When the Austro-Hungarian monarchy collapsed in 1918, no one imagined that someday the old Hapsburg dynasty would be able to revive its historic mission of being a protector of its own people and once again, in a sense, become “beloved.” But exactly that happened in the early 1990s when the former Hapsburg states were in the process of erasing any association with communism and “refreshing” collective memory in order to reclaim their lost status as western countries and win recognition as independent sovereign nation-states. It neither mattered whether these states broke up with the monarchy on good or bad terms nor whether they despised it while being part of it. Of course, some states evoked it more than others, and some even did not attempt to do so nor wanted to. But with a dynamic and influential member of European Parliament Otto von Hapsburg, who happened to be the son of the last Austro-Hungarian monarch and heir to the throne, ready to continue the ancestral tradition of being a protector of his own people and lands—now-former though—it was not hard to attract his attention and secure his help in the process of reintegration into a world guided by liberal and democratic principles. As Wall Street Journal reporter Roger Thurow wrote at the time, “Behind his white walrus mustache, Emperor Franz Joseph I of the House of Habsburg must be smiling.”[i]

Otto von Hapsburg was born on November 20, 1912, during the reign of his father’s great-uncle and one of the most influential Hapsburg rulers Franz Joseph I. Although he would never have a chance to rule over vast Hapsburg territories given that the monarchy collapsed just two years after his father was crowned, Otto von Hapsburg had a considerable influence in European royal and political cycles. He served as a President of Pan-European Union, the oldest organization advocating for the unification of Europe, strongly opposed Hitler and Austrian annexation to Germany, Anschluss, which forced him to leave European continent from 1940-1944, and, as already mentioned, served in the European Parliament for two decades advocating for the collapse of the Iron curtain and unification of Europe. He even joined the protestors on the ground as one of the organizers of a Pan-European peace protest on the Austro-Hungarian border, calling for an end of the communist rule and reintegration of the Eastern bloc to Europe.

Otto von Hapsburg with his parents following coronation in Budapest in 1916. Wikimedia Commons

Otto von Hapsburg’s approach to politics, however, might have been seen as unconventional and slightly controversial in the sense of global politics. Just imagine being a Western politician and hearing that at the end of the world war “serious mistakes were made which created a situation which could never lead to permanent satisfaction,” as von Hapsburg stated about the Potsdam convention in 1996.[ii] Or, just hearing him questioning the leading prosecutor for International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, as Croatian newspaper reported, and stating that he strongly opposed the way she led the prosecution—the view that was predominantly shared in Croatia.[iii] Or, questioning why some European states were invited to talks for potential membership in the European Union and others did not.[iv] But precisely these perspectives made him appealing and charming to the smaller states looking to reinvent themselves. He did not behave like a politician concerned with the macro picture of the world nor specific Western interests, as many of his colleagues in the Parliament probably did. He acted as someone concerned with the interests and image of his own state. But, in contrast to other political leaders, von Hapsburg did not have a state to represent. He only had a cultural and political legacy left from the state his ancestors ruled over.

But it seems that Otto Hapsburg was not interested in reclaiming the throne per se (indeed, he did not officially give up his claim to the Hapsburg throne until 1961.[v] But he was also neither interested in uniting former territories into new monarchy nor some type of commonwealth). Instead, he was looking to “modernize” the dynasty, adjust it to the demands of the new time—something his predecessors failed to do in the nineteenth and early twentieth century—and thus avoiding further decay of their family status and power. Otto Hapsburg’s approach was, on the one hand, a reset button for this old European family and, on the other, smart strategic move. As other former monarchs were lumping around and hoping to regain their power, titles, and properties back, Otto used his charisma, legacy of his family, and influence he built while in the “exile” to gradually win over people’s hearts and minds and return the status, and especially dignity, back to the dynasty. And, he succeeded in that. In that sense, the old saying, Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube (“Let others wage wars; thou, happy Austria, marry”) was ironically true during the Cold war. The Hapsburgs again found a special way to acquire what they wanted. They once again proved that there is no Europe, and especially united Europe, without the Hapsburg dynasty.

The next blog post will build on this argument and look at how did Croatian press, and the public as well, see Otto von Hapsburg and his support, or rather approach, in their process of national “reinvention” in the 1990s and present day.

