Nationalism and the Habsburg Empire
relatively effective despite its controversy among irredentist Italian leaders (Cornwall, 2000, p. 133). Such promises even caused an entire company of troops to betray the Habsburg Empire, granting the Italians a potential additional route into Austria proper (Cornwall, 2000, pp. 133–134). Fortunately for Austria-Hungary, military incompetence meant this had little effect. Apart from these extraordinary examples of treason to the Habsburg Empire, mostly during the war- weary years of 1917 and 1918, the Italians were not very successful in convincing even Italian prisoners-of-war to change sides (Cornwall, 2000, pp. 144–145). As a result, much Italian intelligence work regarding these prisoners – with those targeted being from minority backgrounds – involved espionage and trickery. Despite the huge resentment that existed by 1918, most from national minority backgrounds were still at least hesitant to betray their country. This was even after the destruction of most of the ultra-loyal Habsburg officer corps of the pre-war years by 1915. Unfortunately for the continuity of the empire, the collapse of trust and loyalty in Austria-Hungary was not held off by the accession to the throne of Charles I in November of 1916. Although he repealed many of the most damaging laws enacted during the war (Cornwall, 2017, pp. 175–177), he did so far too late. The death of a monarch much beloved by his people as a long-standing figurehead of Austria- Hungary made the empire’s continued existence seem less justified. Combined with Charles’ policy of greater leniency towards supposed traitors, disloyalty further increased. Despite their unpopularity, the draconian laws and policies had genuinely made organizing against the empire more difficult. Repealing those laws after they had already pushed many away from the empire only allowed these newly radicalized individuals to spread their ideas and create anti-imperial networks. Either system may have been successful, but changing between them meant that neither’s positives were realized. This was particularly damaging as, after the defeat of Serbia, the Austro-Hungarian military had been relatively unsuccessful, and the increased burdens of the war seemed less justifiable. Conclusion Overall, Austria-Hungary failed to adequately deal with its divers nationalities and maintain their loyalty during the First World War. It was these failures that primarily caused the collapse of Austria- Hungary. Despite this, not all of their policies were negative, and military success may have reduced the impact of policy failures. Imperial disintegration occurred despite the loyalty that the Habsburg empire had tried to instil in its population since the rebellions of 1848, when the empire was particularly incohesive. The government had been largely successful in this goal from 1848 to 1914. It continually moved towards a more liberal and progressive system from 1848. This more progressive and liberal system was able to evoke a sense of supranational loyalty and pride based on the empire’s institutions which were actively present in its citizens’ lives. The principal internal conflict of the Habsburg Empire remained, however, the conflict between nationalities and their desires for greater authority over their own nations. But the importance of these national struggles has traditionally been overstated. Much apparent anti-Habsburg nationalist statement was instead aimed at achieving other political goals – particularly for the working class. Despite this, these conflicts permeated almost all levels of society to some degree and were a real issue for most members of Habsburg society.
This was due to the absolute inability of the empire to create a supranational identity. Although there was relatively little national association for the majority of the population in the early 19 th century,
269
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting