Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Federalizacja czy rozpad? Stosunki Stanów Zjednoczonych i Austro–Węgier w ostatnim roku pierwszej wojny światowej

100%

Horčička V.

Dzieje Najnowsze

2016

vol. 48

issue 3

Federalization or Dissolution? The Relations of the USA and Austria–Hungary in the Last Year of the First World WarThe United States of America played an undeniably pivotal role during the dissolution of Austria–Hungary. This article demonstrates the fact that President Wodrow Wilson was, until the last months of the war, hesitant to support the dissolution of Austria–Hungary. He gradually changed his standpoint over the spring and summer of 1918. It also proves that the Secretary of State Robert Lansing had a major effect on the President’s decision making. In contrast, the secret Peace Inquiry Bureau, or the group of experts named The Inquiry, established by Colonel House with the aim of tackling the issues of peace settlement, lacked inner coherence in terms of the future of Austria–Hungary after the war. The group’s representatives were long in favor of federalization, rather than of the empire’s dissolution. The article also largely examines Austro–Hungarian policy toward the USA, which to this day has not been thoroughly studied in specialized literature. Yet, before the spring of 1918 and to a certain extent even later, Vienna regarded the USA as a possible partner in its efforts to conclude peace. Studying Austro–Hungarian sources, the article analyzes in detail the development of Austro–Hungarian policy, which lacked a unified theme. In this respect, the article also mentions the devastating effect of the Sixtus Affair (April 1918) on the reputation of Austria– Hungary in the USA. Another conclusion of this article is the findings that in Austria–Hungary in the spring and summer of 1918, surprisingly scarce attention was paid to the US policy vis–à– vis Central Europe. President Wilson had not envisaged dissolution of the Hapsburg monarchy at the end of the war. In spite of his one statement from December 1914, the dissolution of Austria–Hungary was not in his plans. After Emperor Charles came to the throne (November 1916), Wilson and Lansing struggled to drive a wedge among the Central Powers and therefore carefully distinguished among them. While Lansing could not rule out the possibility that Austria–Hungary would escape the influence of Germany and would withdraw from the war, as time proceeded, he grew increasingly skeptical. His reservation was based on the widely accepted opinion that the monarchy was Germany’s vassal. As this article proofs, Austria–Hungary was not utterly dependent on Germany, contrary to statements made by various US officials including Wilson, the Emperor’s reputation was damaged by the Sixtus Affair in the spring of 1918. Similarly, with regard to the dangerous German offensive, a growing number of voices in the US administration called for the support of the claims of the exile representatives of the monarchy’s nations. Gradually, the space for differentiating between Austria–Hungary and Germany vanished. The United States had become convinced of the monarchy’s total dependence on Berlin and resolved for its dissolution.

První československá pozemková reforma jako faktor zahraniční politiky : příspěvek k málo známému aspektu československo-rakouských vztahů v letech 1918-1938

63%

Horčička V., Županič J.

Soudobé dějiny (Contemporary History)

2019

vol. 26

issue 4

449-471

The authors analyze the course of the Czechoslovak land reform carried out in the interwar period and affecting farmsteads owned by citizens of the Austrian Republic. Based mainly on documents from Czech and Austrian archives, the study proves that the land reform had, for many reasons, a potential to have an adverse impact on relations between Czechoslovakia and Austria. First and foremost, Austrians, in particular noble families, owned vast land holdings in Czechoslovakia, the total area of which was approximately 200,000 hectares, and the Austrian government was not in a position to ignore potential losses. The owners were facing a substantial reduction of their land holdings and hefty financial losses. The compensation which the Czechoslovak state paid for the expropriated land was below the market price and, at the same time, large farmsteads were suffering from high property duties. Attempts of the Austrian owners to force the government in Vienna to decisively defend their interests were ultimately unsuccessful. As a matter of fact, problems associated with the land reform, their unquestionable gravity notwithstanding, were of minor importance for it. The interest of the governments in Vienna and Prague was focusing mainly on huge economic, trade and financial problems of Austria which had to rely on the assistance of the victorious powers. The Austrian diplomacy was therefore evading any land reform-related conflict with Prague and was attempting to influence its course by peaceful means. However, the authors have presented concrete examples showing that the accommodating attitude of Vienna did not result in any tangible benefits for the landowners; compared to landowners in other countries, including Germany, they received less in financial compensations and tax reliefs in the interwar Czechoslovakia.

Autoři věnují analýze průběhu československé pozemkové reformy, která byla prováděna v meziválečném období, na statcích vlastněných občany Rakouské republiky. Studie, založená především na materiálech z českých a rakouských archivů, prokazuje, že reforma měla z více důvodů potenciál negativně ovlivnit československo-rakouské vzájemné vztahy. V prvé řadě Rakušané, zejména příslušníci aristokracie, v Československu vlastnili velký pozemkový majetek o celkovém rozsahu zhruba dvě stě tisíc hektarů, takže eventuální ztráty na něm nemohla rakouská vláda ignorovat. Majitelům hrozilo nejen podstatné zmenšení rozlohy velkostatků, ale i nezanedbatelná finanční újma. Státem vyplácená náhrada za vyvlastněnou půdu nedosahovala tržní ceny a současně byly na velkostatky uvaleny citelné majetkové dávky. Pokusy rakouských vlastníků přimět vládu ve Vídni k rozhodné obraně jejich zájmů však nakonec nebyly úspěšné. Problémy spojené s pozemkovou reformou totiž pro ni byly přes svou nespornou závažnost přece jen vedlejší záležitostí. V centru zájmu vlád ve Vídni i v Praze ležely především obrovské hospodářské, obchodní a finanční problémy Rakouska, které bylo odkázáno na pomoc vítězných mocností. Rakouská diplomacie se tak v zásadě vyhýbala střetu s Prahou kvůli pozemkové reformě a snažila se její průběh ovlivnit smírnými prostředky. Jak ale autoři doložili na konkrétních příkladech, vstřícné vystupování Vídně nepřineslo postiženým velkostatkářům hmatatelné výhody, když ve srovnání s pozemkovými vlastníky jiných států včetně Německa v meziválečném Československu získali za vyvlastněný majetek nižší finanční náhrady a daňové úlevy.

Refine search results

1 Dzieje Najnowsze

1 Soudobé dějiny (Contemporary History)

1 2019

1 2016

2 Horčička V.

1 Županič J.

Search results

Federalizacja czy rozpad? Stosunki Stanów Zjednoczonych i Austro–Węgier w ostatnim roku pierwszej wojny światowej

První československá pozemková reforma jako faktor zahraniční politiky : příspěvek k málo známému aspektu československo-rakouských vztahů v letech 1918-1938