[i] Roger Thurow, “The King Is Dead! Long Live… Otto, Mr. von Habsburg — The Emperor’s Heir Picks Up Where Dynasty Left Off: Westernizing the Realm,” Wall Street Journal, March 1992, Nexis Uni

[ii] “Otto von Hapsburg Rejects Potsdam,” Czechs News Agency, May 25, 1996, Nexis Uni

[iii] “Otto von Hapsburg:’ Hrvati us vrlo civiizirani narod,'” VOA, April 16, 2005, https://ba.voanews.com/a/a-37-2005-04-16-voa15-86095272/1166385.html

[iv] “Otto von Habsburg je sebe smatrao Hrvatom, a Hrvatsku svojom domovinom,” DW.com, July 4, 2011. https://www.dw.com/hr/otto-von-habsburg-je-sebe-smatrao-hrvatom-a-hrvatsku-svojom-domovinom/a-15208697

[v] Nicholas Kulish, “Otto von Hapsburg, a Would-Be Monarch, Is Dead at 98,” The New York Times, July 5, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/world/europe/05hapsburg.html

Introduction

One of the more interesting forms of memory of the Hapsburg past, one can find in Croatia. This small European state, to borrow Benedict Anderson’s words, started to “reimagine” itself in the 1990s and reclaim its western European heritage lost following admission, first, into the South Slav Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and then authoritarian socialist state in the aftermath of the World War II. Not surprising, given that many of Eastern European states, formerly part of the Soviet sphere of influence, started to fabricate their own past and utilize nationalism as a tool of not only awakening national consciousness necessary to delegitimize communist rule but also desire to purify their nations and bring them home—to Europe, to West—where they believed they truly, and historical, belonged. In Croatia—and Slovenia as well— the Hapsburg monarchy became a prime tool in this process.

Nikola Subic Zrinski Square, Zagreb, Croatia-Slavonia, Austro-Hungary, circa 1905. Wikimedia Commons

First, the Hapsburg heritage was a natural counterargument to fight aggressive Serbian nationalism and expansionistic policies when there was no major difference in linguistics, often prime determinator of nationality. In other words, the monarchy helped to narrow down the 1990s bloody divorce to binary terms—they vs. us, west vs. east, and civilized vs. uncivilized—and, in a sense, announce to the world that Croatia should never have been put under one South Slav roof in the first place. Second, it provided an opportunity to dismiss the Yugoslav wars as civil war and solely European problem, as many in the West initially characterized this conflict—famously foreign minister of Luxembourg lamented in the early 1990s that “the hour of Europe has dawned.” With the Hapsburg Empire, successor and protector of the Western Roman Empire, and a long Croatian tradition of upholding and protecting Western and Christian values while part of this vast empire—Pope Leo X characterized Croatia as Antemurale Christianitatis [“the bulwark of Christianity”] for their ability to save Europe from the Turkish invasion —the Serbian aggression thus threatened not only existence of Croatia but also western ideals. Third, invoking loyalty to the monarchy, had strategic importance regarding securing much-needed support from the Hapsburg dynasty whose patriarch and son of the last Austro-Hungarian monarch, Otto von Hapsburg, was a powerful member of the European parliament from Germany and who, among other former European rulers, was looking for a way how to profit from the events of late 1980s and early 1990s. But, most importantly, without some hochkultur that was appealing to everyone, Croatian leadership would have a hard time uniting the people and removing remnants of the communist era. As Vladimir Tismaneanu wrote in his work Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism, and Myth in Post-Communist Europe, “A political myth is needed around which the afflicted society or groups that have been displaced or uprooted by the stormy changes can identify themselves, can gather and attempt to restore their collective life.” And, exactly, the Hapsburg monarchy, with its intriguing cultural tradition, gentlemanly manners, and continuing legacy, was a perfect choice.

Otto von Hapsburg, Archduke of Austria and heir to the Austrian throne. Wikimedia Commons

One has to recognize, however, that the strong political stance toward the Hapsburg past during the 1990s in Croatia was neither absolute nor should be seen as a rebuttal of Wilsonian idea of “self-determination,” which was a guiding principle of a new world order following the World War I, and the Paris Peace Conference that officially removed the monarchy from the political map of Europe. Instead, it was just a tool in the toolbox called nationalism.

Often this strong affection for the Hapsburg past was contradicted with always present rhetoric in political speeches and newspaper headlines that would go like “after nine hundred years of” oppressions, servitude, or foreign rule, followed by “Croatia is free,” “independent,” or something like that. Ironically, these expressions also characterized the time during the Hapsburg rule, as tyranny and, in a way, equated with the time in both First and Second Yugoslavia. But it did not matter. No one really asked themselves why alluding to one regime where, certainly, liberties and rights were not protected to the extent of our own, American standards, or the ones the conflict in the 1990s was fought for, was championed but the other one was flatly rejected. And if someone wondered, there was a plethora of evidence starting with terms of Croatian-Hungarian union in the twelfth-century to Pragmatic sanction of 1712 and existence of Croatian symbols of power such as parliament, governor, and status of certain towns as “free and royal” cities, that the politicians utilized to claim that the quasi­ sovereignty, something that the communist, and in particular Serbs, in Yugoslavia took away, existed in the monarchy. It was a choice of two evils. The monarchy was a lesser one, and, as we have already seen, necessary to achieve certain political goals.

In the next article, we are going to build on this post and look at what role did the Hapsburg dynasty play during the developments in the 1990s and how did the Croatian political elites utilize it. Following that will look at museum exhibits, public monuments, and brochures and travelogues for tourists. And, then we’ll get back to the question of nationalism and look at specific policies which ultimately will lead us to the answer on my research question: In what way(s) might the old, often forgotten, multi-national Hapsburg Empire still is politically and economically influential/important?  In what ways might current thinking on socio-cultural topics in Croatia be affected by historical narratives of the Hapsburg Empire?

Every year, on January 1, millions of Central European residents religiously turn on their TVs to watch a live concert from Vienna’s Musikverein and hear works by the Strauss family and other Austro-Hungarian composers. Besides seeing a majestic concert hall decorated with statues and frescoes depicting musical legends, the Austrian National Television (ORF) deliberately takes a viewer on a journey through streets of Vienna, countryside, and beautiful Viennese palaces. The concert program, which slightly changes from year to year, echoes, or rather, in musical terms, serves as a crescendo to this visual image of the Austro-Hungarian imperial past. But, most importantly, the two pieces, traditionally played at the end of the concert—the unofficial anthem of city of Vienna, by Johann Strauss, Jr., “An der Schonen Blauen Donau,” and Radetzky March, which immortalizes Field Marshall Radetzky who crashed Italian uprising at the Battle of Custoza (1848)— serve as a reminder of both cultural and political glory of Austria and evoke a nostalgia for the “Golden Age,” to borrow Stefan Zweig words.

However, it would be a mistake to argue that this one day is a single moment when images of the Hapsburg past reemerge in Central European minds. The legacy of this famous—and often forgotten empire—plays an active role in the everyday lives of millions and millions of people residing in former Hapsburg lands. From magnificent Gründerzeit architecture on every corner to coffee houses, Julius Meinl roastery, or chocolaterie and grosskonditorei “Aida” with apple strudel, cremschnitte, and Sacher-torte in a display window, remind people of Austro-Hungarian way of life characterized by hochkultur and gentlemanly manners. Similarly, the old Austrian Civil Code of 1811 [Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch], together with many other statutes, predominately concerning education, still in force in many former Habsburg realms, send a message of cooperation, loyalty to one another, and superiority of old Austrian institutions. And then there is strong Viennese economic muscle present. The Austrian Raiffeisen Bank, Erste Bank, and Addiko Bank, as well as retail stores and supermarket chains such as Baumax, Kastner und Oehler, Billa, and Spar, dominate markets from the Czech Republic to Croatia.

Grunderzeit architecture, Ringstrasse, Vienna. Wikimedia Commons.

With that said, it is extremely hard to “miss” the Hapsburgs. Ironically, the empire that collapsed so many years ago still breaths. But, this time, not as a political, or rather a sovereign, creature as it did before a fateful day in November 1918; instead, it lives, and probably will continue to live for generations to come, as Marcel Proust’s madeleine cookie, evoking public and personal images and interpretations of the past.