Hitler's Vienna: Jelavich 29-71

The Congress of Vienna and the post-Napoleonic settlement (1814–1815)

• The Congress of Vienna (met from 1814 to 1815) produced a European settlement aimed at creating peace and a balance of power favorable to the traditional dynastic order.

• Territorial adjustments for the Habsburg Monarchy included annexations of Dalmatia, Venetia, Istria, and Salzburg; some Polish territories were ceded; Cracow was made a free city; the major Galician acquisitions remained under Habsburg jurisdiction. The Dutch/Netherlands were not restored to Austrian control; the Austrian Netherlands was not retained.

• The German lands were reorganized under the German Confederation, not a revived Holy Roman Empire. Austria and Prussia were given controlling positions, with Austria holding the permanent presidency. The Confederation also had a diet (meeting in Frankfurt) but remained a weak union, capable of sending ambassadors and making war and treaties.

• Venetia was joined with Lombardy to form the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia. The Italian states generally remained under Habsburg influence or friendly alliance; Parma was given to Maria Luisa (Napoleon’s former wife).

• The settlement avoided reviving the Holy Roman Empire and instead created a German Confederation designed to safeguard Habsburg interests while limiting revolutionary change.

• Two general treaties emerged: (1) the Quadruple Alliance (Austria, Britain, Russia, Prussia) to protect the peace and deter renewed French aggression; (2) the Holy Alliance, led by Tsar Alexander I, a declaration that rulers would govern according to Christian principles. In practice, the Holy Alliance came to symbolize the close alignment of Austria, Russia, and Prussia.

• Outcome for the Habsburgs: a favorable German and Italian arrangement that helped stabilize central Europe but reinforced a multinational empire with a conservative balance of power.

• Connections to broader themes: post-Napoleonic peace; suppression of revolutionary ideas; establishment of a conservative order; groundwork for future centralization debates within the empire.

The Austrian empire in the immediate postwar era: conservative rule and the reform outlook (1815–1835)

• The era is often called conservative and cautious, with Francis I steering a restrained course; though not a period of heroic reform, it laid the groundwork for later state-building.

• Francis I (the Good) pursued simple court life and a sense of duty, avoiding imperial expansion and focusing on internal stability.

• The Belvedere-era mood (Biedermeier) emphasized peace, domestic comfort, and middle-class culture, influenced by Romanticism (e.g., landscape painting by Georg Waldmüller) and modest fashion in furniture.

• The regime shifted away from Enlightened Despotism toward a reaction against Revolutionary ideas while maintaining the reforms of the previous century.

• The centralization trend and reliance on key ministers shaped domestic governance:

  • Count František Kolowrat dominated internal administration and resisted expansive military commitments; he favored centralization but clashed with Metternich on certain policies.
  • Prince Klemens von Metternich became the dominant figure in foreign policy and an emblematic conservative statesman who shaped the Vienna settlement through a balance-of-power approach and suppression of liberal-nationalist currents.

• Metternich’s foreign policy aimed to restore order and prevent revolutionary waves from spreading into Central Europe. He supported the restoration of the balance of power and used the German Confederation and German affairs to maintain stability.

• Succession issues: the heir, Ferdinand, was epileptic and intellectually limited; Metternich supported the hereditary principle and a strong centralized state.

• In 1835, Francis I died and Ferdinand I reigned (1835–1848). The government drifted toward a state conference after a constitutional crisis, with Archduke Ludwig and later Franz Karl (Metternich’s ally) taking influential roles.

• The broader significance: a period of peaceful stagnation that preserved Habsburg authority while delaying necessary political modernization; the state relied on repression (censorship and police) but avoided widespread state violence.

Economic and social transformation: industry, transport, and social structure (1820s–1840s)

• Industrialization began to accelerate, especially in textiles (Bohemia, Moravia, Vienna region) and metal production (Alps), though coal shortages limited heavy industry.

• The state actively supported infrastructure development, recognizing its military and economic importance:

  • Railways: the government led planning with a decree in 1841; the network centered on Vienna; Austria built the first continental European railroad (with an early line on the Budweis–Linz route in 1832).
  • Roads and canals improvements accompanied rail expansion; river navigation saw early steam power, with the Danube Steamship Company (DDSG) founded in 1829.

