No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
Most Austrians believe that in making countless policy decisions relating to Austria after World War I the Allies only twice demonstrated an awareness of the actual situation in Austria and took into account the wishes of the people: (1) when they determined to subject the conflicting claims to the Klagenfurt Basin to the test of a plebiscite; and (2) when they transferred the German-speaking areas of West Hungary to Austria without a plebiscite. However, although the creation of the Burgenland was commemorated in 1971 at numerous semicentennial celebrations in all parts of the country, the official speeches stressing the progress and the achievements of Austria's youngest province, no matter how tactful they were, could not entirely blot out memories of the bitter and bloody struggles of fifty years ago. The refusal of Hungary in her hour of humiliation to give up another piece of national territory; the political intrigues and military operations around the disputed borders; the fraudulent plebiscite in Ödenburg, as a result of which the new province lost its natural capital; and the Hungarian government's diplomatic efforts almost up to the outbreak of World War II to undo the Treaties of St. Germain and Trianon are all too much a part of Austrian history to be passed over in silence.
This article originated in a lecture given at the inaugural meeting of the Burgenland branch of the Association of Socialist Graduates (Bund Sozialistischer Akademiker) at Eisenstadt on September 27, 1969. It was subsequently expanded and published, under the title “Das Werden des Burgenlandes—ein Teil der österreichischen und europäischen Nachkriegsgeschichte,” in Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1 (1971), pp. 1–17. The above paper was also drawn upon for lectures broadcast over the Austrian radio network in the “Spectrum Austriae” series. Additional material on the same topic appeared in Die Zukunft, Vol. XVII (1971), pp. 19–24, under the title “Ein schwergeprüftes Bundesland.” The present essay is a summary of the above lectures and articles. In addition, the author has made use of the most recent publications on the topic. The study is part of a larger research project dealing with the First Austrian Republic undertaken by the Institute of Modern and Contemporary History and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Labor History at the Institute for Social and Economic Studies at Linz.
2 As quoted in Burgenländiache Heimatblätter, 1961, p. 108.Google Scholar
3 Dujmovits, Walter, “Die Haltung der westungarischen Bevölkerung zur Frage des Anschlußes des Burgenlandes an Österreich,” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, 1965, p. 65.Google Scholar
4 Stenographische. Protokolle der Provisorischen Nationalversammlung für Deutschösterreich, 10 22, 1918.Google Scholar
5 For a detailed account of the Burgenland question at the Peace Conference at Paris, see especially Stadler, Karl R., The Birth of the Austrian Republic, 1918–1921 (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1966), pp. 128–144.Google Scholar
6 See the reports of January 29 and February 17, 1919, as found in United States Department of State, Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference 1919 (13 vols., Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1942–1947), Vol. XII, pp. 387 and 393.Google Scholar
7 Nina, Almond, and Lutz, Ralph H. (eds.), The Treaty of St. Germain: A Documentary History of Its Territorial and Political Clauses, with a Survey of the Documents of the Supreme Council of the Paris Peace Conference (Stanford University, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1935), p. 414.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., p. 205.
9 Ibid., pp. 278–279.
10 Ibid., pp. 312–314.
11 See his “Das Werden eines österreichischen Bundeslandes,” in Vierzig Jahre Burgenland (Eisenstadt: Amt der Burgenländischen Regierung, 1961), pp. 24–26Google Scholar; and “Zur Geschichte des Landesnamens,” Bugenlän-dische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (1961), pp. 123–130.Google Scholar
12 For the full story, see Mayer, Arno J., Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking: Containment and Counterrevolution at Versailles, 1918–1919 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), pp. 600–602, 723–733, and 744–747.Google Scholar
13 Brandl, Franz, Kaiser, Politiker, Menschen (Vienna: Günther, 1935), p. 329.Google Scholar
14 Rintelen, Anton, Erinnerungen an Österreichs Weg. Versailles-Berch-tesgaden-Grossdeutschland (Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1941), pp. 72 and 106.Google Scholar
15 Kerekes, Lajos, “Die Weiße Allianz,” Österreichische Osthefte, 09, 1965, p. 356.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., pp. 357–358.
17 25 Jahre Burgenland (Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1946), pp. 105–106.Google Scholar
18 Gulya, Katalin, “Die westungarische Frage nach dem ersten Weltkrieg,” Österreichische Oathefte, 03, 1966, pp. 96–100.Google Scholar
19 Hannak, Jacques, Johannes Schober. Mittelweg in die Katastrophe. Porträt eines Repräsentanten der verlorenen Mitte (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1966).Google Scholar
20 Guglia, Otto, Das Werden des Burgenlandes. In Burgenländische Forschungen, No. 44 (Eisenstadt: Amt der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, Landesarchiv, 1961), pp. 87–88.Google Scholar
21 Hannak, , Johannes Schober, pp. 71–72.Google Scholar
22 Schlag, Gerald, “Zur Burgenlandfrage von St. Germain bis Venedig (10. September 1919–11. Oktober 1921),” Burgenländische Heimatblätter, Vol. XXXII, No. 3 (1970), pp. 97–125.Google Scholar
23 Bauer, Otto, Die österreichische Revolution (Vienna: Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1923), pp. 238–239.Google Scholar
24 Lindeck-Pozza, Irmtraut, “Zur Vorgeschichte des Venediger Protokolls,” in 50 Jahre Burgenland (Eisenstadt: Amt der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, Landesarchiv, 1971), p. 37.Google Scholar
25 Hochenbichler, Eduard, Republik im Schatten der Monarchie. Das Burgenland, ein europäisches Problem (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1971), p. 116.Google Scholar
26 Bauer, , Die österreichische Revolution, p. 240.Google Scholar
27 Wambaugh, Sarah, Plebiscites since the World War (2 vols., Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1933), Vol. I, pp. 277–281 and 288–294.Google Scholar
28 Ibid., p. 297.
29 See especially Jedlicka, Ludwig, “Historische Entscheidung. Die Volksabstimmung des Jahres 1921,” Die Presse, special Burgenland semicentennial edition, 11 11, 1971, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
30 For a graphic description of the defense actions of the workers, see Helmer, Oskar, 40 Jahre Burgenland. Ein Land wählt die Freiheit (Vienna: Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1961).Google Scholar
31 See his Abenddämmerung einer Demokratie. Mussolini, Gömbös und die Heimwehr (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1966).Google Scholar
32 Ibid., pp. 179–182.
33 See Jedlicka, Ludwig, “Österreich 1932–1936. Innen- und außenpolitische Probleme,” Religion, Wissenschaft, Kultur, Vol. XVI–XXI (1965–1970), p. 110.Google Scholar
34 Kerekes, Lajos, “Akten des ungarischen Ministeriums des Äußern zur Vorgeschichte der Annexion Österreichs,” Acta Historica, 1969, p. 379.Google Scholar
35 Telegram of the German ambassador in Budapest, Otto von Erdmannsdorff, to the German foreign office, Budapest, March 16, 1938, Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik, ser. D, Vol. V (Baden-Baden: Imprimerie nationale, 1953), pp. 215–216.Google Scholar
36 Ibid., pp. 226–227.
37 For a fascinating account of the negotiations leading to the dismemberment of the Burgenland by the director of the Burgenland provincial archives, see Ernst, August, “Auflösung und Wiedererrichtung des Burgenlandes (1938–1945),” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. XV, No. 8 (10, 1971), pp. 463–465.Google Scholar