Chapters

On the eve of the First World War the fight for a political voice was by no means over. In the Austrian half of the empire all male citizens had had the vote since 1907, whereas in Hungary it was still only the moneyed classes. Women in both halves of the empire had no political say whatsoever.

On the eve of the First World War the political system in the Austrian half of the empire suffered a severe crisis, and there were several rapid changes of government at the start of the new century.

The Austrian version of constitutionalism called for a strong emperor with a comparatively weak role being assigned to the people’s representatives.

In the second half of the war, the focus of war reporting shifted to the medium of photography. The aim behind the WPH's deployment of official war photographers was to direct the public's visual perception of the war.

In the wars of the 19th century, the considerable effort involved in taking photographs meant that photographers were only able to observe the action from the margins. The photographers at the front in the First World War, on the other hand, were a fixed part of the military groups.

Technical achievements at the beginning of the 20th century allowed the use of aerial photography as a strategic element in warfare. The aircraft became a tool for seeing, the camera a weapon. Aerial reconnaissance created new space for warfare, providing a previously unobtainable view over the war zones.

The mass spread and use of photographic technology led to a 'democratisation' of photography during the First World War – a phenomenon that was to characterise the 20th century.

The illustrated press had a decisive influence on the imagery of the war. It provided a social context in which the photographic image became a medium for social communication. However, the visual representation pattern of the war in the press was also subject to military control and censorship.

Although there was a lively trade with negatives and prints at the front, the majority of amateur photographers were not thinking of a specific recipient but instead photographed what seemed to them to be of documentary value. They recorded what appeared to reflect their experiences of the war. In this way, their photographs contradicted the official image of the war as published in newspapers and magazines.

With the focus of commemorating the First World War on the Western front, not only the fighting of the Russian Tsar's army in the East was overshadowed, also the armed conflict in Southeast Europe. The same has long held true for writing the war’s history, which is increasingly starting to turn towards the war in the Balkans.

In the First World War, visual representation developed into its own dimension of the war. Photography and film became the leading media for representing the war and determined society's perception of it.

After losing their influence over the German countries and a majority of their possessions in Italy, the Habsburgs started to turn their attention towards the Balkans. In Viennese court and government circles, matters of prestige were of high importance. The ‘reputation of the Monarchy’ was primarily concerned with putting Serbia in its place. Almost obsessed with this goal, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was willing to ignore the international consequences of their actions and thereby ultimately threaten the peace of all of Europe.

‘It's now or never!’ was the reaction to the news from Sarajevo that the successor to the Austrian-Hungarian throne and his wife had been assassinated. By July 1914 it was clear that a conflagration could not be avoided. The will to war and alliance-driven dynamics enjoyed greater favour than moderation and the willingness to compromise.

The Serbian-Austrian conflict led to deliberately staged hostility and open hatred. The escalation of violence from summer 1914 was reinforced by the fact that a radicalised Austro-Hungarian army took over all authority in deployment and operations, and in many cases stopped differentiating between the military and civilians.

Even though the Danube Monarchy mainly focused on the ‘penalty kick’ against Serbia, they failed to achieve their operational goals by the end of the year. Every offensive ended in fiasco.

What the Habsburg Army failed to achieve alone, it managed with help of the Allies from autumn 1915: the Central Powers gained substantial territory, forcing the Serbian army to retreat.

After the conquest of enemy territory, the Centrals Powers’ military administrative authorities assumed governmental and administrative functions almost everywhere, with the governor or commander concerned promoted to ‘head of government’. In principle, it was possible to distinguish between friendly and hostile occupied territories; effectively, however, the ‘invaders’’ generals were dominant. Only the lowest level of administration was left in the power of the locals.

Originally, the government in Bucharest was bound to Germany and Austria-Hungary through an alliance treaty from 1883. In reality, however, this agreement continuously diminished in value.

Belgium’s neutrality was disregarded by Germany for operational reasons. In contrast, less attention was paid to Greece’s neutrality. Although Prime Minister Elftherios Venizelos tended towards the Western Powers, the ‘Germanophile Camp’ around King Constantine had considerable scope of action. However, Constantine’s followers were confronted by the presence of Entente troops, who were not be used against Bulgaria and its allies alone, and in Serbia’s interest, but also exercised a significant influence on the internal development of Greece.

Despite the defeats at the hands of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, the Romanian government managed once again to mobilise the nation at the turn of the year 1916/17. King Ferdinand promised an agricultural reform and so succeeded in getting the peasant population on his side. Furthermore, French support at the frontline made itself felt. Romania’s situation seemed to improve when the events in St. Petersburg started to make an impact, too.

Having suffered great distress at the hands of the Central Powers, the Balkan states turned out to be the victors of a four-year long mass slaughter. Apart from the territorial expansions of Romania, the Slovenes and Croats in particular flocked around Serbia, eager to establish a multi-ethnic state of the Southern Slavs. As in other regions, the political map of the Balkans was indeed redrawn without ensuring the permanent guarantee of stability. The ‘Great War’ transformed itself in this way into different, smaller zones of conflict. At the same time it became obvious that the problems that had already resurfaced before 1914 were in no way solved, but had in many cases even deteriorated. Under such circumstances, the events at the beginning of the 20th century point ultimately towards its conclusion, to the national hatreds and ‘ethnic cleansings’ of the 1990s.

Anti-Semitism was not only a phenomenon in the German-speaking political scene within the Habsburg Monarchy. It also had an inauspicious tradition among other nationalities in central Europe.

During the First World War millions of the enemy’s armies were taken prisoner. But no major power lost as many soldiers through being internment as the Danube Monarchy.

On the Eastern Front, significantly more soldiers fell into enemy hands than on other battlefields. What were the key reasons for that? Were, for example, the soldiers of the Habsburg army ‘demoralised’ earlier by the events of the war than others? Or was it even a lack of loyalty towards the Danube Monarchy that caused them to switch sides?