Separatism in Austria and Hungary before the start of World War I?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

I suspect you are making things up as you go along.

If the Hungarian census of 1910 states that a majority of the population of Transilvania were Romanian speakers, this is pretty strong evidence that this was the case. Indeed, if the Hungarian census is to be considered suspect, it is more likely that this was an underestimate of the Romanian population, not an overestimate.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Gooner1]

However, this misses the point that there were rather fewer people living under foreign rule after the break-up of Austria-Hungary than before. The big difference was it was often the former masters, Austrians and Hungarians, who now found part of their population cut off as minorities in neighbouring states.

Hi Sid, I think it probably unfair to describe the situation in terms of foreign and of masters when the Habsburgs had been rulers for hundreds of years and where there was universal male suffrage - in Cisleithania at least. The German settlements in the predominantly Slav and Romanian areas had preceded Habsburg rule by centuries.

In writing, "Yet several multi-national states remain and thrive to this day", which states do you mean? India?
Sid.

Closer to home, there is the United Kingdom, Belgium and Switzerland. The European Union is on the path..

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Gooner,

I suspect there is a reason why it was called the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and not the Austro-Hungaro-Czecho-Ukraino-Slovako-Italiano-Sloveno-Croato-Bosniano-Romanian Empire. That reason being that the Austrians and Hungarians were the bosses.

I thought the Saxon settlements in Transilvania were set up by the Hapsburgs as frontier garrisons, rather than preceding the Hapsburgs.

Chers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

I suspect you are making things up as you go along.

If the Hungarian census of 1910 states that a majority of the population of Transilvania were Romanian speakers, this is pretty strong evidence that this was the case. Indeed, if the Hungarian census is to be considered suspect, it is more likely that this was an underestimate of the Romanian population, not an overestimate.

Cheers,

Sid.

Romanian speakers is not the same as Romanian population .:in 1910 most people in Ireland spoke English, but most did not consider themselves as British;it was the same in the Alsace;it is the same in Quebeck; and 100 years ago there were people in the north of France who spoke Flemish but considered themselves as French . The aim of a census is not to count nationalities .

The only thing we know is that in 1910 53.8 % of the population of Transsylvania declared to have as primary used language Romanian and that Romanian nationalists used this to demand the annexation of Transsylvania .There is no proof at all that these 53,8 % considerd themselves as Romanians and wanted the annexation .


Primary used language is not the same as native language and even if it was, it is not defining nationality .


If these 53,8 % were asked : do you consider yourself as Romanian or Hungarian , the result would have been different .

That's why I spoke of a Romanian minority .

[Gooner1]

Hi Gooner,
I suspect there is a reason why it was called the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and not the Austro-Hungaro-Czecho-Ukraino-Slovako-Italiano-Sloveno-Croato-Bosniano-Romanian Empire. That reason being that the Austrians and Hungarians were the bosses.

Austria then wasn't a nation. I don't know how much it was considered synonymous with German speakers. But everyone was equal under the law, and free to learn and practice their own language.

I thought the Saxon settlements in Transilvania were set up by the Hapsburgs as frontier garrisons, rather than preceding the Hapsburgs.

Chers,

Sid.

From the 12th Century onwards I believe.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Gooner,

Everyone wasn't "equal under the law, and free to learn and practice their own language".

For a start, higher education was entirely in German or Hungarian. Government servants had to speak one of these languages as well. The only way to get on in the professions or state service was to speak one or other language. This was part of a deliberate policy of (in the Hungarian case) Magyarization. The growth of nationalism in the 19th Century had made the Hungarians sensitive to the fact that they were in a minority in much of their territory. Their solution was to "Magyarize" the non-Magyar populations.

You are right, the Saxon German settlements began before the Hapsburgs, under Hungary. However, the same principle applies - they were foreign implants designed to defend a then independent Hungary's southern borders.

Cheers,

Sid

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "If these 53,8 % were asked : do you consider yourself as Romanian or Hungarian, the result would have been different."

Leaving aside that their freely choosing to declare Romanian as their mother tongue was Romanian, which is a major signifier of national identification, on what do you base this proposition?

Your Irish example works the other way you intend it to. The Romanians in Hungary are analagous to the Irish in 1910. Your example actually implies that there may have been significant numbers of people speaking Hungarian who actually identified as Romanian, not the other way around!

So, a Romanian minority in pre-WWI Hungary - Yes. However, in Transilvania there was a clear Romanian majority, even by Hungarian census returns.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,


Leaving aside that their freely choosing to declare Romanian as their mother tongue was Romanian, which is a major signifier of national identification, on what do you base this proposition?





Cheers,

Sid.

They did not chose to declare to be Romanian: this was not asked, the only thing that was asked was what was their primary language of usage, which is not the same as mother tongue .

Besides, this was not a major signifier of national identification in the multi- national AH . Even not in Hungary ,where 52 % of the population was counted as Hungarian, but no one knows how the other 48 % considered themselves .

Kafka was a Czech Jew who wrote in German and no one knows what was his national identification .

