walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
You have read 1 out of 3 free articles this month. A quality publication is not cheap to produce.
Subscribe today and support The American Interest—only $2.99/month!
Already a subscriber? Log in to make this banner go away.
Published on: July 20, 2011
The Fading Shadow of the Habsburgs

For centuries the Habsburgs cast a gigantic shadow over a large part of Europe. Their empire ended cataclysmically in 1918. The shadow lingered for some decades after that, slowly fading under the blows of later cataclysms. Perhaps the time has now arrived when the shadow will disappear completely. Otto von Habsburg was the eldest son of Charles I, the last emperor of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Otto died on July 4, 2011, aged 98, in Poecking, Bavaria. If the monarchy had survived, he would have succeeded to the throne after his father. I read about his death in both The New York Times and The Boston Globe. The latter paper had picked up the news from the Associated Press, and I assume that other American newspaper carried it. I doubt whether many readers in this country, or for that matter in Europe, were moved by it. I was. It seemed to me like the silence that follows the very last note of a powerful piece of music which probably will never be played again. It is a silence that invites reflection.

Otto was only six years old when he accompanied his family into exile. He was not allowed to return to Austria, even for a visit, until he formally renounced all claims to the throne. He lived in different countries, including the United States during World War II, finally settling in Bavaria, whose conservative Christian Social Union he represented in the European Parliament. He was an educated man, with a doctoral degree from the University of Louvain, and by all accounts characterized by personal warmth. During the years that Austria was part of the Third Reich he was immersed in anti-Nazi activities, including efforts to save Jewish refugees from the Gestapo. The dwindling community of Habsburg loyalists looked on him as their legitimate emperor, but of course the prospect for a restoration of the monarchy became more and more remote. It flared up one final time in the early 1990s, as the Soviet empire collapsed across Central Europe. I happened to be in Budapest as the last Soviet troops were leaving Hungary, and I was struck by postcards showing entwined Austrian and Hungarian flags, flanking the portrait of the Empress Elizabeth, wife of Francis Joseph (the penultimate emperor)—she had loved the Hungarians and was much loved by them in return.

I have had an amateur interest in the history of the last fifty years or so of the Habsburg monarchy. No doubt there are biographical reasons for this. Not only was Vienna the city of my childhood, but my father, who had been a reserve officer in the Austro-Hungarian army, was one of those dwindling Habsburg loyalists (they called themselves “legitimists”). He was an intelligent man and had no illusions about the future chances of his riding in a parade on the Ringstrasse, once again wearing the splendid uniform of a first lieutenant in the 15th Imperial and Royal Hussar Regiment. But he often spoke to me about the monarchy having been an anchor of stability in Europe, and about its dissolution as a catastrophe that led to various tyrannies and to a war even more terrible than the one that ended with the dissolution. One can agree with him on this, without necessarily sharing his nostalgia or glossing over the very real failings of this regime.

There are two reasons why this period has fascinated me. First, it was the scene of an incredible explosion of cultural and intellectual creativity, in just about every field of human endeavor. I think that one explanation of this was the enormously stimulating tension between a modernizing urban society and a sclerotic ancien regime. The tension is perfectly symbolized by Vienna’s Michaelerplatz, across which one of the monumental baroque entrances to the Imperial Palace confronts the Loos House, a local embodiment of the Bauhaus school of modernist architecture. The second reason for my fascination is that this state, at least in its Austrian half, was haltingly advancing toward a truly multinational political entity. The emperor intended to be the fatherly protector of “all my peoples”, as he put it in his proclamations—not least of the Jews, who were among the most loyal of his subjects. There is a conventional view that this state was doomed by the conflicts between its various nationalities. I am skeptical about this. The conflicts were real enough. But one can easily imagine counterfactual  scenarios in which the conflicts are resolved—for instance, if the Slavophile Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was assassinated in 1914 (ironically by a pan-Slav nationalist), had succeeded to the throne. The Habsburg state was destroyed by the folly of its starting what became World War I, and by the folly of Wilsonian idealism which encouraged every separatist nationalism in the region.

For several years my friend and colleague Thomas Luckmann, another ex-Austrian, played a game. We imagined that, say in 1910, the government had asked us to design a plan to save the monarchy, especially to solve what was called the “nationalities problem”. We came up with some pretty good ideas. (We agreed of course that the monarchy was worth saving.) Too bad that we were not asked.

Of course I never experienced the Habsburg empire. (I am old, but not that old.) But I could recount a number of episodes when its shadow fell across my path. I will recount only one. It eloquently supports my father’s view of the catastrophe of 1918, and it explains why I am saddened by Otto’s death.

Early in 1989, just months before the collapse of the Soviet empire, the Empress Zita died in her nineties in a Catholic nursing home in Switzerland. She was the widow of Charles I and Otto’s mother. The Austrian republic could not hold a state funeral, but what occurred had all the trappings of one. A solemn funeral mass took place in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, celebrated by the Archbishop of Vienna. The prayers were read in all the languages of the monarchy—German, Hungarian, Czech, Croatian, and so on. Then the funeral procession made its way from the Stefansplatz to the nearby Capuchin monastery, in whose underground crypt, for many centuries, all Habsburg rulers had been deposited in sarcophagi—some ornate, some quite simple—and some lesser ones stacked away as in a warehouse. When the procession reached the monastery, it stopped before the gate, which was locked. Then took place an ancient ritual, which among other things proclaims a theological critique of the pretentions of power.

The marshal of the procession knocked on the door. The abbot, who waited behind it with all his monks, asked, “Who seeks entry?” The marshal responded by reciting the so-called long title. Traditionally there were three titles—after the long one a somewhat shorter one, then a very short one. The recitation of the long title took about ten minutes, naming every territory ever acquired by the Habsburgs (some by conquest, most by marriage, the Habsburgs’ favorite method of imperial expansion). It drew drew attention once again to this vast empire that reached from the eastern border of Switzerland to the western border of Russia, and which when it ended had fifty million subjects. When the recitation was over, the abbot said: “We do not know her. Who seeks entry?” In the 1989 enactment, the middle title was omitted. The marshal went on to the shortest title: “Empress of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Queen of Bohemia.” Again the abbot said: “We do not know her. Who seeks entry?”. Then the marshal said: “Zita, your sister, a poor sinner.” And the gate was opened.

I was not there. But I had obtained a video cassette from the ORF, the Austrian broadcasting corporation. As the long title was being recited, I waited for one particular title which I knew to be on the list. I wanted to see whether it would be named, or whether the ORF had decided to omit it. It was not omitted. With all her other titles, the last Habsburg empress was buried as “Duchess of Auschwitz”.

I have not done any research on this. At some time this duchy in what was to become Austrian Poland must have been acquired by the Habsburgs, most likely by way of a dynastic marriage. One might expect that some comment would be made. The ORF commentator was constantly saying things about each step of the ritual. He said nothing about this particular title. I could not have been the only viewer who was jarred by it. Had he not noticed? Or did he not know what to say? Or had he been instructed to say nothing?  I never found out.

Afterward I asked myself: If I had been in charge of the event, would I have left out this particular title?  I decided that I would not have left it out, if for a very simple reason: If the Habsburgs had still ruled in the 1940s, “Auschwitz” would not have happened.

show comments
  • Pingback: The death of the last Habsburg crown prince « Tempora Christiana()

  • Larry, San Francisco

    The fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a huge disaster. What is interesting was that few thought it would be. I think Robert Musil’s epic unfinished novel “The Man Without Qualities” is a fascinating look at that period and the sentiments of people who did not appreciate what they had.

  • John Barker

    The historian John Lukacs has written of the Habsburgs with ideas similar to this post. I wonder if Berger has ever reviewed any of Lukacs books on this topic. I would like to read more about how empires keep nationalities in check.

  • David Hoffman

    I don’t know why I’ve always had a sort of admiration for the Hapsburgs. Maybe because they preferred to acquire territory through marriage instead of war.
    If Austria-Hungary had managed to stay together,perhaps as a federation, Hitler wouldn’t have been able to make his first conquests, etc.

  • WigWag

    “There is a conventional view that this state was doomed by the conflicts between its various nationalities. I am skeptical about this. The conflicts were real enough. But one can easily imagine counterfactual scenarios in which the conflicts are resolved—for instance, if the Slavophile Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was assassinated in 1914 (ironically by a pan-Slav nationalist), had succeeded to the throne. The Habsburg state was destroyed by the folly of its starting what became World War I, and by the folly of Wilsonian idealism which encouraged every separatist nationalism in the region.” (Peter Berger)

    I think the most brilliant description ever written of the events leading up to the assassination of the archduke can be found in Rebecca West’s “Black Lamb Gray Falcon.” I am in love with this book and find myself re-reading the chapter on the the Franz Ferdinand murder quite often. I was always perplexed about how West could write about this event with such intense passion until an article about the book by Christopher Hitchens provided me with an answer. Hitchens pointed out that “when one scans these pages, one must continually bear in mind that for her, as for most educated English people of her generation, the events of 28 June 1914 were the moral and emotionaly equivalent of 11 September 2001, the terrible date on which everything suddenly changed for the worst.”

    Franz Ferdinand may have been a “Slavophile” but his love was not requited. While the Croats in particular appreciated the protection the Hapsburgs offered them from the Ottoman Turks, for the most part, Franz Ferdinand and his kinsmen were detested; even worse, the arch duke was considered by much of the Slavic world to be an officious moron(which he was.)

    Unsurprisngly West, who wrote “Black Lamb Gray Falcon” about two decades after the the conclusion of the Great War and only a few short years before the start of World War II had no great love for the Hapsburgs; nor did she think very much of the Austrians. Near the end of the second volume of her work she said, speaking of the Austrians,

    “The were witless and careless to a degree that can be judged by their tolerance of the Hapsburgs as their rulers, century after century. This family, from the unlucky day in 1273 when the College of Electors chose Rudolf of Hapsburg to be King of the Romans, on account of his mediocrity, till the abdication of Charles II, in 1918 produced no genius, only two rulers of ability in Charles V and Maria Theresa, countless dullards and not a few imbeciles and lunatics.”

    In his recent article about West, Hitchens seems to agree. He points out that Hitler was an Austrian and repeats the ditty that “Austria’s twin achievement was to have persuaded the world that Hitler was a German and Beethoven a Viennese.”

  • Wayne Lusvardi

    Dr. Berger’s ending comments is eerily timely about how the Habsburg Empire plausibly could have preempted Nazism.

    Anders Breivik, a Norwegian Nationalist member of the Masonic Order with a Postmodern-like hodge podge ideology opposed to “cultural Marxism,” mass murdered some 90 people, many innocent children at a Labor Party Youth Retreat in Norway after Berger’s column was posted

    Oddly, Breivki claims in a 1,500 page online book that he is a supporter of the “Vienna School of Thought.”

    Reuters News states that Breivik’s reference to Vienna concerns the halt of the Ottoman Turkish invasion in Vienna in 1683. Link:

    But as Berger presciently states: “If the Habsburgs had still ruled in the 1940s, “Auschwitz” would not have happened.”

    Breivik has used the same terrorist methods as the 1914 assassin of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that triggered Word War I. Perhaps, Breivik believed he could also foment a Nationalistic war?

    However, Berger points out that it was the folly of Wilsonian idealism that encouraged separatist Nationalism.

    Prof. Berger reminds us that the Habsburg’s are apparently still with us just as Wilsonian universalism and the Postmodern-Nationalistic reaction to it.

  • Wayne Lusvardi

    Dr. Berger’s above column “The Fading Shadow of the Habsburgs” on the end of the Habsburg dynasty and family is eerily timely.

    After Prof. Berger’s column was posted, Anders Breivik, a 32-year old Norwegian nationalist and a Freemason with a Postmodern hodge-podge ideology opposed to “cultural Marxism” and Muslim immigration, mass murdered some 90 Norwegians in Norway, mostly innocent children attending a Labor Party Summer Youth Camp. reported that in his 1,500 page online book, Breivik supported the “Vienna School of Thought” referring to the halt of the Ottoman Turkish invasion of Vienna in 1683. Link:

    Dr. Berger coincidentally points out that the Slavic supremicist Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in 1914 by a pan-Slavic Serbian nationalist, resulting in the start of World War I.

    Berger adds: “The Habsburg state was destroyed by the folly of its starting what became World War I, and by the folly of Wilsonian idealism which encouraged every separatist nationalism in the region.” And: “If the Habsburgs had still ruled in the 1940s, “Auschwitz” would not have happened.”

    Breivik apparently used the terrorist methods of the assassin of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand and an unrecognizable Neo-Nazi nationalistic Aryan ideology but the apparent impetus for his acts was opposition to the perceived folly of idealistic Neo-Wilsonianism of the Norwegian Labor Party.

    Perhaps the shadow of the Habsburgs is not fading but casting a mirrored image that foreshadows our time?

  • Tom AKT

    “Austrian Poland must have been acquired by the Habsburgs, most likely by way of a dynastic marriage”
    Instead of revisionist misty eye junk, why don’t you spend half a second looking up data? You don’t even need to trouble yourself by going to the library now days.
    1) the Habsburgs dismantled Poland out of existence in 1772, this was not friendly; and nothing very “Christian”, but rather the act of paranoid rulers. This is despite the fact that Poles saved Vienna from the Turks 89 years earlier. The ensuing so called “stability” was marked by repeated uprisings by Poles, trying to gain back independence. 2) Austrians on the whole, welcomed with opened arms the Nazis, and later confiscated Polish owned properties even before the second war started (and still will not give it back). Take a few seconds to look up your data before posting garbage.

  • Matt Scofield

    Good article, but Tom’s got 2 good points, one about doing some brief research, and two about the Poles always getting the shafted by the West. I have no Polish ancestry myself, but its clear from history the inverse relationship between value they have consistently provided and the respect accorded to them.

  • joe

    Mr. Berger, ORF broadcast Otto von Habsburg’s funeral live: They included Herzog von Auschwitz again and without further commentary.

  • John Lund

    The Habsburgs are back!

    Austrian Habsburgs Claim Responsibility For the Kidnapping; Will Marry First Daughter to Habsburg Prince and Form Austro-American Empire

    The Daily Alp has the full story:

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2015 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service