• This topic has 15 voices and 40 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #343834

    Anonymous

    What I'm presenting you is an audio-format lecture by dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson (also known as the Orthodox Nationalist) on the Austrian empire and the Slavic populations under it's hegemony.

    http://reasonradionetwork.com/programs/the-orthodox-nationalist

    Matt Johnson discusses:

        The Austrian Empire;
        The coalition against Vienna;
        The coalition for Vienna;
        The Slavs under Austria and Hungary.

    From my point of view, he offers a very objective insight into an empire which was often reported as "decaying" in the mainstream literatue. Indeed, in some periods of it's history Austria was a very progressive and fairly prosperous empire. As dr. Johnson explains, the Habsburg monarchy presented a diplomatic alternative to virulent outbursts of nationalism in Europe (Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism accordingly) which it failed to cointain on the long run and which eventually led to WWI. It was, however, in it's prime, a very responsive monarchy, capable of adapting and changing to its surrounding.

    The highlight of Dr. Johnson lecture is however on Slavs and various coalitions (pro and against) the Austrian crown.

    According to him, the unifying factors were the following –

    *Croats, were extremely loyal, viewed Austria as a means to and end (namely, a force to keep Magyarization in check)
    *Austrian Germans, obviously
    *Slovenes, were the most functional and least problematic members of the Austrian empire, so productive and industrious they earned the respect of Vienna
    *Slovaks, because of opression of Hungarians (who kept a good portions of them illiterate)

    And as for the anti-Austrian league –
    *Czechs, especially the middle classes. They have seen themselves as the leaders of the pan-Slavic movement, and also looked down on others
    *Poles, wanted their state restored
    *Majority of Serbs, though those from Vojvodina were surprisingly German friendly, as they lived in prosperity and also were protected from Roman-Catholic elements

    A special mention goes to the Hungarians, who were mostly a disintegration factor, since they had a lot of Oligarchs and feudal lords which opressed their neighbours (when the Crown abolished feudalism this earned them enemies among Hungarian magnates). On the other hand Hungarian catholics comprised the backbone of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

    Of note are also Ukrainians, who were known to be sometimes pro-Habsburg (because of the opression from Poles and Hungarians).

    That would be it. Any thoughts?

    What are your opinions on Austroslavism?

    #392611

    Anonymous

    I view Austrian empire mostly positive. Sure it had many errors but is was quite alright for its era. Problems only started with rise of ethnic nationalism in 19th century which however had its early origins in 18th century of course. This is main reason for the fall of Austro-Hungarian empire. It is for sure that in its final days of existence A-O invested much into building projects, architecture, etc. Also it was in final era that Slovene lands got big boost of economy. WWI ofc destroyed much of this. :)

    #392612

    Anonymous

    Polish opinion of Austrian rule was generally positive. Much more positive than unfortunate Poles living under Prussian and Russian imperialism.

    There, our language was recognized and not subjected to Germanization/Russification, and also we had representatives in government and our culture was cherished, unlike under our other partitioners, who treated us like second-class citizens in our own land, where our language and cultures were banned. There were no deportations of Poles out of their native lands and no suppression of our will for independence, or at least autonomy, which Austrians gave us.

    Only negatives is that Austrians did not invest in "their" part of Poland and it was poorest region to live in, compared with areas under Prussian and Russian rule.

    Still, as positive and tolerant as Austrian rule was, Poles should be responsible for their own destiny, and no others! Polska dla Polaków!

    #392613

    Anonymous

    Austrain Empire emerged from reistance to Turks, it is one of her postivie aspects, but due to centralization policies, Slavs as well as otheres were fighting and rebelling (and no Povhec I am not talking just about XIX century) against it. That's much about how others were statisfied wiht living there.
    Austrian court was skillfully using divide et impera policies, and we see casualties of such policies even now.
    Somebody was mentioning Serbs and protection from Roma Catholicism, most of preassure for Union was comming from certain emperors, Maria Theresia and Ferdinand I, for example.
    Also, making of German language as offitial in cities where was 10 German families is not verry Slavic frendly.
    Yes, there were good things, but there was lot of bad. And Austria was considered as one of most reactionary European states, together with Russia.
    That is Serbian opinion (mostly negative).

    #392614

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    (and no Povhec I am not talking just about XIX century) against it. That's much about how others were statisfied wiht

    Ofc. some people fought against the authorities before the Empire but i think that Austrian empire started to exist in 1804 and in 1867 Austro-Hungarian evolved because of rise of nationalism. As far as pre-Emperial era of Habsburg realms goes i think that Serbs are discrediting Habsburgs. I mean if it was so bad Uskok's wouldn't move into Croatian and other Habsburg lands but rather stay in Osman Empire. They even got land in Vojna Krajna. I think this is pretty fair deal. :D

    #392615

    Anonymous

    The problem was when the Magyars got autonomy and savaged their Slavic population with their magyarization policy.  That stripped local rights and culture

    #392616

    Anonymous

    They forgot about Bosniaks fighting for Autria-Hungary ;D

    #392617

    Anonymous

    Austrian occupation was not quite as harsh as others. Still, I don't see any reason to praise it, since ultimately I reject any kind of foreign rule over my land. So I will just say, in analogy to Wilko's post: Україна для Українців!

    #392618

    Anonymous

    Everything cannot be dictated in economics, otherwise the Irish "had it easy" because their level of income and development in 1600s-1830s was undeniably higher than most of continental Europe.  Even the months before the Irish famine, they arguably still had it better than many continental Europeans.  While the Irish seem to think they were the only ones in Europe to have a potato blight, other people went through it but the difference was those people didn't have an escape mechanism (the new world) and consequently they died.

    At least in case for the Ukrainians, the Austrians appeased the Polish Aristocracy in East Galicia and in turn this meant East Galicia was a very intolerable place for Ukrainians..  My principle degree in History was nineteenth century and I did undercover passages in books on this topic on how Germans in East Galicia wanted economic and political reform but the Hapsburg Monarchy and the Polish Aristocracy forbade it.. the end result was, although East Galicia had coal and iron deposits (and later oil), East Galicia was essentially one of the poorest regions in the Empire.

    That being said.. this "reality"; however, was mute in comparison to the amount of oppression which occurred in Russia towards Ukrainian intelligentsia and middle classes.  Although Western Ukraine is arguably the birthplace of modern Ukrainian Nationalism, some of its' great minds like Hrushevsky were technical immigrants from the "Little Russia".

    It's rather ironic, as the Ruthenians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were regarded as the 'good subjects of the Empire' and essentially the largest ethnic group in the Empire (next to Austrian) which didn't have a history of rebellion.  While Hapsburg policy was pro-Polish in terms of Galicia, there was a definite shift in interwar Austria and Nazi Germany towards the Ukrainian nation and especially the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists which was funded and received arms before the start of the Second World War – whereas Polish appeasement (a thing which characterized the history of East Galicia) wasn't the case in post-1919.

    My relatives don't have a positive opinion of the Hapsburg Empire, but the ones still living in Lviv told me the 'war years' were better in living memory than anything prior.  Until the 1990s, the war years was the only opportunity to be an Ukrainian (and without a Polish Noble or a Russian Commissar breathing down their neck) without discrimination and the Germans paid everyone good wages.

    #392619

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Ofc. some people fought against the authorities before the Empire but i think that Austrian empire started to exist in 1804 and in 1867 Austro-Hungarian evolved because of rise of nationalism. As far as pre-Emperial era of Habsburg realms goes i think that Serbs are discrediting Habsburgs. I mean if it was so bad Uskok's wouldn't move into Croatian and other Habsburg lands but rather stay in Osman Empire. They even got land in Vojna Krajna. I think this is pretty fair deal. :D

    It is called Austrian Empire in historiography to avoid confusion. It is not only such case, Ottoman Empire is called Ottoman empire, altough it was not Empire, but Islamic Khaliphate. Austrian lands were part of HRE and Royal Hungaria was separate state (at least it was on paperback).
    No we are not discrediting them. First any other state was better choice than corrupt and largley intolerable Ottoman Empire. But for all blood which Serbs (and other nations) spent defending House of Habsburg we got Habsburgs efforts to avoid respecting our privieges granted by themselves, capturing of our Bishops, priests and monks because refusing Union (it started in XVI century), efforts to rename us in something else (Hungarians, Croatians…), also lot of calls for Serbs to rebell against Turks and latter they would leave Serbs to Ottoman retributions, and thta retributions were bloody, 1691, Tatars burnt 400 villages on Kosovo.
    Vojvodina was developed, and Serbs there were main participants in Serbian culture during  XIX century, Novi Sad is Serbian Athens, but that development was in spite of Habsurgs, they never allowed establishing of Univiersity, or erecting of Orthodox Seminary in Karlovci to rak Aacdemy or Faculty (part of planned University). Lot of economical progress in Vojvodina was caused by Serbian money.

    Austrian rule in Bosna and Hercegovina is another "glorious moment". There they kept feudlaism, they were messing in religious affairs of Serbs and Muslims, they alianted Serbs and Croats with projects of Bosnian nation. Only railways they built were for export of loggs to their lands. They arranged things that absolutley no one was statisfied. ;D

    #392620

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Austrian rule in Bosna and Hercegovina is another "glorious moment". There they kept feudlaism, they were messing in religious affairs of Serbs and Muslims, they alianted Serbs and Croats with projects of Bosnian nation. Only railways they built were for export of loggs to their lands. They arranged things that absolutley no one was statisfied. ;D

    They built a library in Sarajevo at least. And built more Central European buildings to replace the Ottoman architecture ;D

    #392621

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    They built a library in Sarajevo at least. And built more Central European buildings to replace the Ottoman architecture ;D

    Yes, but Serbs and Bosniaks fought 20 years just for religous and culturaly autonomy. In so called "Bosnian parliament" most numeorus peasants had just 2 representatives.

    #392622

    Anonymous

    Thank you Kanadets, insightful as always.

    Quote:
    Austrian occupation was not quite as harsh as others. Still, I don't see any reason to praise it, since ultimately I reject any kind of foreign rule over my land. So I will just say, in analogy to Wilko's post: Україна для Українців!

    True, no European nation should be denied it's right to self-determination. Today foreign rule should be treated exclusively as an anachronism of the past. However, we cannot change what happened, and Austria did play a very important role in Slavic history (for good or for bad).

    My OP was merely a transcript of the audio-lesson (since I knew many of you wouldn't bother to listen it), my personal opinion on the matter is more or less neutral.

    Many Croats today have a highly positive opinion of the Austrian monarchy, I can somewhat understand them. They were roughly treated well, so they repaid such treatment with the utmost loyalty (Remember Ban Jelačić saving Vienna's butt back in 1848). On the other hand, I also know very well that they didn't call the Austro-Hungarian empire as the "dungeon of nations" for no reason.

    [img width=400 height=300]http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2011-06-29-13985/Tasa-de-alfabetizacion-en-Austria-Hungria-1880.jpg” />

    This is a map of the level of literacy back in 1880. Would someone (possibly Kanadets) care to explain the elevated level of literacy around Lviv (Lembg)?

    #392623

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Yes, but Serbs and Bosniaks fought 20 years just for religous and culturaly autonomy. In so called "Bosnian parliament" most numeorus peasants had just 2 representatives.

    Yes, I know. But I try to see the positives in former occupation of Bosnia :) There's no point complaining about it since it's already done. Unless there were massacres against Bosnians during Austro-Hungarian rule, I don't see it as overtly horrible.

    #392624

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    It is called Austrian Empire in historiography to avoid confusion.

    We simply call it Habsburg Monarchy before 1804. I dunno about historiography of other countries. :)

    Quote:
    On the other hand, I also know very well that they didn't call the Austro-Hungarian empire as the "dungeon of nations" for no reason.

    It became "dungeon of nations" once nationalism erupted and each ethnic group strived for their indipendent country. It is these nationalists who dubed it as such. In my peronal opinion countries like France, GB, Spain, etc. were and some still are far worser dungeons of nations. :D It's also true that Austrian Empire was created in 1804 in order to centralise power so from that prespective it was bad for political autonomy of provincial areas. After creation of Austro-Hungarian empire things improved and Cisleithanian lands had their representives in Viennes parliament.

    I think that ofc. today european ethnic groups must strive for their own states but from historical point of view Austrian empire and A-O were not bad. They were far better than many contemporary states and imo it was best situation at that time given the poltiical tensions in that era.

    Quote:
    Everything cannot be dictated in economics, otherwise the Irish "had it easy" because their level of income and development in 1600s-1830s was undeniably higher than most of continental Europe.

    I dunno about Irish but here economic boost also gave political, cultural and ethnic boost. I don't even know what is the point of Irish nationalism if it can't establish it's own language in free Ireland. :D Anyway back to the Empire it was an era when Slovenes established many Slovene cultural societies, schools and poltical organisations. For example the number of Slovene newspapers that were established at that time was just imense given the era.

    So again i recognise that becouse of ethnic tensions and conflicts in the empire things were not very good but overal the empire was very tolerant given the time and had it been situation like in GB or France Slavic people would probably had it far worse.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 41 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.