• Urban growth and working-class emerge as social forces: Vienna’s population grew from about 200,000 in 1780 to over 400,000 by the mid-century; urbanization brought harsh working conditions (long hours, crowded housing, low pay).

• The state remained primarily agrarian (in 1846 about 74 ext{%} of the population farmed or worked in agriculture, with roughly 17 ext{%} in industry and mining).

• The peasantry faced continued labor obligations (the robot system) and rising taxes, while landlords sought reform toward more productive estate systems. The government was expected to address rural grievances, including land access and modernization.

• The key takeaway: modernization occurred alongside persistent traditional structures; the state promoted infrastructure and industry but did not actively industrialize through policy until pressures from reform and nationalism grew in the 1840s.

Liberalism, nationalism, and social tensions (late 1810s–1848)

• Liberalism attracted the bourgeois middle class (merchants, bureaucrats, professionals) who sought constitutional government, civil liberties, and a representative budgetary process; liberals rarely supported universal suffrage, favoring property or tax qualifications.

• Nationalism appealed especially to non-German populations, notably the Hungarians, who demanded autonomous rights and centralized monarchy structures; language became a major criterion of national identity in the 1840s (e.g., Hungarian replacing Latin in 1843 for administration and education).

• The Hungarian case: liberal leaders sought a centralized, autonomous Crown lands arrangement (Transylvania, Croatia) with limited ties to Vienna; this reflected broader nationalist and liberal tensions within the empire.

• The middle class in Vienna and the German-speaking lands aspired to constitutional reforms, yet not to broad social upheaval; the peasantry and workers were more revolutionary in potential but not uniformly organized.

• External dynamics: Metternich leveraged the Holy Alliance to excuse intervention against revolutionary movements in the German states and Italy; he coordinated with Tsars Alexander I and Nicholas I and with Prussia to curb liberal-nationalist forces.

• Prussia’s rise and the Zollverein (customs union) presented a real challenge to Habsburg primacy in German affairs throughout the 1819–1840s period, as Prussia gained traction against Austria in economic and political arenas.

• The central moral takeaway: liberalism and nationalism created powerful domestic pressures while foreign policy sought to manage or suppress revolutionary movements and maintain the dynasty’s legitimacy.

The revolutions of 1848 and their aftermath (1848–1849)

• A broad, Europe-wide wave of revolutions culminated in Vienna, Prague, Budapest, and Lombardy–Venetia; urban leadership was primarily middle-class, allied with students and workers; peasants joined in rural uprisings to end robot obligations.

• In Vienna, crowds demanded reforms and a constitutional framework; Metternich fled, and a reform ministry issued reforms:

  • March 28: abolition of robot in principle with landlord compensation.
  • April 25: preliminary constitution for the Habsburg lands (except Hungary).
  • The constitution evolved from a bicameral system to a single-chamber assembly elected with reduced franchise constraints.

• The July 22 opening of the first Habsburg Parliament (Archduke Johann presiding) was a landmark; the representation included a mix of professionals, peasants, Germans, Slavs, Italians, and Romanians.

• Military events: at Custozza (July 1848), the Habsburgs defeated Piedmontese forces; Prague and Vienna faced significant uprisings.

• The peasants achieved emancipation from robot: full ownership of land with compensation (peasants paid one-third of the cost, landlords and state covered the rest). The reform reduced peasant incentives to rebel but introduced new social and political tensions.

• The revolution split into different trajectories: peasants withdrew from active politics after achieving land rights; middle-class radicals grew restless as reforms lagged, and court factions regained the upper hand.

• The Prague and Vienna uprisings demonstrated the potential for Austro-Slavist and German-nationalist currents; the Slavic conference in Prague (June 1848) advocated Austroslavism as a multinational, autonomous arrangement within the empire; the leadership of Palacký emerged, stressing a multinational empire rather than division.

• The revolutionary drive in Bohemia (Prague) was crushed by Windischgrätz’s military action; Vienna and Prague were stabilized under military control; the Kremsier constitution (January–March 1849) proposed a liberal federal structure but clashed with court aims.

