Molnár, Miklós

RERO DOC Digital Library

CommentsDespite differences in both the subject matter and the pointsof view expressed in the four papers about which I have beenasked to comment, I am left with the impression that theyhave certain common tendencies. Each of the authors at-tempts in his own way to add a piece to a puzzle which,despite innumerable studies about the disintegration of theAustro-Hungarian monarchy, still remains unsolved.Two of the papers approach the subject in a general way.Fritz Fellner has attempted to analyze all of the many factorsthat precipitated the collapse of the Dual Monarchy, whileStefan Pascu, in his study entitled "The National Unity ofthe Romanians and the Breakup of the Austro-HungarianEmpire," has looked at the problem entirely from the pointof view of the national unity of the Romanians. The other twopapers are scholarly studies of two specific questions. RobertF. Hopwood has analyzed "The Conflict between CountCzernin and Emperor Charles in 1918," and Alfred D. Lowhas given an account of Austria's relations with Budapest andBerlin in his paper on "Austria between East and West:Budapest and Berlin, 1918-1919."While each of the papers is concerned with a piece of thepuzzle, the picture will never be complete, for we shall neverhave a satisfactory, overall explanation for the disintegrationof the monarchy. None of the papers pretends to give ananswer to what is still an unanswerable question. Yet, despitethe undoubted intrinsic value of each paper, the discussioncontinues—in the Austrian History Yearbook as well as else-where. For example, in his most recent book,1 Victor L.Tapie rejects the thesis that the history of the Danubian areais characterized by an unceasing fight of the nationalitiesagainst a centralizing monarchy. He shows that the nationalityproblem is actually of relatively recent origin and insiststhat it must not be identified with, or explained by, the an-tagonisms of class, religion, or historic rights. Moreover, hemaintains that it is inaccurate to talk about a single govern-mental system that remained unchanged throughout the cen-1Monarchie et peuples du Danube (Paris: Fayard, 1969).https://doi.org/10.1017/S006723780001314XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:35:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.92 MOLNARturies, for the Habsburgs frequently endeavored to adapt theirpolitical and administrative systems to the conditions pre-vailing at particular periods. Of course, their efforts were notalways successful, but their failures were caused by bothexternal and internal difficulties.It may well be that we will never know why the monarchydisintegrated. Let us not forget that we have still not founda satisfactory explanation for the disappearance of the Romanempire fifteen hundred years ago. One of the difficulties infinding a definite and clear-cut explanation for the collapseof the Habsburg monarchy is that a totally objective study isimpossible. A person's own underlying concepts are bound toinfluence what he writes—a weakness which Fellner acknowl-edges with even greater precision when he speaks about the"superabundance of special studies [which] seriously endan-ger efforts to approach the subject from the point of view ofuniversal historical continuity."2 Fellner also points to thelimitations of such studies when he refers to the irrelevanceof the writings of certain Austrian historians who maintainthat "the collapse is only a perpetuation of a claim advancedbefore 1918 by the German-Austrians, acting in the capacityof representatives of the central administrative offices inVienna, that the policies of the government in Vienna repre-sented the whole empire."3 In a similar vein, he stresses thelimitations of historians belonging to the non-German na-tionalities of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy by stat-ing that much of what they say belongs to the past.Yet, with remarkable optimism he asserts "that historiansare now endeavoring to attain objectivity and are ready torecognize the national and political goals of other peopleswhen they write about the collapse of the monarchy. Thatunderstanding which could not be reached in the midst ofpolitical quarrel has been realized by historical scholarship."4Such optimism is indeed remarkable, but any historian whoreads Pascu's article on "The National Unity of the Ro-manians and the Breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire"realizes that this eminent Romanian historian does not seem"ready to recognize the national and political goals of otherpeoples."5 Pascu's paper, while extremely interesting, barely"See ante, p. 5."See ante, pp. 4-5.4See ante, p. 4.'Ibid.https://doi.org/10.1017/S006723780001314XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:35:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.COMMENTS 93reaches beyond the treadmill of a certain historiography,fashionable during the interwar period, which violentlycondemned the "repression of . . . nationalities"6 and "aregime that was able to maintain itself only with the supportof the gendarmerie and the military system."7 For Pascu, itseems self-evident that "the lack of economic unity of the DualMonarchy was another important reason for the collapse."8His main thesis is far removed from the subtly-shaded posi-tion assumed by Karel Pichlik at the November, 1968, Reimsconference on "Europe in November, 1918:" "While beforethe war Austria-Hungary was a power" that was courtedby the Entente Powers, "after the war the Western Powerswanted to have new allies in this part of the world and inEurope." Among the inhabitants of the former Austro-Hun-garian empire this "role could be played only by the politicalrepresentatives of the national liberation movements."However, the subjectivity which may account for the nar-row-mindedness of certain historians was not necessarily de-rived from nationalistic convictions or inspired by the nostal-gia of the Viennese for the old empire. For instance, whatabout the notion of the Soviet historians who contend that thelucky conjunction in 1917 of triumphant nationalism and com-munism made the disintegration of the Habsburg monarchy"inevitable?" How would Fellner categorize this kind ofapproach?It seems to me that Fellner wishes to approach the subject"from the point of view of universal historical continuity,"on the one hand, while, on the other, he advocates using "themodern methodology of social scientists as auxiliary tools."0Unfortunately, he does not define his method clearly enoughfor us to be able to accept it as a remedy. He himself rarelyresorts to the "modern methodology of social science" in hispaper. Neither does he tell us what kind of continuity he hasin mind when he talks about the "universal history approach."Is it the continuity of the collective security system based onthe balance of powers existing before 1914? Is it cultural con-tinuity? Or economic continuity? Or the continuity of themonarchy as a supranational entity? Nowhere does he state"See ante, p. 63.'See ante, p. 67."See ante, p. 63."See ante, p. 5.https://doi.org/10.1017/S006723780001314XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:35:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.94 MOLNARexactly what he has in mind when he talks about continuityor the integration of all elements of a "general" continuity.Thus, Fellner's paper, while well written and well docu-mented, is more a personal than a general interpretation. Itis "general" only so far as it is a mixture of considerationswhich are neither integrated nor systematized. Moreover,Fellner's views, while sometimes pertinent, are often subjectto question. His explanation of why and how the monarchy col-lapsed actually closely resembles that of his predecessors. Forinstance, he states: "As for the Austro-Germans, they arestill dominated by the idea that military defeat alone broughton the collapse of the monarchy—that, had it not been for thewar and the military defeat, the monarchy would have con-tinued to exist."10 And a little later he asserts that a "carefulstudy of the actual course of events during the time of dissolu-tion would indicate clearly that the internal disintegration didnot have to be initiated from outside the monarchy."11 Yet thereader subsequently becomes aware that Fellner feels obligedto explain the disintegration of the Habsburg empire by theevolution of inter-allied diplomacy, i. e., of a force that came"from outside the monarchy."This time he is not wrong. It is obvious that both "inside"and "outside" factors played a role in undermining the Habs-burg empire. However, the most recent research tends to showthat the fate of the monarchy rested above all in the handsof the victorious Allies who subsequently imposed their deci-sions upon the peoples of Central Europe. In this connectionmention should be made of Leo Valiani's La dissoluzione dell'Austria-Ungheria,12 which is one of the finest studies on thesubject. Both Valiani and other scholars have recently calledattention to a few quite obvious facts. First of all, they askhow it is possible to assert that if the Central Powers hadwon the war an empire would have disappeared from thepolitical map of Europe? After all, the war was still far fromwon in 1915 and 1916. Likewise, who knows what would havehappened if the Allied Powers had succeeded in making aseparate peace with Austria-Hungary? Fellner himself real-izes "how disastrous the German orientation of Austro-Hun-garian foreign policy was for the existence of the Austro-10See ante, p. 7."Ibid."Published in Milan by II Saggiatore in 1966.https://doi.org/10.1017/S006723780001314XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:35:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.COMMENTS 95Hungarian monarchy."13 He is also aware that external fac-tors played an important part in the breakup of the monarchy."The dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy," hewrites, "must be looked at in connection with both the col-lapse of Russia's position as a Great Power and the disinte-gration of the Ottoman empire."14In short, I believe that, no matter how much the nationalmovements may have contributed to the collapse of Austria-Hungary, these movements would have been unsuccessful hadit not been for the war and Austria-Hungary's defeat. Fellnergives no proof to the contrary—and no one ever will. But themere fact that Fellner admits that the nationality problemwas extremely important shows that he has introduced avalue judgment into his discussion. So have historians of theViennese school when they support their analyses with argu-ments about the value of stability and equilibrium; the SocialDemocrats, when they wrote about the all-importance ofsupranationality; and the Bolshevists, when they wax elo-quent over the happy marriage between communism and na-tionalism a la Lenin. Others do the same when they stressthe importance of federalism or economic efficiency, in com-parison with the lesser economic opportunities of small na-tions.Fellner's analysis is valuable because he contributes newideas as well as facts. But I do not believe that the time hascome to write broad syntheses, for it is still necessary to clearup many problems through detailed, special monographicstudies. Moreover, we still need more time just to think thingsover. Numerous and contradictory aspects of the whole prob-lem still need to be studied in depth before we are ready forsound comprehensive syntheses.It is obvious that, whether he writes a general synthesisor deals with a special problem, each historian's approach tothe many factors involved in the disintegration of the Habs-burg monarchy will be strongly influenced by his own under-lying concept of what constitutes the real essence of the prob-lem. For instance, a historian who examines the breakup ofthe empire from the perspective of the European balance ofpower will inevitably come to conclusions that differ consider-ably from those of another historian who focuses his attention"See ante, p. 10."See ante, p. 22.https://doi.org/10.1017/S006723780001314XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:35:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.96 MOLNABon the national movements. The whole problem will be viewedin still another light by those who approach it from a socio-logical, cultural, or economic point of view. A satisfactorysynthesis can never be written as long as such opposing,often contradictory, points of view are glossed over or kepthidden. On the contrary, a true synthesis can eventually bemade only if the whole problem is first studied from as manyangles as possible and if opposing viewpoints are identifiedand taken into consideration insofar as they merit it.Graduate Institute of MIKL6S MOLNARInternational Studies, Genevahttps://doi.org/10.1017/S006723780001314XDownloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:35:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Comments

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library