire - all this one way or another oppressed small nations, united together, like water and oil are incompatible even in a mixer.

The Austrian Empire on the eve of the revolution

The Czech Republic was quickly Germanized, especially the bourgeoisie and aristocracy. Landowners from Hungary strangled millions of Slavic peasants, but they themselves were also very dependent on the Austrian authorities. The Austrian Empire put harsh pressure on its Italian provinces. It is even difficult to distinguish what type of oppression was: the struggle of feudalism with capitalism or based on purely national differences.

Metternich, the head of government and an ardent reactionary, for thirty years banned any language other than German in all institutions, including courts and schools. The population was mainly peasant. Considered free, these people were completely dependent on the landowners, paid quitrents, and performed duties reminiscent of corvée.

It was not only the masses of the people who groaned under the yoke of residual feudal orders and absolute power with its arbitrariness. The bourgeoisie was also dissatisfied and clearly pushed the people to revolt. The revolution in the Austrian Empire for the above reasons was simply inevitable.

National self-determination

All peoples are freedom-loving and respect the development and preservation of their national culture. Especially Slavic ones. Then, under the weight of the Austrian boot, the Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, and Italians strove for self-government, the development of literature and the arts, and sought education in schools in national languages. Writers and scientists were united by one idea - national self-determination.

The same processes took place among the Serbs and Croats. The more difficult living conditions became, the brighter the dream of freedom blossomed, which was reflected in the works of artists, poets and musicians. National cultures rose above reality and inspired their compatriots to take decisive steps towards freedom, equality, and fraternity - following the example of the Great French Revolution.

Uprising in Vienna

In 1847, the Austrian Empire achieved a completely revolutionary situation. It was made more acute by the general economic crisis and two years of crop failures, and the impetus was the overthrow of the monarchy in France. Already in March 1848, the revolution in the Austrian Empire matured and broke out.

Workers, students, and artisans erected barricades on the streets of Vienna and demanded the resignation of the government, not being afraid of the imperial troops who advanced to suppress the unrest. The government made concessions, dismissing Metternich and some ministers. Even a constitution was promised.

The public, however, quickly armed itself: the workers in any case received nothing - not even voting rights. The students created the academic legion, and the bourgeoisie created the national guard. And they resisted when these illegal armed groups tried to disband, which forced the emperor and the government to flee Vienna.

The peasants, as usual, did not have time to take part in the revolution. In some places they spontaneously rebelled, refusing to pay rent and arbitrarily cutting down the landowners' groves. Naturally, the working class had more consciousness and organization. Fragmentation and individualism of labor do not add cohesion.

Incompleteness

Like all German revolutions, the Austrian revolution was not completed, although it can already be called bourgeois-democratic. The working class was not yet mature enough, the bourgeoisie, as always, was liberal and behaved treacherously, plus there was national discord and military counter-revolution.

Failed to win. The monarchy renewed and intensified its triumphant oppression over impoverished and disenfranchised peoples. It is positive that some reforms took place, and most importantly, the revolution finally killed it. It is also good that the country retained its territories, because after the revolutions, more homogeneous countries than Austria fell apart. The empire map has not changed.

Rulers

In the first half of the nineteenth century, until 1835, all state affairs were managed by Emperor Franz I. Chancellor Metternich was smart and had great weight in politics, but it was often simply impossible to convince the emperor. After the unpleasant consequences of the French Revolution for Austria, all the horrors of the Napoleonic wars, Metternich most of all longed to restore order so that peace would reign in the country.

However, Metternich failed to create a parliament with representatives of all the peoples of the empire; the provincial diets never received any real powers. However, economically quite backward Austria, with a feudal reactionary regime, over the thirty years of Metternich’s work turned into the strongest state in Europe. His role was also great in the creation of the counter-revolutionary in 1915.

In an effort to keep the shreds of the empire from completely disintegrating, Austrian troops brutally suppressed the uprisings in Naples and Piedmont in 1821, maintaining complete domination of the country by Austrians over non-Austrians. Very often, popular unrest outside Austria was suppressed, due to which the army of this country acquired a bad reputation among adherents of national self-determination.

An excellent diplomat, Metternich was in charge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Emperor Franz was in charge of the internal affairs of the state. With close attention, he monitored all movements in the field of education: officials strictly checked everything that could be studied and read. The censorship was brutal. Journalists were prohibited from even mentioning the word “constitution.”

Things were relatively calm in religion, and some religious tolerance appeared. Revived Catholics supervised education, and no one was excommunicated from the church without the consent of the emperor. Jews were released from the ghetto, and synagogues were even built in Vienna. It was then that Solomon Rothschild emerged among the bankers, making friends with Metternich. And even received a baronial title. In those days it was an incredible event.

The end of a great power

Austria's foreign policy in the second half of the century is full of failures. Continuous defeats in wars.

• (1853-1856).
• Austro-Prussian War (1866).
• Austro-Italian War (1866).
• war with Sardinia and France (1859).

At this time, there was a sharp break in relations with Russia, then the creation of all this led to the fact that the Habsburgs lost influence on the states of not only Germany, but throughout Europe. And - as a consequence - the status of a great power.