• The final outcome: a return to centralist control; the Kremsier parliament dissolved; the February Patent (1861) reasserted imperial authority with a more centralized framework and new Reichsrat structures, while preserving foreign policy and military supremacy to the crown.

• Key consequences for state-building: the empire faced unresolved tensions among Germans, Hungarians, Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, and Italians; liberal and nationalist aspirations persisted and would re-emerge in the 1860s under new constitutional bargains.

Neoabsolutism and the consolidation phase: Bach, Stadion, and centralization (1849–1867)

• After 1849, Franz Joseph’s regime adopted neoabsolutist one-party-like governance centered on strong central authority; the Stadion constitution was abandoned in favor of the Sylvester Patent (Dec 31, 1851), which curtailed representative government and centralized control.

• The Bach period (Alexander Bach as interior minister) introduced a tightly centralized bureaucracy across most of the empire; Hungary’s autonomy was sharply curtailed, with Croatia–Slavonia, Transylvania, and Vojvodina placed under direct Vienna control and Hungarians deprived of broad local autonomy.

• The Concordat of 1855 strengthened church authority and its control over education and family law, reducing state interference in church matters and aligning education with papal aims.

• Economic modernization continued under centralized control, including a significant expansion of rail networks and the completion of the Semmering Mountain Railroad (1864–1854 crossing the Semmering Pass; Vienna–Trieste remained a key transit hub).

• The state reduced tariffs to promote economic growth, yet international tensions persisted through the Eastern Question (the decline of the Ottoman Empire and nationalist movements in the Balkans).

• Foreign policy complexities included the Crimean War (1853-1856) and its aftermath, with Austria caught between Russian influence and Western powers. The empire pursued benevolent neutrality but faced pressure from both sides:

  • Russia sought support or a consistent line against Ottoman reform movements; Austria’s alliance with Russia frayed as the Holy Alliance dissolved.
  • Britain and France threatened to support Italian nationalist movements to undermine Habsburg rule in Lombardy–Venetia; Piedmont and Napoleon III balanced military action with diplomacy.

• The Danubian Principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia)—led by Alexandru Cuza in the 1858–1859 period—moved toward unification, setting the stage for later Romanian independence; Vienna opposed but could not act decisively because of the Italian situation and Prussian priorities.

• The key takeaway: the Bach era tried to stabilize the empire through centralization and modernization while navigating aggressive nationalist movements and shifting European power dynamics.

The Austrian Empire and the Eastern Question; Crimean War and its consequences (1830s–1860s)

• The Eastern Question concerned the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of nationalism among Christian populations within the Balkans. Austria’s role was often subordinated to the interests of the major powers (Russia, Britain, France, Prussia).

• The Crimean War (1853-1856) placed Austria at a critical juncture: Russia pressed for a favorable stance against the Ottoman Empire, while Western powers sought to restrict Russian expansion and influence in the Balkans.

• Austria hesitated, weighing the risks of joining Russia against the dangers of opposing Western powers and alienating potential allies in Italy and Germany.

• The eventual peace left Russia embittered by what it viewed as Austrian betrayal; this shifted the balance of power against Vienna and encouraged nationalist movements elsewhere in Europe, undermining Vienna’s earlier strategic position.

• The Danubian principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia) demonstrated the broader trend toward national consolidation in Eastern Europe, with Cuza’s double elections (1848–1859) ultimately leading to unification but complicating Vienna’s regional influence.

• The takeaway: the empire’s foreign policy was constrained by a shifting balance of power; the Eastern Question exposed weaknesses in Austrian leadership and foreshadowed future challenges to the empire’s multinational structure.

The unification of Italy and the German question: shifting German-European power dynamics (mid-19th century)

• The Italian unification campaign damaged Austrian prestige and exposed weaknesses in the Bach system and centralized administration; Piedmont–Sardinia, under Cavour and with French support, pursued a nationalist agenda resulting in the unification of most Italian states under Piedmont by 1861, with Venetia remaining under Austrian control and Rome later occupied by French troops.

• In Germany, the rise of Prussia under Bismarck displaced Austrian leadership in German affairs. Austria could not sustain a multination German policy suitable to all national groups within the empire.

• Austria attempted to reform the German Confederation in 1863 by proposing a central parliament; Bismarck discouraged any concerted move toward reform by withholding attendance at key meetings and promoting Prussian-led unification instead.

• The war with Denmark over Schleswig and Holstein, and the subsequent Austro-Prussian War (1866) marked a decisive shift in German unification dynamics:

  • The Seven Weeks’ War (1866) ended in Prussia’s victory; Austria ceded Venetia to Italy (Treaty of Prague, 1866) and effectively lost leadership in Germany as the German Confederation dissolved and was replaced by the North German Confederation led by Prussia.
  • The dissolution of the German Confederation signaled the end of centuries of Habsburg predominance in German affairs and heralded a new German-led central European order.

• To the south and east, nationalist movements in Hungary demanded autonomy, and the empire faced the odds of maintaining the union with the Hungarians while suppressing broader nationalist ambitions in Croatia, Bohemia, and other lands.

• The takeaway: the dual monarchy’s jurisdiction and influence in Germany and Italy eroded; German unification under Prussia and Italian unification under Piedmont created a new European balance that undermined Habsburg supremacy in Central Europe.

The Ausgleich (Compromise) of 1867: the birth of Austria-Hungary (1867)

• The Ausgleich (Compromise) of 1867 established the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary, partitioning the empire into two semi-autonomous realms: Cisleithania (the Austrian lands) and Transleithania (the Hungarian lands).

• Structure under the Ausgleich:

  • Franz Joseph retained the title of emperor for the Austrian lands and king for the Hungarian lands, while appointing three common ministers (foreign affairs, defense, and finance).
  • The Reichsrat (Imperial Council) was created with two chambers: a senate (Herrenhaus) and an assembly (Abgeordnetenhaus). The lower house was elected by provincial diets, but representation remained heavily weighted toward the landed aristocracy and the German middle class; the monarch could still influence policy.
  • Delegations (from both parliaments) met to coordinate common affairs, and in deadlock the monarch could decide. The accord created a formal, though imperfect, mechanism for shared governance.

• The monetary and postal systems remained unified, but there was no common citizenship; the two halves could negotiate terms individually on many issues.

• The Nagodba (Arrangement) of 1868 granted limited autonomous rights to Croatia-Slavonia within the Hungarian framework.

• The Ausgleich effectively shut the door on reversing the 1866-1867 arrangements: it cemented a durable dual structure but left many non-German and non-Hungarian nationalities dissatisfied, setting the stage for ongoing nationalist pressures.

• The monarchy’s internal governance after the Ausgleich remained a delicate balance of liberal civil liberties and centralized power; Franz Joseph could still summon, prorogue, or dissolve parliaments, but the two parliaments shared decision-making on common affairs.

• The Ausgleich thus marked the end of a single-imperial German-dominated policy and the beginning of a long period of tension around national rights within a multinational state.

• The broader significance: the dualist arrangement stabilized the empire for a time but guaranteed ongoing conflicts with national communities seeking equal status and political voice; the empire’s viability depended on balancing German and Hungarian interests alongside other nationalities (Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Serbs, Romanians, Ukrainians, Italians, etc.).

The post-1867 era: rise of new leadership and the end of imperial hegemony in Europe

• The end of Austrian primacy in Germany and the reorientation of European power dynamics shifted the center of gravity toward Berlin and Vienna’s reduced influence on the continent.
• Franz Joseph’s era saw the Three Emperors' Alliance emerge in the 1870s (Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia). This arrangement was based on shared policy coordination rather than formal treaties and endured until the late 1870s; it reflected a strategic attempt to manage external pressures from France, Britain, and Russia.
• The Ausgleich did not resolve the empire’s fundamental tension: the need to integrate multiple nationalities into a stable constitutional framework while maintaining centralized authority.
• The long-term historical result was an empire increasingly defined by its dual structure and a growing sense that nationalities—especially Czechs, South Slavs, and Romanians—would not accept subordinate status indefinitely. This tension would contribute to the eventual dissolution of the empire in 1918.

Key people, institutions, and policy instruments to remember

• Metternich (foreign minister, architect of the conservative order; key in Vienna Congress and German affairs; promoted balance of power and intervention to suppress liberalism and nationalism).

• Francis I (emperor; favored stability, cautious reform; his reign ended the Enlightened Despotism phase; brought about the conservative turn and the early reform attempts).

• Franz Joseph I (reigned after 1848; implemented neoabsolutist policies via the Sylvester Patent; later negotiated the Ausgleich of 1867; oversaw a dual monarchy that defined Habsburg governance for decades).

• Kolowrat (internal administration; early liberal-leaning reforms restrained by Metternich; clashed with Metternich’s foreign policy).

• Schwarzenberg and Stadion (central figures in post-1848 stabilization; Schwarzenberg as an able minister who guided early restoration of order; Stadion’s constitutional model proposed a centralized regime which was later replaced by the Sylvester Patent).

• Alexander Bach (interior minister; associated with neoabsolutist governance and the Bach regime; emphasized centralized state control and suppression of nationalist movements).

• Deák and Andrássy (Hungarian leaders who pushed for the Ausgleich; Deák’s program of dualism; Andrássy’s diplomacy; networking with Prussia and Russia).

• Palacký (Czech nationalist leader who advocated Austroslavism at Prague in 1848 as a potential mechanism for multinational governance).

• Core concepts to remember:

  • The Holy Alliance concept and the Quadruple Alliance aimed at maintaining the post-Napoleonic order and preventing revolutionary change; the Holy Alliance in practice functioned as a conservative alignment among Austria, Russia, and Prussia.
  • The German Confederation (1815–1866) as a loose, weak union designed to control German states while preserving Austrian influence; its undermining by Prussia’s rise and German unification under kleindeutsch (a German federation led by Prussia) in 1871.
  • Austroslavism as an attempt by Slavic nationalities within the empire to organize autonomously within a multinational Habsburg state rather than seek full independence.
  • The robot system and peasant emancipation as central issues in social reform; their outcomes shifted the revolutionary potential rather than eliminating it.
  • The Ausgleich as a pragmatic settlement aimed at preserving the Habsburg state by granting Hungarians broad autonomy in exchange for a common foreign and defense policy; the price was the marginalization of other nationalities within Cisleithania and Transleithania.

• Formulas and numerical references (for study revision):

  • The Congress of Vienna: 1814-1815; Vienna-based settlement created the German Confederation with Austria as guaranteed president.
  • The Austrian rail network: first continental European railway began operation in the 1832 Budweis–Linz line; the Semmering mountain railway completed in 1854.
  • The Danube Steamship Company: founded in 1829.
  • The revolutions and reforms: March reforms in 1848; Kremsier constitution drafted in 1849; February Patent in 1861; Ausgleich (Compromise) in 1867; Croatia–Slavonia Nagodba in 1868; Austro‑Prussian War and the Treaty of Prague in 1866.
  • The Three Emperors’ Alliance and late‑century diplomacy occurred in the 1870s (contextual reference rather than a fixed date here).

• Real-world relevance and implications:

  • The empire’s multinational structure and the dichotomy between German and Hungarian power created tensions that shaped Central European politics for decades.
  • Nationalist movements (Czech, Croatian, Croatian-Slavonian, Hungarian) persisted and evolved, influencing later events leading to the empire’s dissolution in 1918.
  • The balance between liberal reform and conservative governance defined the empire’s path, with the Ausgleich being a turning point that stabilized the monarchy for a time but institutionalized national inequalities within Austria-Hungary.

• Connections to broader themes from earlier and later lectures:

  • The evolution from Enlightened Despotism to a conservative constitutional framework parallels debates about the role of the state in modernization and social reform.
  • The 1848 revolutions across Europe mirror similar pressures in other regions, highlighting the interdependence of domestic reform and international balance of power.
  • The Ausgleich foreshadows the later internal conflicts within multinational empires, including nationalism, linguistic rights, and regional autonomy, which would persist into the 20th century.