About the Irish : the language they were speaking did not indicate their national identification .A lot had abandoned Gaelic as language and spoke English, without considering themselves as British . But that does not mean the opposite : one can not say that those who spoke mainly Gaelic considered themselves as Irish, not as British . Today there are still people in Ulster who speak Gaelic, but do not consider themselves as Irish/ do not want to be incorporated to Ireland .

Why should some one living in Transsylvania ans speaking mainly Romanian consider himself as A Romanian ? And some one else who spoke mainly Hungarian (language of the establishment ) could consider himself as a Romanian .

[Gooner1]

Hi Gooner,

Everyone wasn't "equal under the law, and free to learn and practice their own language".

In Cisleithania, Article 19 of the Basic State Act of 1867 stated:

“All races of the empire have equal rights, and every race has an inviolable right to the preservation and use of its own nationality and language. The equality of all customary languages in school, office and public life, is recognized by the state. In those territories in which several races dwell, the public and educational institutions are to be so arranged that, without applying compulsion to learn a second country language, each of the races receives the necessary means of education in its own language.”
https://bostonlanguage.wordpress.com/20 ... al-empire/

For a start, higher education was entirely in German or Hungarian.

Probably in Vienna and Budapest respectively. Charles University in Prague was split into German and Czech colleges, officially in 1882. Presumably others elsewhere, such as Zagreb university, followed the Prague pattern (?)

Government servants had to speak one of these languages as well. The only way to get on in the professions or state service was to speak one or other language.

Should jolly well hope so as well!

This was part of a deliberate policy of (in the Hungarian case) Magyarization. The growth of nationalism in the 19th Century had made the Hungarians sensitive to the fact that they were in a minority in much of their territory. Their solution was to "Magyarize" the non-Magyar populations.

Also, Hungarian is a famously difficult language to learn.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Gooner,

Unfortunately, theory and practice were apparently rather different:

"The Hungarian Nationalities Law (1868) guaranteed that all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), whatever their nationality, constituted politically "a single nation, the indivisible, unitary Hungarian nation", and there could be no differentiation between them except in respect of the official usage of the current languages and then only insofar as necessitated by practical considerations. In spite of the law, the use of minority languages was banished almost entirely from administration and even justice. Defiance of, or appeals to, the Nationalities Law met with derision or abuse. The Hungarian language was over represented in the primary schools and almost all secondary education was in Hungarian."

You post regarding the fact that the only way to get on in the professions or state service was to speak either German or Hungarian, "Should jolly well hope so as well!"

So, you consider it right that any monoglot Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian, Pole, Croat, Slovene, Bosnian or Romanian should effectively be debarred from entering the professions or state service in Austria-Hungary?

So much for "The equality of all customary languages in school, office and public life...."!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You still haven't addressed my question:

You post, "If these 53,8 % were asked : do you consider yourself as Romanian or Hungarian, the result would have been different."

Leaving aside that their freely choosing to declare Romanian as their mother tongue was Romanian, which is a major signifier of national identification, on what do you base this proposition?

Cheers,

Sid.

[South]

Good morning Gooner 1,

The subjects living in Austria-Hungary were not all equal under the law from all perspectives.

For example, Sigmund Freud was born in Pressburg. His father got a 6 month (believe renewable) permit to live in Vienna. All subjects did not require this permit. I accept that "equality under the law" can have various interpretations. I'm transmitting from an area that was once part of the Confederacy during the American civil war and understand "various" aspects of "equality under the law".

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[South]

Good morning Ljadw,

Kafka was never identified as a Hakka Cantonese overseas Chinese.

There were procedures and protocols used to assign national identity.

Some political jurisdictions used "religion" as a national identity. Others did not.

On this side of the pond, different criteria, - for similar reasons -, were used. Reviewing Angel Island, San Francisco Bay and Ellis Island, New York (later declared in New Jersey waters) used specific criteria to make determinations as the US national authorities required.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Gooner1]

Good morning Gooner 1,

The subjects living in Austria-Hungary were not all equal under the law from all perspectives.

For example, Sigmund Freud was born in Pressburg. His father got a 6 month (believe renewable) permit to live in Vienna. All subjects did not require this permit. I accept that "equality under the law" can have various interpretations. I'm transmitting from an area that was once part of the Confederacy during the American civil war and understand "various" aspects of "equality under the law".

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Hi South,

Maybe that was pre-1867? The 1867 Fundamental Law Concerning the General Rights of Citizens is pretty clear:

Article 4. The freedom of passage of persons and property, within the territories of the state, shall be subject to no restrictions.
and
Article 6. Every citizen may dwell temporarily or establish his residence in any part of the territory of the state, acquire real property of any kind and freely dispose of the same, and may also engage in any form of business, under legal conditions.

The whole Fundamental Law is pretty decent for the time https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/1443

[South]

Good morning Gooner 1,

I believe you're correct and I am wrong here.

Pre-1867 there was discrimination among the various groups within Austria-Hungary. After 1867 there was the liberalization - traced to the Revolution(s) of 1848.

Freud was born in 1856. He graduated in 1881 from the University of Vienna so his father experienced discrimination but not the famous son, Sigmund.

Of course Vienna in this era was "modern".

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA