AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND HER SOUTH SLAVS
It has often been predicted in recent years that the union between
Austria and Hungary would be broken by internal troubles. Hungary has
been credited with desiring to cut loose from Austria. The frequent
and serious quarrels between the members of the Dual Monarchy have
caused many a wiseacre to shake his head and say, "The union will not
outlive Franz Josef!" But the Austro-Hungarian Empire has been founded
upon sound political and economic principles, which far transcend a
single life or a dynasty. Austrians and Hungarians may be unwilling
yoke-fellows. But they know that if they do not pull together, they
cannot pull at all. They have too many Slavs around them.
The principle upon which Austrians and Hungarians have founded a Dual
Monarchy is the old Latin proverb, _divide et impera_. In the Empire,
Austrians and Hungarians are in the minority. In each kingdom, by
dividing the Slavs cleverly between them, they hold the upper hand.
The German race is, {143} therefore, the dominant race in Austria, and
the Hungarian race is the dominant race in Hungary.
If one looks at the map, and studies the division of the Empire, he
will readily see that it is much more durably constructed than he would
have reason to believe from statistics of the population. _The Slavic
question in the Dual Monarchy is not how many Slavs of kindred races
are to be found in Austria-Hungary, but how they are placed in
relationship to each other and to neighbouring states_. It is a
question of geography rather than of census. The student needs a map
instead of columns of figures.
In only one place is the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy very weak, and that
is in the south. The sole port for the thirty millions of Austria is
Trieste. To reach Trieste one passes through a belt of Slavic
territory, and Trieste itself is more Italian than German. The sole
port of Hungary is Fiume. To reach Fiume one passes through a belt of
Slavic territory, and there are hardly any Hungarians in Fiume itself.
The Slavs which cut off Fiume from Hungary and the Slavs of the
Dalmatian coast and of all Bosnia and Herzegovina belong to the same
family. They speak practically the same language as the Servians and
Montenegrins.
The Hungarians, then, have exactly the same interest as the Austrians
in every move that has been made since the proclamation of the
constitution of Turkey to prevent the foundation of a strong
independent Servian State on the confines of the {144} Austro-Hungarian
Empire, and to prevent the Slavs from reaching the Adriatic Sea.
Austria has not been necessarily influenced in her attitude towards the
Balkan problem by Germany. Although her _Drang nach Osten_ is
frequently interpreted as a part of the Pan-Germanic movement, the
Germans of Austria have needed no German sentiment and no German
prompting to arrive at their point of view in regard to the Balkan
nationalities. It must be clearly kept in mind that the Convention of
Reichstadt in 1876, which was the beginning of Austria's consistent
policy towards the Balkan peninsula, was signed before the alliance
with Germany; that it was the conception of a _Hungarian_ statesman,
and that _the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina had nothing whatever
to do with Pan-Germanism_. It was a measure of self-protection to
prevent these remote provinces of Turkey from forming a political union
with Servia, should the Russian arms, intervening on behalf of the
south Slavs against Turkey, prove successful. The extension of
sovereignty over Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 was to prevent the
constitutional _régime_ from trying to weaken the hold of
Austria-Hungary upon these provinces. Austria-Hungary certainly would
have preferred the more comfortable status of an occupation to the
legal adoption of a _Reichsland_. But she could take no chances with
the Young Turks. Her military occupation of the _Sandjak_ of Novi
Bazar was inspired as much by the necessity of preventing the union of
Montenegro and Servia as by the desire to provide for a future railway
extension to Salonika.
{145}
Hungary has had to grapple with two Balkan problems, the rise of
Rumania and the rise of Servia. She has had within her kingdom several
million Rumanian subjects and several million South Slavic subjects.
Most of her Rumanians, however, have been separated from Rumania from
the natural barrier of the Carpathian mountains, and have not found
their union with Hungary to their disadvantage. For the Rumanians of
Hungary enjoy through Buda-Pesth and Fiume a better outlet to the
markets of the world, and a cheaper haul, than they would find through
Rumania. They have benefited greatly by their economic union with
Hungary. It is not the same with the Croatians. They are situated
between Buda-Pesth and the Adriatic. They have a natural river outlet
to the Danube. They are not separated by physical barriers from their
brothers of race and language in Servia, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Were
they to separate from Hungary, they would not find their economic
position in any way jeopardized.
Many South Slavs have advocated a trialism to replace the present
dualism. They have claimed that the most critical problems of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire could be solved in this way. Added to Hungary
and Austria, there could be a Servian kingdom, perhaps enlarged by the
inclusion of independent Servia and Montenegro, whose crown could be
worn by the Hapsburg ruler.
But this solution has never found favour, simple and attractive though
it sounds on first sight, with {146} either Hungarians or Austrians.
For it would mean the cutting off of both kingdoms from the sea. The
Hungarians would be altogether land-locked, and surrounded on all sides
by alien races. Austria would be forced into hopeless economic
dependence upon Germany. The Germans of Austria and the Hungarians of
Hungary have felt that their national existence depended upon keeping
in political subjection the South Slavs, and upon repressing
mercilessly any evidences of Italian irredentism upon the littoral of
the Adriatic. Italian irredentism is treated in another place. The
repression of national aspirations among the South Slavs, which
interests us here, has been the corner-stone of Austro-Hungarian policy
in the Balkans. For Hungary it has also been an internal question in
her relationship with Croatia.
The Serbo-Croatian movement in southern Hungary has been repressed by
Hungary with the same bitterness and lack of success that have attended
the attempts to stifle national aspirations elsewhere in Europe. No
weapon has been left unused in fighting nationalism in Croatia.
Official corruption, bribery, manipulation of judges, imprisonment
without trial, military despotism, gerrymandering, electoral
intimidation,--this has been for years and is still, the daily record
in Croatia. If there were a Slavic Silvio Pellico, the world would
know that the ministers of the aged Franz Josef are not very different
from the ministers of the young Franz Josef, who crushed the Milanese
and tracked Garibaldi like a beast. Radetzkys and Gorzkowskis are
still wearing {147} Austrian livery. To Austria and Hungary, Salonika
and Macedonia may have been the dream. But Trieste, Fiume, and
Dalmatia have always been the realities. If Hungary took her heel off
the neck of the Croatians, Buda-Pesth might become another Belgrade and
Hungary another Servia, land-locked with no other outlet than the
Danube. This does not excuse, but it explains. In this world the
battle is to the strong. The survival of the fittest is a historical
as well as a biological fact.
In spite of their juxtaposition, the Serbo-Croats have never been able
to unite. There have been more reasons for this than their political
separation. They are divided in religion. The Servians are Orthodox,
and the Croatians and Dalmatians Catholic. In Bosnia and Macedonia,
the race adhered to both confessions, though in majority Orthodox, and
has also a strong Mohammedan element. The Orthodox Servians of Servia
use the Cyrillic alphabet, and the Catholic Croatians and Dalmatians of
Austria-Hungary the Latin alphabet.
Until the recent Balkan Wars, the Croatians and Dalmatians considered
themselves a much superior branch of the race to the Servians. They
have certainly enjoyed a superior education and demonstrated a superior
civilization. The probable reason for this is that they did not have
the misfortune to be for centuries under the Ottoman yoke. The
Croatians have never been willing to play the understudy to the
Servians. Agram has considered itself the centre of the Serbo-Croat
movement rather than Belgrade. {148} It is a far more beautiful and
modern city than Belgrade. Few cities of all Europe of its size can
equal Agram for architecture, for municipal works, and for keen,
stimulating intellectual life. Its university is the _foyer_ of
Serbo-Croat nationalism and of _risorgimento_ literature. It was here
that the one Roman bishop of the world, who dared to speak openly in
the Vatican Council of 1870 against the doctrine of papal infallibility
and remain within the Church, gave to his people the prophetic message
that nationality transcended creeds. Here also another Catholic priest
taught the oneness of Servians and Croatians in language and history,
and proved by scholarly research which is universally admired, that
Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia formed a triune kingdom, whose juridic
union with the Austro-Hungarian Empire was wholly personal connection
with the Hapsburg Crown, and had never been subjection to the Magyar.
The Hungarians, during the past few years of bitterest persecution at
Agram, have not been able to drive away the ghosts of Strossmayer and
Racki. In Croatia, the pen has proved mightier than the sword.
Until recently, Austria-Hungary has not felt uneasy about the
relationship between the Croatians and the Servians of the independent
kingdom. But there has never been a minute since the annexation of
1908 that the statesmen of the Ballplatz have not been nervous about
the Servian propaganda in Bosnia and Herzegovina. To keep Catholic
Croatians and Orthodox Servians in {149} antagonism with each other and
with the Moslems, to prevent the education and economic emancipation of
the Orthodox peasants, and to introduce German colonists and German
industrial enterprises everywhere, has been the Austro-Hungarian
program.
Vienna has used the Catholic Church and the propaganda of Catholic
missions for dividing the Orthodox Servians in Bosnia from their
Croatian brothers of the Catholic rite. Missionaries give every
encouragement to Servians to desert the Orthodox Church. In the
greater part of Bosnia, the Government has made it absolutely
impossible for a child to receive an education elsewhere than in the
Catholic schools. There are only two hundred and sixty-eight schools
supported by the Government, of which one-tenth are placed in such a
way that they serve exclusively other populations. The Bosnian budget
provides four times as much money for the maintenance of the
_gendarmerie_ as for public schools.
Moslem law provides that all conquered land belongs to the Khalif. He
farms it out in annual, life, or hereditary grants. In the Ottoman
conquest of the Balkan Peninsula, the territories acquired were granted
to successful soldiers on a basis which provided for a feudal army.
The feudal proprietors, or _beys_, left the land to the peasants who
occupied it, in consideration of an annual rental of a third of the
yield of the land. The peasants had in addition to pay their tenth to
the tax collectors of the Sultan. In territories that were on the
borders of the Ottoman {150} Empire, like Bosnia and Albania, the lands
were largely retained by their former proprietors, who became Moslems.
So the landed aristocracy remained indigenous.
The lot of the peasants in Bosnia, who were largely Orthodox Servians
was not intolerable under Turkish rule, except when Moslem fanaticism
was aroused by Christian separatist propaganda. Austria-Hungary
claimed, however, that her occupation of the province was a measure
dictated by humanity to ameliorate the lot of the enslaved Christians.
But the Austrian administration has accomplished just the opposite.
The new government from the beginning supported its authority upon the
Moslem landowners, upon whose good-will they were dependent to prevent
the awakening of national feeling among the peasants. Vienna was more
complacent in overlooking abuses of the _beys_ than had been
Constantinople. For the Turks held their _beys_ in check when
exactions grew too bad. The Sublime Porte was afraid of giving an
excuse for Christian intervention. But the Austrians encouraged the
exactions of the _beys_ in order to keep in abject subjection the
Servian peasant population.
From the first moment of the Austro-Hungarian occupation, the peasants
found that they would no longer enjoy undisturbed possession of their
lands. The exodus of Mohammedan Bosnians, who, as we have seen
elsewhere, were urged to follow the Ottoman flag, gave the Germans the
opportunity of settling colonists on the vacated lands. This process
{151} of colonization was afterwards pursued to the detriment of the
indigenous Christian population. Ernest Haeckel, the great
philosopher, once said in a lecture at Jena that "the work of the
German people to assure and develop civilization gives it the right to
occupy the Balkans, Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia, and to exclude
from these countries the races actually occupying them which are
powerless and incapable." This statement, publicly made before a body
of distinguished German thinkers, reveals the real ulterior ideal of
the _Drang nach Osten_. Professor Wirth, dealing specifically with
present possibilities, stated that the policy of Austria-Hungary in
Bosnia must be to keep the peasantry in slavery and, as much as
possible, to encourage them by oppression to emigrate. The reason
given for this was: "_To render powerful the Bosnian peasant is to
render powerful the Servian people, which would be the suicide of
Germany._" Can we not see from this how public sentiment in Germany
has stood behind the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Servia?
From 1890 to 1914, the theory of Haeckel and the advice of Wirth have
been followed by the Austrian functionaries in Bosnia. No stone has
been left unturned to drive the peasants from their lands. Right of
inheritance has been suppressed, a tax collector has been introduced
between the bey and his peasants, the taxes have been raised in many
cases arbitrarily to the point where the peasants have been compelled
to abandon their land. To German immigrants have been given {152}
communal lands which were necessary to the peasants for pasturage and
the forests where their swine fed on acorns.
The population of Bosnia hardly surpasses thirty-five inhabitants to
the kilometre. The total population is about two millions, of whom
eight hundred thousand are Orthodox, six hundred thousand Moslem, and
five hundred thousand Catholic. But practically all of this
population--except one hundred thousand who are Jews, Protestants, and
other German immigrants--is Servian or Servian-speaking. There are
thirty-five thousand Germans, as opposed to one million eight hundred
thousand Slavs. And yet German is the language of the administration,
and the only language of the railways and posts and telegraphs, which
in Bosnia have not ceased to be under the control of the military
government. Many functionaries after thirty years of service in Bosnia
do not know the language of the country. Two German newspapers are
supported at the expense of the public budget to attack indigenous
elements. In German schools, pupils are taught the history of Germany,
but in Slavic schools the history of the south Slavs is excluded from
the curriculum. There are fourteen schools for ten thousand Germans,
and one school for every six thousand Slavs.
In the administration of Bosnia, only thirty-one out of three hundred
and twenty-two functionaries are Servians, only twelve out of one
hundred and twenty-five professors of lyceums, only thirty-one out of
two hundred and thirty-seven judges and {153} magistrates. And yet the
Orthodox Servians form forty-four per cent. of the population. The
young Bosnians who have graduated from the Austro-Hungarian
universities find themselves excluded from public life. Turning to
commercial life, they find eighty per cent. of the large industries
controlled by German capital and managed exclusively by Germans.
Turning to agriculture, they find economic misery and hopeless
ignorance among the peasants of their race, and every effort made by
the Government to prevent the bettering of their lot. Turning to
journalism and public speaking to work for their race, they find an
unreasoning censorship and a law against assemblies. As one of them
expressed it to me, "We must either cease to be Slavs or become
revolutionaries."
Did Austria-Hungary need to look to Servian propaganda, to influences
_from the outside_, to find the cause of the assassination of Franz
Ferdinand? Political assassinations were not new in the south Slavic
provinces of the monarchy. A young Bosnian student attempted to
assassinate the Governor of Bosnia at Sarajevo on June 6, 1910, at the
time of the inauguration of the Bosnian _Sabor_ (Diet). Two years
later the royal commissioner in Croatia was the object of an attempt at
assassination by a Bosnian at Agram. In September of the same year, a
Croatian student shot at the Ban of Croatia. The same Ban, Skerletz,
was attacked again at Agram by another young Croatian on August 18,
1913. These assassinations preceded those of the Archduke and his
wife. They {154} were all committed by students of Austro-Hungarian
nationality. Only the last one had ever been in Servia.
In theory, Bosnia has had since February 20, 1910, a constitution with
a deliberative assembly. But the _Sabor_ can discuss no projects of
law that have not been proposed by the two masters. Once voted, a law
has to pass the double veto of Vienna and Buda-Pesth. As if this were
not enough, the Viennese bureaucracy has so arranged the qualification
of the electorate and the electoral laws that the suffrage does not
represent the country. Then, too, the constitution decides arbitrarily
that the membership of the _Sabor_ must be divided according to
religions, one Jew, sixteen Catholics, twenty-four Moslems, and
thirty-one Orthodox. The Government has reserved for itself the right
of naming twenty members! The constitution provides for individual
liberty, the inviolability of one's home, liberty of the press and
speech, and secrecy of letters and telegrams. This enlightened measure
of the Emperor was heralded to the world. But of course there was the
joker, Article 20. Vienna held the highest card! In case of menace to
the public safety, all public and private rights may be suspended by a
word from Vienna. Public safety always being menaced in Bosnia, the
constitution is perpetually suspended. The Government even goes as far
as to prosecute deputies for their speeches in Parliament. Newspapers
are continually censored. Their telegraphic news from Vienna and
Buda-Pesth is suppressed without reason. Particularly severe {155}
fines--sometimes jail sentences--are passed upon offending journalists.
Is it necessarily because of instigation and propaganda from Belgrade
that of the three Servian political parties in Bosnia two (the _Narod_
and the _Otachbina_) are closely allied to the Pan-Servian Society
_Narodna Obrana_, and that these two parties openly support the
separatist movement?
In Bosnia, Dalmatia, and Croatia in 1914 the bureaucracy of Vienna has
been engaged in the same process of repression and police persecution
as in Italy during the half century from 1815 to the liberation of
Italy. The local constitutions have been suspended everywhere. Why
have the Austrians, in spite of the lessons of the beginning of the
present reign, dared to tempt providence in exactly the same way after
the Golden Jubilee?
The victories of the Allies in the Balkans were a terrible blow to
Austria-Hungary. Not only was her dream of reaching the Ægean Sea
through the _sandjak_ of Novi Bazar and Macedonia shattered by the
Greek occupation of Salonika, but the aggrandizement of Servia, caused
by a successful war, threatened to have a serious effect upon the
fortunes of the Empire. The appearance of the Servians on the Adriatic
would mean really the extension of Russian influence through Bulgaria
and Servia to the Austrian and Italian private lake, and would cut off
Austria for ever from her economic outlet to the Ægean. But there
{156} was more than this to cause alarm both in Austria and in Hungary.
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Dalmatia--would they remain loyal to
the Empire, if once they came under the spell of the idea of Greater
Servia? Leaving Russia entirely out of the calculation, an
independent, self-reliant, and enlarged Servia, extending towards the
Adriatic and Ægean Seas, if not actually reaching it,--would it not be,
as Professor Wirth declared, "the suicide of Germany"? The statesmen
of the Hohenzollern and Hapsburg Empires determined that it should not
occur.
From the very moment that the Servian armies drove the Turks before
them, Austria-Hungary began to act the bully against Servia. The
Austrian consuls at Prisrend and Mitrovitza were made the first cause
of Austrian interference. It was pretended that Herr Prochaska had
been massacred and mutilated at Prisrend, and that the life of Herr
Táhy had been threatened so that he was forced to flee for safety from
Mitrovitza. A formal inquest showed that the first of these consuls
was safe, and that the trouble had been merely a discussion between
Servian officers and Herr Prochaska over some fleeing Albanians who had
taken refuge in the consulate, in the other case, there seemed to be no
ground at all for complaint. But on January 15, 1913, the Servians
acceded to the demand of Austria that the reparation be granted for the
Prisrend incident. A company of Servian soldiers saluted the
Austro-Hungarian flag as Consul Prochaska {157} solemnly raised it.
This incident seems too petty to mention, but in that part of the world
and at that moment we thought it very serious. For it showed how
anxious Austria-Hungary was to pick a quarrel with Servia in the midst
of the Balkan War.
Two other incidents of an even more serious character immediately
followed. Servia refused the Austrian demand that Durazzo be
evacuated, supporting herself upon the hope that Russia would
intervene. During December and January, deluded by unofficial
representatives of Russian public sentiment and by demonstrations
against Austria-Hungary in Moscow and Petrograd, Servia held out. It
was only when she saw that Russian support was not forthcoming that she
withdrew from Durazzo. The international situation during January,
1913, was similar to that during July, 1914, and the cause of the
crisis was practically the same. In both cases Servia backed down, but
the second time Austria-Hungary and Germany determined to provoke the
war which they believed would be the end of Servia and the destruction
of Russia's power to influence the political evolution of Balkan
Peninsula.
After Durazzo, it was Scutari. Servia for the third time bowed before
the will of Austria.
The next move against Servia was the annexation on May 12, 1913, of the
little island of Ada-Kaleh on the Danube, which had curiously enough
remained Turkish property after the Treaty of Berlin. It had actually
been forgotten at that time. {158} This island, situated in front of
Orsova, would have given Servia a splendid strategic position at the
mouth of the river. Austria-Hungary anticipated the Treaty of London.
It was to reduce Servia that secret encouragement was given to Bulgaria
to provoke the second Balkan war. There is no doubt now as to the rôle
of the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Sofia in allowing this crisis to be
precipitated.
Had Germany been willing to stand behind her at Bukarest,
Austria-Hungary would have prevented the signing of the treaty between
the Balkan States by presenting an ultimatum to Servia. But Germany
did not seem to be ready. The reason commonly given that Emperor
William did not want to embarrass King Carol of Rumania, a prince of
his own house, and his brother-in-law, the King of Greece, does not
seem credible. In view of the events that have happened since, the
signing of the Treaty of Bukarest is a mystery not yet cleared up.
The second Balkan war acted as a boomerang to Austria-Hungary. It
increased tremendously the prestige of Servia abroad, and the
confidence of the Servians in themselves. The weakness of the Turkish
armies in the first Balkan war had been so great that Servia herself
hardly considered it a fair test of her military strength. To have
measured arms successfully with Bulgaria was worth as much to Servia as
the territory that she gained.
We have seen how strained were the relationships of Austria-Hungary as
separate kingdoms and {159} together as an empire in their relationship
with their south Slavic subjects. The Croatians, the Dalmatians, and a
major portion of the inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina were Servian in
language and sympathies. They had never thought of political union
with Servia, the petty kingdom which had allowed its rulers to be
assassinated, and which seemed to be insignificant in comparison with
the powerful and brilliant country of which they would not have been
unwilling, if allowed real self-government, to remain a part. But a
large and glorified Servia, with an increased territory and a
well-earned and brilliant military reputation--would this prove an
attraction to win away the dissatisfied subjects of the Dual Monarchy?
Austria-Hungary by the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina had taken to
herself more Servians in a compact mass than she could well assimilate.
They were not scattered and separated geographically like her other
Slavic subjects. It was a danger from the beginning. After the Balkan
wars, it became an imminent peril.
The death sentence of Servia was decided by the statesmen of
Austria-Hungary and Germany the moment their newspapers brought to them
the story of the battle of Kumonova.
I shall never forget my presentiment when I heard on June 29, 1914,
down in a little Breton village, that a Bosnian student had celebrated
the anniversary of the battle of Kossova by assassinating the Archduke
Franz Ferdinand. The incident for which Austria was waiting had
happened. There {160} came back to me the words of Hakki Pasha, "If
Italy declares war on Turkey, the cannon will not cease to speak until
all Europe is in conflagration."
NOTE.--As a commentary on Austrian rule in Bosnia, particularly in
connection with the statistics on pages 152-153 of this chapter,
consider von Kállay who, as Governor of Bosnia-Herzegovina, fought so
bitterly the rise of national feeling among the Servians through the
teaching in their schools. This same von Kállay, in his earlier days,
wrote a scholarly history of Servia, which I have had occasion to use.
It is admirably written and accurate in detail. As a research scholar,
von Kállay believed that Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats were _the same
race_, and supported this thesis; but, as an Austrian official, he
disclaimed such dangerous teaching by placing the ban upon his own
book, which he forbade to be introduced into the provinces of which he
was governor!
{161}