Dissolution of the Empire
In the summer of 1918 the tide of war turned decisively against the Central Powers. Although the leadership of the national minorities in the Empire had remained loyal to the Habsburgs throughout the war, worsening fortunes forced them to reconsider their options. As it became apparent that the Allies would win it became politically expedient to renounce ties to the old state and embrace the nationalist ideology of the victorious powers. On top of that, the Empire was no longer able to provide an incentive for the nationalities to work together. Other groups also lost faith in the Empire. Prosperity had disappeared, disillusioning business interests, socialists were upset by the loss of the liberal policies that had characterised the pre-war Cisleithanian government. Under those conditions it was easy for radical nationalists to rally support to their cause, and a rash of declarations of independence followed in September-October 1918. The war officially concluded for Austria-Hungary when it entered an armistice with the Allies on November 3, 1918.
The end of the war marked the end of Austria-Hungary. It became politically expedient for the allied victors to break up the empire into various national components in accordance with Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. It is important to note that the break up of the empire was by no means a war aim of the allied powers, and that the idea was only seriously entertained toward the end of the war. Contrary to expectations at the time, the break up of the empire did not alleviate national problems in the area, and made the area more politically unstable than it had been under Habsburg rule.
The Czechs first proclaimed independence on October 28. Hungary followed shortly thereafter, although Transylvania's majority joined Romania, taking with them a large Hungarian minority. The south Slavs formed the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, soon united with Serbia and Montenegro as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
After the war the victors reorganized the borders in the area, radically changing the political alignments in the area. Different treaties affected the area including the Treaty of Trianon.
Both Austria and Hungary became republics, exiling the Habsburg family in perpetuity. A pro-monarchist revival in Hungary after the communist revolution and Romanian intervention of 1919 led to the country's formal reversion to a kingdom (March 1920), but with the throne vacant. Attempts by the last Emperor, Charles I, to regain power in Budapest (March, October 1921) ended in his deportation to Madeira, where he died the following year. In the absence of a king, Hungary fell under the control of a regency, headed by the naval hero Miklós Horthy.
New Countries Created in part or in full out of the former Habsburg Lands:
Former Austro-Hungarian Territories given to:
Historiography
Historical views of Austria-Hungary have varied throughout the 20th century:
Historians in the early part of the century tended to be emotionally and personally involved with the issues surrounding Austria-Hungary; nationalist historians tended view the Habsburg polity as despotic and obsolete. Other scholars, usually associated with the old government, were apologists for the traditional leadership and tried to explain their policies.
• A couple of major writers from the early period who remain influential are: Oskar Jászi and Josef Redlich.
Subsequent experience of the region's inter-war "Balkanization", Nazi occupation, and then Soviet domination, led to a more sympathetic interpretation of the Empire based primarily in a large exile community in the United States. Meanwhile, Marxist historians still tended to judge the Empire in a negative way.
• Major scholars of this period include: C. A Macartney, Robert A. Kann and Arthur J. May.
One controversy among historians remains whether the Empire's collapse was the inevitable result of a decades-long decline or whether it would have survived in some form in the absence of military defeat in World War I.
• Alan Sked has advanced the view that, "to speak of decline and fall with regard to the Monarchy is simply misleading: it fell because it lost a major war." (The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire 1815-1918)
• David F. Good is another proponent of this view.
• Others such as Soloman Wank remain skeptical.
See also
External links
