The First World War

1 On the Eve

[<<11||12>>]

The centenary celebrations of the Battle of the Nations in Vienna, 16 October 1913. Emperor Franz Joseph in front of the flag deputations on the Ringstrasse. To his right is the heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and the archdukes with military ranks. In the second row,furthest to the right, is Archduke Friedrich. [<<12||13>>]

Several decades ago, a semantic debate surrounded the Second World War and the power politics of National Socialist Germany. Did the war break out of its own accord, or was it deliberately unleashed? The almost unanimous conclusion was that the war was unleashed. In the case of the First World War, the answer is not so obvious. It is likely that while to a certain extent the war did break out, it was at also precipitated and unleashed to an equal degree. In general, however, precisely who was responsible for precipitating, triggering or unleashing the war, and who simply failed to prevent it, is portrayed differently according to subjective evaluation and emphasis. Each point of view has been convincingly presented and supported by documentary evidence.1 In the interim, the definition of the war by the American diplomat George F. Kennan as 'The grand seminal catastrophe of this century' has become a kind of unofficial truism.2

Long before 1914, numerous publications already referred to any future war in highly generalised terms as a 'World War', as if to find words to capture its scale and to act as a deterrent. Then, war broke out. In English, French and Italian literature, the phrase 'Great War' (Grande guerre, Grande guerra) became established, while after the war, the German Imperial Archives opted for the term 'World War'.3 In Austria, the war was referred to in nostalgic terms both verbally and in writing as 'Austro-Hungary's final war'.

However, there is something to be said for the use of the term 'seminal catastrophe', since the first major war of the 20th century, while largely limited to Europe and the adjacent regions, set in motion most of the events which would lead to the second, real world war, particularly the establishment of totalitarian regimes in Russia and Germany and the involvement of countries from all six continents and all the world's seas. To a certain degree, the First World War was not fought to the end until a quarter of a century later, albeit within the lifespan of the same generation. However, while most of the powers that had already been termed the 'main warring parties' in the First World War played an even greater role in the second major war of the 20th century, there was one empire to which this did not apply: Austria-Hungary. In contrast to the German Empire, to Russia, which had become the Soviet Union, and indeed to Turkey, which by then was a neutral power, Austria-Hungary was irretrievably lost. The Danube Monarchy under Habsburg rule had been destroyed as a result of the 'seminal catastrophe'. From that point on, it became one of a number of failed states.

Many aspects have been considered in the debate surrounding the causes of the first great conflict, not least the obvious fact that an important determining factor for most of the great powers that deliberately began the war in 1914 was their strength, perhaps [<<13||14>>] simply their apparent strength and a desire to expand their territory, or merely their aspirations to attain greater power. Germany sought to increase its dominance and influence, or at least not to lose it. It has been postulated that Germany 'fled towards war'.4 For France, prestige and a not insignificant desire for revenge have been cited, while recently, it has again been claimed that for Russia, the attempt to find a way through to Constantinople by the indirect means of victory in war was a key issue.5 Ultimately, Italy hoped by joining the coalition of the British, French and Russians that it could expand the regions inhabited by Italians, thus fulfilling its national ambitions. However, like Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, elegantly described as a 'stagnating major power'6, saw an opportunity to maintain the prevailing European order. This stemmed not from inner conviction, but from a position of evident weakness. While war may not have been a specific aim, it was this weakness, more than anything else, that led to war being regarded as a potential means of resolving problems.

The failure by the Habsburg Monarchy to pursue its state goals more resolutely has been explained by its peculiar structural features, the complex dualistic division of the multiracial empire into an Austrian and a Hungarian half, the particular problems that were primarily triggered by nationality issues, by the alliances that had been formed, and finally by the individuals who held positions of power. However, these are just some aspects of the generally unreflected opinion that the Monarchy was doomed. It may have been destroyed by its 'absolutism', which the Austrian Social Democrat Viktor Adler regarded as being 'mitigated only by sloppiness'. Long before 1914, commentators remarked that state visitors to the Danube Monarchy were travelling there to take one more look at Austria 'before it falls apart'.7

However, one further aspect must be taken into account in any attempt to explain the flight to war by the Habsburg Monarchy. The 'Fin de siècle', the mood that was being increasingly expressed, not least in the arts, was probably less one of gloom than an impatient crossing of a threshold into a new era. This sense of defiance not only reached its limits in the arts, however, but was equally reflected in the economy and above all in politics. The peoples living in the Empire were dominated by centrifugal forces. It was a later version of Biedermeier and the Vormärz except that it was kept under control by the forces of convention rather than the state. Ultimately, certain forces had been kept in check over several decades until finally, a single event triggered a chain reaction.

The view was increasingly voiced that the upcoming problems could only be solved by means of war. Naturally, this opinion was not only held by Austria-Hungary, nor was it an expression of intensified warmongering. Countries such as Great Britain, France and Russia, as well as Italy, the Ottoman Empire and the countries in the Balkan region had time and again used war as a means of settling conflicts. However, the Habsburg Monarchy appeared to be so preoccupied with its own affairs that it refrained from participating in the socialisation of violence, and was neither willing nor in a position [<<14||15>>] to use war as a political means - until it did finally join in with the European mood. Perhaps, in the view of those who were willing to mobilise their armies far more quickly, this hesitation in waging war was the reason why Austria-Hungary had no prospect of survival. Yet the death of the double-headed eagle was a gradual process.

In 1908, the world still appeared to be more or less in order, at least from a Viennese perspective. The 78-year-old Emperor Franz Joseph celebrated his 60th jubilee. It had not been his wish to hold large-scale celebrations, but after some hesitation, the monarch had succumbed to the arguments of his energetic staff committee. Here, one aspect was consciously emphasised. The celebrations and above all the parade to pay tribute to the Emperor, which ran from the Viennese Prater Park and along the Ringstrasse, were designed to demonstrate comity in diversity, and to provide an occasion for the peoples of the Habsburg Monarchy to show their shared respect and loyalty to their ruler.8 The festivities were intended, therefore, as a demonstration of support for the concept of the transnational empire. The parade was held on Friday, 12 June 1908. The spectacle, displays and the paying of tributes all went according to plan. 12,000 people participated in the seven-kilometre long parade, while hundreds of thousands gathered to watch. The nationalities parade was headed by representatives from the Kingdom of Bohemia, followed by the Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Galicia divided into an east and west Galician delegation, then groups from the Archduchies of Lower Austria and Upper Austria, and the Archduchies of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Silesia and Bukovina, including groups of Romanians, Ruthenians and Lipovans. One of the most magnificent groups were from the Margraviate of Moravia, which was followed by groups from the Margraviate of Istria and Trieste (Triest), the Princely Counties of Gorizia (Görz) and Gradisca and towards the end, groups from the Princely Counties of Tyrol and the state of Vorarlberg. All the bells of Vienna rang out, speeches were held, and the national anthem was played. The sun shone, and the Emperor was satisfied with events. However, on closer inspection, what stood out were not only the groups and delegations that were present but also those that had failed to attend. The peoples of the Hungarian half of the Empire, predominantly Hungarians, Slovaks, Croats and Serbs, had not seen fit to attend the Viennese spectacle, and while they were represented in the historic scenes, they did not take part in the parade of nationalities. The same applied to representatives of the occupied territories of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This could be explained by the fact that while the peoples of Austria chose to celebrate their allegiance, those of...