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
During the early part of the nineteenth century the Croatians were one of the most loyal of all the peoples in the Habsburg monarchy, and during the revolutionary movement of 1848–1849 they were one of the main pillars of strength of the dynasty. Yet, before the end of World War I the South Slav question in general and the Croatian question in particular had become one of the most dangerous problems of the whole Austro-Hungarian monarchy. To discuss how such a radical metamorphosis in Croatian national sentiment occurred within the course of less than seventy years is the aim of this paper.
1 The first part of this paper is based mainly on the works of Jaroslav Šidak and to a lesser degree on those of Mirjana Gross, especially those published in recent years in the journals Jugoslovenski istorijski casopis, Historijski zbornik, Historijski pregled, and Naše teme. The second part is based largely on the research and published works of the author himself. For the Yugoslav literature which I have consulted I would like to refer the reader to the following publications: Ten Years of Yugoslav Historiography 1945–1955 (Belgrade: National Committee for Historical Studies, 1955)Google Scholar; and Historiographie yougoslave 1955–1965 (Belgrade: Federation of Historical Societies of Yugoslavia, 1965).Google Scholar
2 Gyula Miskolczy maintains that these attempts at magyarization signified a “Streben nach der sprachlichen und politischen Zusammenfassung der Bevölkerung des Landes.” See his Ungarn in der Habsburgermonarchie (Vienna: Herold, 1959), p. 81.Google Scholar
3 This fact has also been recognized by such a conservative historian as Miskolczy. See his Ungarn in der Habsburgermonarchie, p. 151.Google Scholar
4 As a consequence of this demonstration a schism occurred in the Party of Rights. Under the leadership of Starčević and then of Dr. Josip Frank, a new Party of Rights (later called “frankovci”) was founded as a splinter group of the parent association.
5 This coalition is frequently referred to as the “Serbo-Croatian Coalition.” This designation is incorrect, for its Croatian wing was larger than the Serbian one.
6 Rudolf Kiszling erroneously states that they were Serbs. See his Die Kroaten. Der Schickaalsweg eines Südslawenvolkes (Graz: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1956), pp. 86 and 89.Google Scholar
7 Shortly thereafter the party broke up into two separate parties, each of them referring to itself as the Party of Rights. One of them (Starčević's Party of Rights) was headed by Mile Starčević and the other (the Croatian Party of Rights) by Aleksandar Horvat, Vladimir Prebeg, and Ivica Frank.
8 For the situation in Croatia during the time of the crisis of the dualistic system, see especially Gross, Mirjana, “Über die nationale Frage in Kroatien während der Krise des Dualismus,” in Die nationale Frage in der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie 1900–1918 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1967), pp. 217–231.Google Scholar
9 See Gross, Mirjana, “Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand und die kroatische Frage. Ein Beitrag zur gross-österreichischen Politik in Kroatien,” Österreichische Osthefte, 1966, No. 4, pp. 277–299.Google Scholar
10 Kiszling maintains that this committee was established in Paris by seventeen émigrés, only two of whom were Croatians. See his Die Kroaten, p. 104Google Scholar. Actually eleven persons were present at the meeting. Seven of them were Croats.