Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:37:09.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Policy1 and the Nationality Problem in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1800–18672

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Enno E. Kraehe
Enno E. Kraehe
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In view of the many paradoxes that have studded the history of the Habsburg monarchy, it is fitting at the outset to observe that as the nineteenth century opened Austrian foreign policy proceeded with complete obliviousness to the nationality problem and for this very reason was the principal contributor to the nationality problem of the future. It was a time of unprecedented territorial change, indeed of the founding of the Austrian empire itself, and the net result of the changes was an increment to the ethnic diversity of the Habsburg lands. The acquisition of western Galicia in the third partition of Poland added several million Poles. By the Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797 Walloon and Flemish subjects in the Netherlands had been exchanged for the Italian, Croatian, and Serbian population of Venice, Istria, and Dalmatia, and the prospect was held out for adding more Germans in Upper Bavaria and Salzburg. The Treaty of Lunéville in 1801 did not change the territorial holdings of the Austrian Habsburgs; it did, however, affect them indirectly by providing for the transfer of the members of collateral branches of the family who ruled in Modena and Tuscany to unspecified territories in Germany. Two years later, in 1803, the Imperial Recess of the Holy Roman Empire named these territories: Salzburg, for Ferdinand; and the Breisgau and Ortenau, on the Upper Rhine, for the Duke of Modena. Both awards represented Austrian losses, Breisgau and Ortenau having been Austrian lands to begin with, Salzburg having been previously promised.

Type
Foreign Policy
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , January 1967 , pp. 3 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

3 The main facts about these exchanges are conveniently summarized in d'Arenberg, Prince Jean-Engelbert, Les princes du St-Empire à l'époque napoléonienne (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1951), pp. 3–46Google Scholar; and in my Metternich's German Policy, Vol. I: The Contest with Napoleon, 1799–1814 (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), pp. 25–33.

4 Deutsch, Harold C., The Genesis of Napoleonic Imperialism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938), pp. 214–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Srbik, Heinrich Ritter, Die Schicksalsstunde des alten Reiches. österreichs Weg 1804–1806 (Jena: E. Diederich, 1937), pp. 13–23Google Scholar.

5 The best study of the Peace of Pressburg is now von Oer, Rudolfine Freiin, Der Friede von Pressburg. Ein Beitrag zur Diplomatiegeschichte des Napoleonischen Zeitalters (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1965)Google Scholar.

6 Metternich, to Stadion, Paris, July 26, 1807, Memoirs of Prince Metternich, edited by Richard, Metternich Prince (English ed., 5 vols., New York: Scribner, 1880), Vol. II, p. 145Google Scholar.

7 Griewank, Karl, Der Wiener Kongress und die Neuordnung Europas 1814–15 (Leipzig: Koehler and Amelang, 1942), pp. 185–188Google Scholar.

8 See Rössler, Hellmuth, Österreichs Kampf um Deutschlands Befreiung (2 vols., Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1940), Vol. I, pp. 246–269Google Scholar; and Kraehe, , Metternich's German Policy, Vol. I, pp. 54–55Google Scholar.

9 Rössler, , Österreichs Kampf um Deutschlands Befreiung, Vol. I, pp. 303–436Google Scholar; von Srbik, Heinrich Ritter, Deutsche Einheit. Idee und Wirklichkeit vom Heiligen Reich bis Kö'niggrätz (4 vols., Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1935), Vol. I, pp. 166–212Google Scholar. See also Langsam, Walter C., The Napoleonic Wars and German Nationalism in Austria (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930), pp. 28–93Google Scholar; and Robert, André, L'idée nationale autrichienne et les guerres de Napoléon (Paris: F. Alcan, 1933), pp. 216–500, among many othersGoogle Scholar.

10 Kraehe, , Metternich's German Policy, Vol. I, pp. 78–80Google Scholar.

11 Barany, George, “The Awakening of Magyar Nationalism before 1848,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. II (1965), pp. 26–28Google Scholar.

12 Springer, Anton, Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (2 vols., Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1863), Vol. I, pp. 74–75Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 76.

14 Ibid., p. 80.

15 Barany, “The Awakening of Magyar Nationalism before 1848,” pp. 19–50.

16 Springer, , Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809, Vol. I, p. 100Google Scholar.

17 On the negotiation of the Treaty of Schönbrunn, see Beer, Adolf, Zehn Jahre österreichischer Politik 1801–1810 (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1877), pp. 388–437Google Scholar; Dunan, Marcel, Napoléon et l'Allemagne. Le système continental et les débuts du royaume de Bavière 1806–1810 (Paris: Plon, 1942), pp. 232–275Google Scholar; and Kraehe, , Metternich's German Policy, Vol. I, pp. 84–118Google Scholar.

18 Kraehe, , Metternich's German Policy, Vol. I, p. 140Google Scholar; Metternich's report of November 28, 1811, Metternich, , Memoirs, Vol. II, pp. 499–511Google Scholar.

19 Kipa, Emil, Austria a sprawa polska w r. 1809 [Austria and the Polish Affair in the Year 1809] (Warsaw: Naki Tow. Naukowego Warszawskiego, 1952), passim.Google Scholar

20 von Srbik, Heinrich Ritter, Metternich der Staatsmann und der Mensch (3 vols., Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1925, 1954), Vol. I, pp. 150–152Google Scholar; Robert, L'idée nationale autrichienne et les guerres de Napoléon, pp. 505–520.

21 Haas, Arthur G., Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality 1813–1818: a Story of Foresight and Frustration in the Rebuilding of the Austrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963), pp. 19–21Google Scholar.

22 As quoted in Guillaume de Bertier de Sauvigny, Metternich and his Times, translated by Peter Ryde (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962), p. 167.

23 That the Hofburg was on the whole correct in this belief is eloquently argued by Hantsch, Hugo, Die Nationalitätenfrage im alten Österreich. In Wiener Studien, No. 1 (Vienna: Herold, 1953)Google Scholar.

24 Haas, , Reorganization and Nationality 1813–1818, pp. 17–47Google Scholar.

25 See Bertier, Metternich and his Times, p. 161.

26 Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. I, pp. 206–210Google Scholar.

27 Protokolle der deutschen Bundesversammlung (51 vols., Frankfurt a. M.: Bundes-Präsidial-Buchdruckerei, 1816–66), Vol. I, October 1, 1816; Stern, Alfred, Geschichte Europas seit den Verträge von 1815 bis 1871 (2nd ed., 10 vols., Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta'scher Buchhandlung Nachf., 1913), Vol. I, p. 309Google Scholar.

28 Protocol of the state conference of March 5, 1818, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Hofkriegsrath, Präsidium, Fasz. II-XXI, Fos. 226–231.

29 See ante, p. 9.

30 Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. I, pp. 202–204Google Scholar; Srbik, , Deutsche Einheit, Vol. I, p. 201Google Scholar.

31 Rössler, , Österreichs Kampf um Deutschlands Befreiung, Vol. II, pp. 173–176Google Scholar.

32 See Lauber, Emil, Metternichs Kampf um die europäische Mitte (Vienna: A. Luser, 1939)Google Scholar. Lauber is almost alone in holding that the compromise on Saxony and Poland was not an Austrian victory.

33 As quoted in Bertier, Metternich and his Times, p. 167.

34 As quoted in ibid., p. 161.

35 See Schroeder, Paul W., Metternich's Diplomacy at its Zenith (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1962), pp. 60–104Google Scholar.

36 Nada, Narisco, L'Austria e la questione romana dalla rivoluzione di luglio alla fine della conferenza diplomatica romana (Turin: University of Turin, 1953)Google Scholar; Nada, Narisco, Metternich e le riforme nello stato pontifico: la missione sebrengondi a Roma (1882–1836) (Turin: Deputazione subalpina di storia patria, 1957)Google Scholar.

37 Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. I, p. 673Google Scholar.

38 Betley, J. A., Belgium and Poland in International Relations, 1830–1831 (The Hague: Mouton, 1960), p. 99Google Scholar.

39 Schroeder, Metternich's Diplomacy at its Zenith, pp. 164–195.

40 For example, see Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. I, p. 627Google Scholar.

41 Engel-Janosi, Friedrich, “Österreich und die Anfänge des Königreiches Griechenland,” in Engel-Janosi, Friedrich, Geschichte auf dem Ballhausplatz (Graz: Styria Verlag, 1963), pp. 44–45Google Scholar.

42 See Jelavich, Barbara, A Century of Russian Foreign Policy, 1814–1914 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott, 1964), pp. 84–86Google Scholar.

43 Texts of these agreements are in Martens, Fëdor Fëdorovich, Recueil des traités et conventions conclus par la russie avec les puissances étrangères (15 vols., St. Petersburg: A. Devrient, 1874–1909), Vol. V, Pt. I, Nos. 135, 136, and 138.Google Scholar See also Andics, Erzsebet, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow. Vorgeschichte der zaristischen Intervention in Ungarn im Jahre 1849 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963), pp. 9–15Google Scholar. This valuable and richly-documented work seems to me to exaggerate Metternich's pro-Russian policy during the Polish revolution of 1830 and to play down Austro-Russian rivalry in favor of class solidarity.

44 Schroeder, Metternich's Diplomacy at its Zenith, pp. 25–30 and 229–236.

45 Betley, Belgium and Poland in International Relations, 1830–1831, p. 22; Jelavich, A Century of Russian Foreign Policy, p. 93.

46 Srbik, Metternich, Vol. III, pp. 141–142.

47 Huber, Gustav, Kriegsgefahr über Europa (1880–1882) im Urteil der Zeit und hundert Jahre später (Berlin: Junker and Dünnhaupt, 1936), pp. 99–103Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., pp. 103–106; Betley, Belgium and Poland in International Relations, 1830–1831, p. 107.

49 Some writers (for example, Andics, in his Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 14) make much of the promise as a basis for Russian intervention in Hungary in 1849. It is true that the Austrians melodramatically invoked it then, but it is worth noting that the promise was not in the Münchengrätz conventions themselves.

50 The subject is discussed in various papers in these volumes. See also Hehn, Paul N., “Prince Adam Czartoryski and the South Slavs,” The Polish Review, Vol. VIII (1962), pp. 76–86Google Scholar.

51 Taylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954), p. 5Google Scholar. See also Schroeder, Paul W., “Austria as an Obstacle to Italian Unification and Freedom,” Austrian History News Letter, No. 3 (1962), pp. 15–17Google Scholar.

52 Springer, , Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809, Vol. I, p. 334Google Scholar.

53 Wandycz, Piotr S., “The Poles in the Habsburg Monarchy,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III (1967), Pt. 2, pp. 271–273Google Scholar. See also Srbik, , Deutsche Einheit, Vol. II, pp. 12–13Google Scholar; and Kiszling, Rudolf, Fürst Felix zu Schwarzenberg. Der politische Lehrmeister Franz Josephs (Graz: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1952), p. 92Google Scholar. I agree with Andics, in his Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 186, however, that the presence of Poles in the Hungarian army was not a major cause of Russian intervention.

54 Rath, R. John, “The Viennese Liberals of 1848 and the Nationality Problem,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XV (1955), pp. 227–239Google Scholar.

55 Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, pp. 18–27.

56 Srbik, , Deutsche Einheit, Vol. II, pp. 14–15Google Scholar; Friedjung, Heinrich, Österreich von 1848 bis 1860 (2nd ed., 2 vola., Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1908–12), Vol. I, p. 12Google Scholar.

57 Andics, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, pp. 40–49 and 79–80.

58 Ibid., p. 53.

59 Ibid., p. 85.

60 Kiszling, Fürst Felix zu Schwarzenberg, pp. 72–96; Srbik, , Deutsche Einheit, Vol. II, pp. 13–14Google Scholar.

61 On Schwarzenberg's domestic policy, see Redlich, Josef, Das Österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem (2 vols., Leipzig: P. Reinhold, 1920–1926), Vol. I, pp. 323–482Google Scholar; Kiszling, Fürst Felix, zu Schwarzenberg, pp. 61–107 and 166–202; and Friedjung, , öuml;sterreich von 181,8 bis 1860, Vol. I, pp. 255–484Google Scholar.

62 The best work on Schwarzenberg's German policy is Heller, Eduard, Fürst Felix zu Schwarzenberg, Mitteleuropas Vorkämpfer (Vienna: Militär Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1933)Google Scholar.

63 To my knowledge, all writers, whether they blame Schwarzenberg or not, take it for granted that he always intended to withdraw the March constitution eventually.

64 On Bruck, see Charmatz, Richard, Minister Freiherr von Bruck. Der Vorkämpfer Mitteleuropas (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1916)Google Scholar.

65 Note A. J. P. Taylor's quaint view that the question of whether or not the whole monarchy should belong to the Confederation “was primarily a matter of domestic politics to display that Austria was entirely a German state.” Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, p. 43.

66 Scharff, Alexander, Die europäischen Grossmächte und die deutsche Revolution (Leipzig: Koehler and Amelang, 1942), pp. 280–283.Google Scholar

67 Srbik, , Deutsche Einheit, Vol. II, pp. 188–191Google Scholar.

68 Hantsch, Hugo, Die Geschichte Österreichs (2nd ed., 2 vols., Graz: Styria, 1953), Vol. II, p. 369Google Scholar.

69 Friedjung, , Österreich von 1848 bis 1860, Vol. II, pp. 236–237Google Scholar; and Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, p. 64, to name two historians who make the charge.

70 Redlich, Joseph, Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria. A Biography (New York: Macmillan Co., 1929), p. 134Google Scholar.

71 See Friedjung, , Österreich von 1848 bis 1860, Vol. II, p. 231Google Scholar.

72 Ibid., p. 234.

73 Engel-Janosi, Friedrich, Der Freiherr von Hübner 1811–1892. Eine Gestalt aus dem Österreich Kaiser Franz Josephs (Innsbruck: Universitäts-Verlag Wagner, 1933), pp. 111–115Google Scholar.

74 This and the discussion which follows are based on Borries, Kurt, Preussen im Krimkrieg (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1930)Google Scholar; Borries, Kurt, “Zur Politik der deutschen Mächte in der Zeit des Krimkrieges und der italienischen Einigung,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. CLI (1934–1935), pp. 294–318Google Scholar; Eckhart, Franz, Die deutsche Frage und der Krimkrieg (Berlin: Ost Europa Verlag, 1931)Google Scholar; and Meyer, Arnold Oskar, Bismarcks Kampf mit Österreich am Bundestag zu Frankfurt 1851–1859 (Berlin: K. F. Koehler, 1927)Google Scholar.

75 Bismarck, to von Manteuffel, Otto, Frankfurt a. M., February 7, 1855, von Poschinger, Heinrich (ed.), Preussen im Bundestag 1851 bis 1859 (4 vols., Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1882–84), Vol. II, Doc. No. 87Google Scholar.

76 See Borries, “Zur Politik der deutschen Mächte in der Zeit des Krimkrieges,” pp. 295–296; Eckhart, Die deutsche Frage und der Krimkrieg, p. 214; and many others.

77 See Hallberg, Charles W., Franz Joseph and Napoleon III, 1852–1864 (New York: Bookman Associates, 1955), pp. 45–112, who does not explicitly argue this but provides much evidence for itGoogle Scholar.

78 Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, p. 105.

79 See Sumner, B. H., “The Secret Franco-Russian Treaty of 3 March 1859,” English Historical Review, Vol. XLVIII (1933), pp. 65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Hallberg, Franz Joseph and Napoleon III, p. 194; Pflanze, Otto, “Nationalism in Europe, 1848–1871,” Review of Politics, Vol. XXVIII (1966), p. 134Google Scholar.

81 Srbik, , Deutsche Einheit, Vol. II, pp. 333–335Google Scholar.

82 The legend persists that Prussia insisted on command of the federal armies and that Austria refused. Actually Austria offered the command to Prussia provided that the latter operated within the framework of the federal rules. Prussia, however, wanted freedom of action, which would have violated federal law and opened the way for Prussian hegemony in the North. See instructions for General Willisen, May 8, 1859, in Ibbeken, Rudolf et al. , (eds.), Die auswärtige Politik Preussens 1858–1870/71 (10 vols., Oldenburg: G. Stalling, 1932–34), Vol. I, No. 378Google Scholar.

83 The literature on these matters is hard to summarize, but two articles of mine cover the subject fairly well: “Austria and the Problem of Reform in the German Confederation, 1851–1863,” The American Historical Review, Vol. LVI (1950–51), pp. 276–294; and “Practical Politics in the German Confederation: Bismarck and the Commercial Code,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXV (1953), pp. 13–24.

84 The standard works on this subject are Steefel, Lawrence D., The Schleswig-Holstein Question (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932)Google Scholar; and Clark, Chester W., Franz Joseph and Bismarck. The Diplomacy of Austria before the War of 1866 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934)Google Scholar. See also Pflanze, Otto, Bismarck and the Development of Germany (2 vols., Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), Vol. I, pp. 233–262Google Scholar.

85 Hallberg, Franz Joseph and Napoleon III, pp. 334–338.

86 For the details, see especially Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, Vol. I, pp. 284–311; and Becker, Otto, Bismarcks Ringen um Deutschlands Gestaltung (Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1958), to name two of the more recent panoramic accountsGoogle Scholar.

87 Barker, Nancy Nichols, “Austria, France, and the Venetian Question, 1861–1866,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXXVI (1964), pp. 145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Pflanze, , Bismarck and the Development of Germany, Vol. I, pp. 302–307; Pflanze, “Nationalism in Europe, 1814–1871,” p. 134Google Scholar.