Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:45:55.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRAITORS AND THE MEANING OF TREASON IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY’S GREAT WAR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Mark Cornwall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Treason is a ubiquitous historical phenomenon, one particularly associated with regime instability or wartime loyalties. This paper explores the practice and prosecution of treason in the last decades of the Habsburg monarchy with a special focus on some notorious wartime treason trials. It first sets the rhetoric and law of treason in a comparative historical context before assessing the legal framework supplied by the Austrian penal code of 1852. Although the treason law was exploited quite arbitrarily after 1914, the state authorities in the pre-war decade were already targeting irredentist suspects due to major anxiety about domestic and foreign security. In the Great War, the military were then given extensive powers to prosecute all political crimes including treason, causing a string of show-trials of Bosnian Serbs and some leading Czech politicians. By 1917–18, however, this onslaught on disloyalty was backfiring in the wake of an imperial amnesty: as loyalties shifted away from the Habsburg regime, the former criminals themselves proudly began to assume the title of ‘traitor’. The paper is a case-study of how regimes in crisis have used treason as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance. It also offers a new basis for understanding instability in the late Habsburg monarchy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 25 , December 2015 , pp. 113 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 2015 

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

1 Kunz, Jaroslav, Náš odboj v zrcadle rakouské vojenské justice (Prague, 1930), 6–10Google Scholar.

2 Kunz, Jaroslav, Za černožlutou oponou. Z Vídeňských vzpomínek (Prague, 1921), 5Google Scholar.

3 That of the Ruthene politician Dimitrij Markov in the summer of 1915.

4 For example, Ćorović, Vladimir, Crna knjiga. Patnje Srba Bosne i Hercegovine za vreme svetskog rata 1914–1918 (Belgrade and Sarajevo, 1920)Google Scholar.

5 See the useful proceedings of a Bosnian conference from 1986, collected in Veleizdajnički proces u Banjaluci. Zbornik radova, ed. Šljivo, Galib (Banjaluka, 1987)Google Scholar; and the more popular nationalist work by Beatović, Djordje and Milanović, Dragoljub, Veleizdajnički procesi Srbima u Austro-Ugarskoj (Belgrade, 1989)Google Scholar.

6 Boveri, Margret, Der Verrat im 20. Jahrhundert (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1976), 7Google Scholar.

7 Kirchheimer, Otto, Political Justice: The Use of Legal Procedure for Political Ends (Princeton, 1961), 76Google Scholar.

8 Coke's words, in A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the Most Barbarous Traitors (1606), D4; Bellamy, J. G., The Law of Treason in England in the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1970), 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Trial of Roger Casement, ed. H. Montgomery Hyde (1960), 7, 179. See similarly: The Trial of William Joyce, ed. C. E. Bechhofer Roberts (1946), 30.

10 Das Strafgesetz über Verbrechen, Vergehen und Uebertretungen: nebst den hiezu erflossenen Nachtragsgesetzen, Oesterreichische Gesetzeskunde, ii, ed. Altmann, Ludwig (Vienna, 1913), 62Google Scholar.

11 Ben-Yehuda, Nachman, Betrayals and Treason: Violations of Trust and Loyalty (Boulder, CO, and Oxford, 2001), 125Google Scholar.

12 Lacey Baldwin Smith, Treason in Tudor England. Politics and Paranoia (1986), 129–38.

13 The concluding speech of the prosecutor Alapi, Gyula, in László Rájk and his Accomplices before the People's Court (Budapest, 1949), 272–3Google Scholar: ‘The only defence against mad dogs is to beat them to death.’

14 Guardian, 14 Dec. 2013, 3.

15 See for example Strafford's defence in Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution. Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1966), 194–5Google Scholar; Casement, ed. Montgomery Hyde, 200–4; Hoidal, Oddvar, Quisling: A Study in Treason (Oslo, 1989), 754, 764Google Scholar.

16 Archiv Ústavu TGM (AÚTGM: Archive of the T. G. Masaryk Institute, Prague), Fond Maffie, karton 39, xiii: Markus Preminger's concluding speech at the Kramář trial, 3845–6.

17 There have been few attempts to conceptualise the modern history of treason, but see Ben-Yehuda, Betrayals and Treason, and Noetzel, Thomas, Die Faszination des Verrats. Eine Studie zur Dekadenz im Ost-West-Konflikt (Hamburg, 1989)Google Scholar. Cf. the plentiful studies for early modern England, such as John Bellamy, The Tudor Law of Treason: An Introduction (1979), and Steffen, Lisa, Defining a British State: Treason and National Identity, 1608–1820 (Basingstoke, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Prušák, Josef, Rakousko právo trestní (Prague, 1912), 14Google Scholar. The territory of Croatia-Slavonia (autonomous under Hungary) retained the Austrian 1852 code with some Croatian amendments. The code was also introduced in Bosnia-Hercegovina after its occupation in 1878.

19 For the following, see the comparative discussion by van Calker, Franz, ‘Hochverrat und Landesverrat’, in Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts. Vorarbeiten zur deutschen Strafrechtsreform, ed. Birkmeyer, Karl, van Calker, Fritz, Frank, Reinhardet al., Besonderer Teil, i (Berlin, 1906), 2–71Google Scholar. Also, Das Strafgesetz, ed. Altmann, 60–5, and Wolfgang Pfeifer, ‘Der Hochverrat im österreichischen Strafrecht vom 18.Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart’ (Ph.Diss, Graz, 2008), 120–30.

20 Czech, Philip, Der Kaiser ist ein Lump und Spitzbube. Majestätsbeleidigung unter Kaiser Franz Joseph (Vienna, Cologne and Weimar, 2010), 66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Steiner, Herbert, ‘Der Wiener Hochverratsprozess 1870’, in Sozialistenprozesse: Politische Justiz in Österreich 1870–1936, ed. Stadler, Karl R. (Vienna, 1986), 13–30Google Scholar.

22 Pfeifer, ‘Der Hochverrat im österreichischen Strafrecht’, 120–1, 128–9. Contemporary legal commentaries noted that Austrian law, unlike German, French or Italian, had no specific conception of Landesverrat (betraying state security), but partly subsumed it into Hochverrat in §58c: see Calker, ‘Hochverrat und Landesverrat’, 11, 63.

23 See the Hungarian Criminal Code of 1878 (§126–38). §126–7 covered almost exactly the same fields as the Austrian §58 but were more detailed with special protection for Hungarian territory. For a German translation: Das ungarische Strafgesetzbuch über Verbrechen und Vergehen, trans. Gustav Steinbach (Budapest, 1878), 30–3. My thanks to Attila Barna for this source.

24 AÚTGM, Fond Maffie, karton 39, xiii: Eduard Körner concluding speech at the Kramář trial, 4230–2.

25 Das Strafgesetz, ed. Altmann, 65–6. The ‘Verbrechen wider die Kriegsmacht des Staates’ (§67) found greater exposition in the military penal code of 1855, §304–31. See Das Militär-Strafgesetz über Verbrechen und Vergehen vom 15 Jänner 1855 samt den einschlägigen und ergänzenden Gesetzen und Verordnungen, ed. Alexander Koller (2nd edn, Vienna, 1901), 229–40.

26 Jaroslav Hašek, The Good Soldier Švejk (Harmondsworth, 1974), 13, 207–8. Bretschneider (p. 50) had vainly tried to inveigle Švejk into admitting that the empire was doomed to extinction.

27 Exner, Franz, Krieg und Kriminalität in Österreich (Vienna, 1927), 26Google Scholar.

28 See Gumz, Jonathan, The Resurrection and Collapse of Empire in Habsburg Serbia, 1914–1918 (Cambridge, 2009), 117–18, 126ffGoogle Scholar.

29 See Führ, Christoph, Das k.u.k. Armeeoberkommando und die Innenpolitik in Österreich 1914–1917 (Graz and Vienna, 1968), 21 (n. 49), 88, 181Google Scholar; and Gumz, Resurrection, 140.

30 Redlich, Joseph, Austrian War Government (New Haven, 1929), 81–2Google Scholar.

31 Platzer, Karl, Standrechtliche Todesurteile im Ersten Weltkrieg (Berlin and Stuttgart, 2004), 71–8Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., 160.

33 For an exaggerated claim of up to 30,000 Ruthene executions: Alexander Watson, Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at War 1914–1918 (2014), 155. For Serb persecution: Gumz, Resurrection, 34–58.

34 For the following, see Überegger, Oswald, Der andere Krieg. Die Tiroler Militärgerichtsbarkeit im Ersten Weltkrieg (Innsbruck, 2002), 366–86Google Scholar.

35 See Kirchheimer, Political Justice, 7–8.

36 Überegger, Der andere Krieg, 384–6.

37 See Führ, Armeeoberkommando, 34ff, 91–7.

38 Cf. ibid., 22.

39 Rauchensteiner, Manfried, Der Erste Weltkrieg und das Ende der Habsburgermonarchie (Vienna, 2013), 452Google Scholar.

40 Obžalovací spis proti Václav Klofáčovi a Rudolfu Giuniovi pro zločin [velezrády] dle §58c tr. z., ed. Tobolka, Zdeněk V. (Prague, 1919), viii–xGoogle Scholar.

41 Kirchheimer, Political Justice, 46–8.

42 For context, especially on the rhetoric of treason, see Cornwall, Mark, ‘Loyalty and Treason in Late Habsburg Croatia: A Violent Political Discourse before the First World War’, in Exploring Loyalty, ed. Osterkamp, Jana and Schulze-Wessel, Martin (Götingen, forthcoming, 2016)Google Scholar.

43 R. W. Seton-Watson, The Southern Slav Question (1911), 184, 208.

44 Masaryk, Thomas G., Der Agramer Hochverratsprozess und die Annexion von Bosnien und Herzegovina (Vienna, 1909), 30–1: speech to the Reichsrat on 14 May 1909Google Scholar.

45 For context, see Zeman, Z. A. B., The Break-Up of the Habsburg Empire 1914–1918: A Study in National and Social Revolution (London, New York and Toronto, 1961), 3–11Google Scholar.

46 ‘Russophile Agitatoren vor den Lemberger Geschworen’, Neue Freie Presse (Abendblatt), 3 June 1914, 4; Berthold Merwin, ‘Bilder vom Lemberger Hochverratsprozess’, ibid. (Abendblatt), 9 June 1914, 3.

47 ‘Freispruch der Angeklagten im Lemberger Hochverratsprozeß’, ibid. (Morgenblatt), 7 June 1914, 2.

48 A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings, D4.

49 The most accurate trial transcript is in Sarajevski atentat. Stenogram Glavne rasprave protiv Gavrila Principa i drugova, ed. Bogićević, Vojislav (Sarajevo, 1954)Google Scholar. Some historians have used unreliable transcripts: e.g. Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (2012), 51–5.

50 Zistler, Rudolf, Kako sam branio Principa i drugove 1914 godine (Ljubljana, 1937), 4, 17Google Scholar.

51 Vladimir Dedijer, The Road to Sarajevo (1966), 336.

52 Speech of prosecutor Franjo Švara: Sarajevski atentat, 332–42.

53 Zistler, Kako sam branio Principa, 4.

54 Speech of Konstantin Premužić: Sarajevski atentat, 351–4. See also the minimal defence given to the assassin Trifko Grabež: ibid., 364.

55 Zistler speech: Sarajevski atentat, 378.

56 Ibid., 368.

57 Ibid., 369–72. See also Zistler, Kako sam branio Principa, 13: ‘The verdict could not construct a treasonable intention to destroy the annexation [which was] an illegal situation.’

58 Ibid., 15.

59 See for example, http://www.invest-in-serbia.com/archive/general/1391910600-kusturica-to-seek-annulment-of-gavrilo-princip-s-trial.html (accessed 31 Aug. 2014).

60 Milorad Ekmečić, ‘“Žalosna baština iz godine 1914” (Političke namjene sudskih procesa u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme prvog svjetskog rata)’, in Veleizdajnički proces u Banjaluci, 13, 40.

61 Ibid., 32. See also the memoirs of Stefan Freiherr Sarkotić von Lovćen, ‘Der Hochverrats-Prozeß von Banjaluka’, Berliner Monatshefte für internationale Aufklärung, 7/1 (Jan. 1929), 33–4.

62 Vasa Čubrilović, ‘Razmišljanja o veleizdajničkim procesima u prvom svetskom ratu’, in Veleizdajnički proces u Banjaluci, 4.

63 See ibid.: Dženana Čaušević, ‘“Veleizdajnici” na sudskom procesu u Banjaluci i u zatvorima’, 369–85.

64 See Šantrůček, Bohuslav, Václav Klofáč (1868–1928) (Prague, 1928)Google Scholar, and Paulová, Milada, Dějiny Maffie. Odboj Čechů a Jihoslavanů za světové války 1914–1918, i (Prague, 1937), 27ff, 113–15Google Scholar.

65 Führ, Armeeoberkommando, 47–8; Rauchensteiner, Der Erste Weltkrieg, 355–60, 444. For the mythology around Czech military treason: Lein, Richard, Pflicherfüllung oder Hochverrat? Die tschechischen Soldaten Österreich-Ungarns im Ersten Weltkrieg (Vienna, 2011)Google Scholar.

66 Paulová, Dějiny Maffie, 154. See also František Soukup, 28. říjen 1918, i (Prague, 1928), 172: Preminger advanced in Austria as ‘a great legal star of the war’.

67 Willi Frischauer, Behind the Scenes of Otto Preminger (1973), 26, 29, 40.

68 See Vyšný, Paul, Neo-Slavism and the Czechs 1898–1914 (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar.

69 AÚTGM, Fond Maffie, karton 44, Preminger to AOK (A 2162/15), 31 May 1915, enclosing report.

70 Kunz, Náš odboj, 57; Paulová, Dějiny Maffie, 607.

71 Paměti Dr. Alois Rašín, ed. Rašín, Ladislav (Prague, 1994), 127, 129, 135Google Scholar. See also the memoirs of Rezníček, Jan, Ve věži smrti (Prague, n.d.), 48ffGoogle Scholar.

72 There is no historical analysis of this trial in any language although the full transcript was quickly translated into Czech: Proces dra Kramáře a jeho přátel, ed. Zdeněk V. Tobolka (5 vols., Prague, 1918–20). A rare study is Pavlíček, Tomáš W., ‘Politicum a martýrium v nejdelším trestním procesu první světové války. Stylizace a strategie během procesu s Karlem Kramářem’, in Karel Kramář (1860–1937). Život a dílo, ed. Bílek, Jan and Velek, Luboš (Prague, 2009), 344–66Google Scholar.

73 The following draws on AÚTGM, Fond Maffie, karton 39, xiii, Preminger's speech, 3790–846; and the indictment: Militäranwalt des Militärkommandanten in Wien (A 2162/15/960), Anklageschrift (Vienna, 1915).

74 Ibid., 111. Preminger referred here to official data for prosecutions under §58 which showed that Czechs were most likely to be accused: AÚTGM, Fond Maffie, karton 2, Glivitzky to Preminger, 27 May 1916.

75 See AÚTGM, Fond Maffie, karton 39, xiii: Körner speech, 4227–47.

76 For example, the defence lawyer Danilo Dimović at the Banjaluka trial: Čauševič, 380.

77 Körner speech, 4244–5.

78 For a typical Czech nationalist reaction: Hajšman, Jan, Česká Mafie. Vzpomínky na odboj doma (Prague, 1932), 222Google Scholar.

79 Soukup, 28. říjen 1918, i, 177–82.

80 Redlich, Josef, Schicksalsjahre Österreichs. Die Erinnerungen und Tagebücher Josef Redlichs 1869–1936, ii (Vienna, 2011), 171Google Scholar.

81 Kaiser Karl. Persönliche Aufzeichnungen, Zeugnisse und Dokumente, ed. Feigl, Erich (Vienna and Munich, 1984), 206–7Google Scholar; and especially the vivid discussion in Polzer-Hoditz, Arthur Graf, Kaiser Karl. Aus der Geheimmappe seines Kabinettschefs (Vienna, 1929), 421–33Google Scholar.

82 Baernreither, Joseph Maria, Der Verfall des Habsburgerreiches und die Deutschen. Fragmente eines politischen Tagebuches 1897–1917 (Vienna, 1938), 231–3Google Scholar. Also Kirchheimer on political amnesties: Political Justice, 405–6, 410–11.

83 Wichtl, Friedrich, Dr. Karl Kramarsch, der Anstifter des Weltkrieges (Munich, 1918), 4Google Scholar.

84 Viktor Dyk, ‘Czernin’, Národní listy, 4 Apr. 1918, 1; and speech of František Staněk, quoted in ibid., 14 Apr. 1918, 1. Also Zeman, Break-Up, 175.

85 See Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason (1982), 413–20, who took a firm moral stance against the traitor. One reviewer questioned whether she had actually explained ‘the meaning’: Journal of American History, 52.2 (1965), 421–2.