Nationalism and the Habsburg Empire
Jews towards the Habsburg Empire than that of many of its other nationalities. The Jewish population of the empire was generally treated much better than in most other European states at the time – particularly Russia. They were able to join the officer corps, which was outlawed in Russia and largely excluded in Germany (Deak, 1990, p. 133), and at a lesser risk of pogroms. The empire provided a safety for Jews that, until the creation of Israel, was almost unparalleled. Many Jews were therefore keen to maintain the empire in fear of greater persecution under subsequent nation-states. This was despite incidents such as the Hilsner Affair, and similar accusations of Jewish blood rituals during the last few decades of the empire (Sir Manatee, 2024). The revolution in Hungary was a much greater sign of disloyalty to the Habsburg Empire, however. It was also a disloyalty much more based in nationalism: it constituted a full civil war – its significance and threat to the central government was so great, that it led to the abdication of Ferdinand I (Judson, 2016, p. 164). He would be replaced with the longest-reigning Habsburg monarch, Franz Joseph. The eventual success of Franz Joseph in crushing Hungarian forces was such a display of power that he was then able to usher in an age of neo-absolutism until 1860 (Cohen, 2025), at which point the weakness of the Austrian military that allowed this was revealed. Franz Joseph’s neo-absolutism was largely alien to western Europe. Military success against Hungary allowing this absolutism reveals the degree to which the Hungarian uprising was viewed as an existential threat to the continuity of the dynasty and the empire. Istvan Deak has argued that many officers who sided with the Hungarians did not do so for nationalist reasons. Instead, he believes that a desire for promotion, combined with the effects of the confusion of the period was responsible. (The confusion largely resulted from dual claims to be fighting for the emperor.) Only 10% of officers in the Habsburg army backed the revolution in Hungary, and almost a quarter of the officers that fought against the Hungarians were themselves Hungarian (Deak, 1990, pp. 38–39). This reveals the general disregard of the importance of nationality for many of those involved in the conflict. Despite the lack of importance of nationality for those less well-off, many fighting for the Hungarians as a means to greater personal power, the leaders of the uprising were much more nationally conscious (Deak, 1990, p. 31). The general disregard for matters of nationality was therefore less important. In 1848, the empire had been unable to convince those most important to the maintenance of the empire of its right to rule. Officers were one class that the Habsburg state, throughout the whole period between 1848 and 1918, was able to inspire a sense of loyalty to, and identification with, the empire and the emperor himself (Deak, 1990, p. 91). This was highly important given the military’s importance to the state and the large proportion of the government’s income it received. Until the First World War, the officer corps was a significant pillar upon which the unity of the Habsburg state rested. Within the first months and years of the war, however, this corps of highly loyal men would be wiped out and replaced by men of more dubious loyalty (Cornwall, 2000, p. 31). The military itself was largely ineffectual and unused to combat during the period – losing Lombardy-Venetia to the French and Italians, not participating in the Crimean War, and losing against Prussia in 1866. However, its presence was still important in inspiring loyalty in the civilian population (Deak, 1990, p.30). The central government gained greater control over the most powerful members of society, and was able to rely upon a largely upper- and middle-class caste (Deak, 1990, p.157) for its loyalty.
264
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting