Introduction
Even though Irish interest in Habsburg Central Europe can be traced back before the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), its significance rose considerably in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries due to the growing number of personal encounters that Irish nationalists had on the continent.Footnote 1 Comparisons with the various nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire became common especially after the publication of Arthur Griffith’s Resurrection of Hungary in 1904. After providing an overview of archival sources used in this project, the article will continue with presenting the theoretical context, focusing on the advantages of a transnational framework when examining Irish perceptions of the wider world. Before moving on to examining prewar and postwar images of Austria, the article will examine the milestones in the historiography of Irish interest in Central Europe.
It will be illustrated that interpretations of the so-called minority problem and discussions of Catholicism dominated Irish nationalist accounts before the Great War. Then from late 1918, the birth of independent small states in Central Europe and their right to self-determination became a common point of reference in Ireland. Ultimately, this article aims to provide a more complex understanding of Irish nationalist images of postwar Austria, highlighting the coexistence of some elements of Austria’s imperial legacy and new characteristics of the independent small state.
Sources
Drawing from contemporary Irish nationalist newspaper accounts, journal articles, and archival materials from the National Archives, University College Dublin Archives, and the National Library of Ireland, this article provides insight into the complexity of Irish nationalist opinions of postwar Austria. The records of the National Archives—including files from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of the Taoiseach, and the records of the North-Eastern Boundary Bureau—were central to the research, since these reflected the official stance of the nationalist Irish political elite with regard to the successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.Footnote 2 In addition, the private papers of political figures at University College Dublin Archives (UCDA) were also indispensable. More specifically, border-related questions and the importance of nationality in post-Great War Europe were issues of great significance for Minister for External Affairs Patrick McGilligan,Footnote 3 as well as for scholar and Minister for Education John Marcus O’Sullivan,Footnote 4 who represented the Free State as a delegate at the League of Nations in 1924 and again in 1928–1930. Their papers proved indispensable in tracing the opinions of influential Irish nationalist intellectuals and policy makers regarding the question of borders and identities in small Central European nations.
Furthermore, the investigation of contemporary print media has been a crucial component of this project. The most relevant primary sources were the traditional nationalist (and by the early twentieth century, significantly anticlerical) daily Freeman’s Journal, which in 1924 merged with its rival, the pro-Catholic and similarly nationalist Irish Independent. Reports from Irish Independent (traditionally the supporter of Home Rule and constitutional nationalism) and the Freeman’s Journal (the supporter of the new administration after the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922) indicate the Irish nationalist awareness of international events in the wartime and postwar worlds. Both papers represented the views of traditional constitutional nationalists associated with wealthy Catholic middle classes and were hostile to the ideas of radical nationalism and republicanism. As media historian John Horgan (Reference Horgan2001, 5) has highlighted, the advanced nationalist press was hardly visible in the aftermath of the Easter Rising of 1916, with the exception of samizdat-style publications like the official newspaper of the republican Dáil Éireann, the Irish Bulletin. As the publication, which was in circulation between November 1919 and December 1921, served primarily propaganda purposes, it did not focus on the events of the wider world but rather on the events of the War of Independence. Traditionally associated with the voice of the unionist Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, the Irish Times (1859–) was only transformed into “one of Ireland’s most progressive newspapers” after Robert M. Smyllie took over as editor in 1934, considerably changing the ethos of the paper (Richardson Reference Richardson2007, 17). As the present article focuses on the reactions of Irish nationalists (with special attention to those associated with the Irish Parliamentary Party and Sinn Féin) and their reactions to the transformation of political order in Habsburg Central Europe, the Irish Times has not been part of the primary sources consulted.
This article investigates reflections of Catholic journals like Studies, the Catholic Bulletin, the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, and the Irish Monthly on how postwar Austria was perceived in Ireland, especially regarding the changing images of empire and republic. Irish journals and literary periodicals after independence represented “a powerful means of understanding Irish cultural and historical trends” (Shovlin Reference Shovlin2003, 3–4). The contributors of these periodicals encouraged the national development of independent Ireland “in accordance with Catholic social theory” (Riordan Reference Riordan, Cronin and Regan2000, 101). Many respected Irish intellectuals, including contributors to influential Catholic journals or nationalist newspapers, had personal experience (educational and/or travel) on the continent prior to the dissolution of the Dual Monarchy and the declaration of Irish independence. There is much evidence of committed Irish nationalists discussing matters in Central Europe and linking them to the Irish cause, such as identifying the nation with language (e.g., in the case of Bohemia) or religion (in the case of Austria). Even though these journals were clearly directed toward a Catholic readership, their scope was remarkably wide (Fanning Reference Fanning2008, 1, 67). Without investigating them, it is not possible to gauge the impact of Central European events and ideas on Irish intellectual life. Most importantly, Studies was involved in discussing a wide range of issues that were inseparable from “nation-building projects in post-independence Ireland” (Fanning Reference Fanning2008, 68). In contrast, the Irish Monthly had an overwhelmingly literary profile, and consequently, it did not offer as much variety. Nevertheless, the Irish Monthly included historical assessments like articles exploring the connection between the Irish and continental Europe in the age of the Thirty Years’ War, together with articles of religious and literary-cultural focus. Lastly, the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, founded in 1864, which started off as a clerical publication but soon outgrew its initial purpose, covered a whole range of intellectual issues of Irish and Central European history, religion, and culture (Brown Reference Brown1936, 439). According to Brian P. Murphy (Reference Murphy2005, 190), the periodical was prone to snobbishness, though, and that is what characterized its publications.
Theoretical Context
Transnational history emphasizes the movement and flows of ideas, people, or goods across national borders. Investigating issues from a transnational perspective, however, does not mean ignoring the existence of so-called nation-states; instead, it shifts the focus away from them as the center of scholarly attention while stressing the significance of interconnectedness (Delaney Reference Delaney2011, 604). A transnational approach may also facilitate further interpretations of the spread of ideas across international borders, including the idea of self-determination of small nations, and, paradoxically, concepts of nationalism that promoted the emergence of independent “nation-states” after 1918. As Erez Manela (Reference Manela2007, 8) has highlighted, nationalism in the aftermath of the Great War cannot be fully understood without considering the significance of its international context. Undoubtedly, US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points (January 8, 1918) became central due to the significance of the principle of nationality and of national self-determination. And although Manela primarily focused on the internationalization of Wilsonian ideas and interpreted the post-1918 national independence movements from a colonial perspective, he also noted the freedom of small nations across Europe.
Radical Irish nationalists did not consider the drive for national independence to be isolationist, as they wanted to break away from the British Empire but not from the rest of the world. Instead, looking beyond Ireland for lessons and examples to follow became a frequent part of their rhetoric. This article aims to demonstrate that the interest Irish nationalists developed in other nations’ identities first and foremost reflected their own political and cultural priorities. John Hutchinson (Reference Hutchinson1987, 482) and Stephen Howe (Reference Howe2000, 40) argued that for Irish nationalists, parallels with the wider world served the purpose of highlighting the distinction between the small nation of Ireland and its oppressive neighbouring great power, Britain. Furthermore, Patricia Clavin has noted that historical evidence “demonstrates how the inhabitants of Ireland imagined, and had access to, a more cosmopolitan world” (Reference Clavin2010, 633) than has been portrayed. She has referred to the fact that Ireland aimed to forge new, transnational connections with the wider world in addition to its existing contacts with the British Empire.
A transnational approach could benefit greatly from discussions of the travel experience of Irish intellectuals, journalists, and politicians in Habsburg Central Europe. The personal experience of Irish nationalist intellectuals, revolutionaries, politicians, businessmen, and journalists regarding Habsburg Central Europe influenced their reactions to the transformation of the political order in the region. Senia Pašeta (Reference Pašeta1999, 133), R. F. Foster (Reference Foster2014) and Ciarán O’Neill (Reference O’Neill2014, 4–5) have pointed to the significance of exploring their mentality, background, and experiences while Ireland had been in the process of seeking independence. As Clavin has emphasized, transnationalism was “first and foremost about people: the social space that they inhabit, the networks they form and the ideas they exchange” (Reference Clavin2005, 422). Building on this concept, the present article aims to illustrate that a transnational approach may provide further interpretations for the changing nature of Irish nationalism in the aftermath of the First World War.
Historiography: Irish Interest in Central Europe
In recent historiography, parallels between Ireland and East-Central Europe have started to attract more and more attention. The number of publications in the field has been slowly growing; recent additions include Ireland and the Czech Land (Reference Power and Pilný2014), edited by Gerald Power and Ondřej Pilný; and Ireland, West to East: Irish Cultural Connections with Central and Eastern Europe (Reference O’Malley and Patten2014), edited by Aidan O’Malley and Eve Patten. One of the most ground-breaking assessments of research exploring Irish and Central European parallels was Thomas Kabdebo’s Ireland and Hungary: A Study in Parallels (Reference Kabdebo2001). It analyzed Irish nationalism in a comparative perspective, examining cultural and political developments in Ireland and Hungary in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Kabdebo Reference Kabdebo2001). Kabdebo’s study also opened the field for further research on Irish and Hungarian comparisons, resulting in analyses focusing on the applicability of Hungary as a model for Ireland (Haglund and Korkut Reference Haglund and Korkut2015). Most recently, Éamonn Ó Ciardha (Reference Ó Ciardha, Illić, Kührer-Wielach, Samide and Žigon2019) has explored the possibility for a comparative context for Ireland as part of a volume dedicated to visions and utopias in the Danube-Carpathian region. As far as earlier links are concerned, Zsuzsanna Zarka’s (Reference Zarka2012) doctoral thesis aimed to investigate the extent and significance of 19th century Irish knowledge regarding Hungary. William O’Reilly and Andrea Penz (Reference O’Reilly and Penz2006) also contributed to the research on parallel national movements in Ireland and Hungary, focusing on the long 19th century.
Róisín Healy’s study, “‘Inventing Eastern Europe’ in Ireland, 1848-1918” (Reference Healy and Sigmirean2009) and monograph entitled Poland in the Irish Nationalist Imagination, 1772–1922 (2017), which traced the impact of Polish partitions on Irish nationalism, have also demonstrated the scholarly interest in examining Irish perceptions of East-Central Europe and their struggle for national independence. The present article will confirm Healy’s argument that “Ireland’s various ‘Eastern Europes’ were, like those of other Europeans, inventions that reflected developments at home rather than in the region itself” (Reference Healy and Sigmirean2009, 117). Furthermore, historical links between Austria and Ireland have also attracted the attention of scholars, as illustrated by the contributions in the volume edited by Paul Leifer and Eda Sagarra (Reference Leifer and Sagarra2000). While their collection covers a wide range of themes (literature; economy; personal, cultural and academic links, ranging from the Middle Ages until recent times), the authors did not focus on the question of borders and identities, which is what the present article does, considering the images associated with empire and republic during the formative years of 1919–1922. As for tracing the diplomatic and strategic significance of Ireland in continental Europe (including Austria-Hungary), Jérôme aan de Wiel’s The Irish Factor 1899-1919 (Reference Aan de Wiel2009) most certainly constituted a milestone in historiography. The present article examines the small nation of Ireland through its relationship with other small nations, postwar Austria in particular, in contrast to the established practice of viewing small states solely in their relationship with great powers, and mostly in times of war. This chosen angle, however, is not to underestimate the role of great powers in Irish political discourse but to show the significance of contact with and influence from other small states in Irish political and intellectual discourse.
Historical Background: Ireland
It is noteworthy that in Irish historiography, 1912–1922 has been labelled the revolutionary period, implying the sociopolitical transformation of Ireland and the complexity of Irish experience during these years. In 1912, the growing tension between unionists and nationalists became manifest in the establishment of a unionist paramilitary organization, the Ulster Volunteers, followed by that of the nationalist Irish Volunteers in response, within the framework of the Home Rule debates. Although the Third Home Rule Bill, which granted self-governance for Ireland within the United Kingdom, was passed in 1914 (Government of Ireland Act 1914), it did not come into effect because of the outbreak of the Great War. Irishmen (to the call of John Redmond) were recruited under the banner of fighting for the small Catholic nation of Belgium that had fallen victim to German imperial aggression. The call to join the British army caused division between constitutional nationalists, associated with the Irish Parliamentary Party, and radical nationalists, leading to a split in the Irish Volunteers. The radicalization of Irish nationalists then culminated in the Easter Rising of 1916. The postwar General Election of December 1918 turned out to be the perfect opportunity for Sinn Féin to capitalize on the wave of public sympathy that followed the executions and imprisonment after the Easter Rising of 1916 and the Conscription Crisis in March 1918. As Sinn Féin was the loudest opponent of conscription, Dublin Castle decided to take steps against them and had 73 prominent leaders arrested because of an alleged and suspected so-called German Plot. This, however, only resulted in even wider public support for Sinn Féin (Novick Reference Novick2001, 240; Laffan Reference Laffan1999, 143).
Even though the struggle between unionists and nationalists over the Home Rule question had been part of political debates before the Great War, as seen above, it was the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 that eventually sought to create two states, Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. It also established two parliaments; the southern parliament envisaged did not materialize, and Home Rule, which was granted to both, took effect only in the north (Martin Reference Martin, Anderson and Bort1999, 67). The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 brought further legislation to settle the relationship, allowing the recently formed state of Northern Ireland to opt out of the Irish Free State. In the case of the latter, a Boundary Commission would be established to amend the (then provisional) border between Northern Ireland (still part of the United Kingdom) and the Irish Free State (gained dominion status).
Prewar Images of Austria-Hungary
The birth of the Dual Monarchy as a result of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise (Ausgleich) of 1867 marked a watershed in the history of 19th century Central Europe. This settlement followed the troublesome relationship between the two countries, which had culminated in the 1848–1849 Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence, suppressed by Austria, with Russian aid, in 1849. The Ausgleich of 1867 guaranteed equal status to Hungary and Austria, sharing a common monarch (Franz Joseph), as well as military, foreign, and fiscal policy, but having separate parliaments in Vienna and Budapest.
Arthur Griffith’s The Resurrection of Hungary (1904) was possibly one of the most influential Irish studies on the political history of the Dual Monarchy. It raised Irish awareness of the Austro-Hungarian settlement early in the 20th century and, proposed a similar solution in Ireland, as an alternative to Home Rule, which was promoted by John Redmond’s Irish Parliamentary Party. Following the Hungarian example set by politician Ferenc Deák, Griffith promoted the idea of political independence and economic self-sufficiency for Ireland, to be achieved by nonviolent, political methods (Maye Reference Maye1997). In the period between The Resurrection of Hungary’s first edition in 1904 and third edition in 1918, politicians, academics, and journalists across the spectrum of Irish nationalism found the settlement between Austria and Hungary worthy of comparisons.
Before the Great War, the question of minorities in Habsburg Central Europe attracted the most considerable Irish nationalist interest in Catholic periodicals such as the Irish Monthly and Studies, emphasizing the fragility of the empire, due to its multicultural composition.Footnote 5 Seeking parallels with the so-called oppressed nations of the Austro-Hungarian Empire dominated prewar Irish nationalist accounts, even though recent historiography has provided alternative interpretations to viewing the empire merely as “the prison of the peoples” (Judson Reference Judson2016, 444). Head of modern history at University College Dublin, John Marcus O’Sullivan, was among those Irish contemporaries who took note of the peculiar position of the various so-called subordinate races of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.Footnote 6 Generally, Irish nationalist intellectuals, journalists, and politicians used a variety of names to describe the “strange medley of races” living within the framework of the Dual Monarchy, creating an empire that O’Sullivan perceived as a “mosaic without a pattern” (Reference O’Sullivan1917, 150). He claimed that “racial diversity,” however troublesome in political terms, gave a “special character to the history of Austria-Hungary” (150).
Arthur Griffith’s ideas originally had a great impact on Richard John Kelly, the owner and editor of the Tuam Herald. Despite his open and consistent admiration for the Czechs reaching into the interwar years, in the early days, Kelly urged the adoption of Austria-Hungary’s “dual arrangement” in Ireland when he argued that he knew of “no case more closely analogous to ours than that of the relations of Hungary towards Austria” (Freeman’s Journal, January 4, 1908). He perceived that there was a struggle between different nationalities due to racial prejudices, not religious factors. After his first visit to Prague on the occasion of the 1905 Jubilee Exhibition, however, Kelly became visibly more pro-Slav in his stance (Samek Reference Samek2009, 32).
Unmistakeably, many Irish writers had partly directed their readers’ attention to the perceived ill-treatment of Slav nationalities due to the influence of pro-Slav British writers, such as historian Robert William Seton-Watson and Henry Wickham Steed, correspondent of The Times in Vienna (and their journal New Europe). Since their writings were reviewed and commented upon in contemporary Irish national dailies and Catholic journals (S. M. R. 1915), Irish readers had access to their ideas and were influenced by their opinion on Habsburg Central Europe. It was not uncommon for Seton-Watson to project an image of the Austro-Hungarian Empire where the intentions of the “easy-going and good-natured” Austrians were in sharp contrast with the “energetic and impetuous Magyar, who would allow no nationality other than his own in his dominions” (M. F. E. 1917, 336).
Undoubtedly, Catholicism in Austria-Hungary was seen as the most significant connecting point with Ireland. Despite being severe critics of imperial rule, Irish nationalists did not present Habsburg Austria in an exclusively negative light but produced rather balanced reports due to the perceived Catholic connection. Parallels between Ireland and the Tyrol region, in particular, generally focused on shared Catholic beliefs (D. Ua F. 1914, 323; D. Ua F. 1915, 19). After the County of Tyrol was occupied by Italian troops in November 1918 as per the secret Treaty of London (1915), it was incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy. Discussions of the region and its ethnic and religious constitution then became recurring topics on the agenda of interwar Catholic Irish journals. The interest proved to be mutual; as Jérôme aan de Wiel (Reference Aan de Wiel2009, 97) pointed out, the Viennese liberal Neue Freie Presse demonstrated that an awareness existed on the Austrian side as well, regarding possible comparisons between Ulstermen and the Tyrolese.
Postwar Perceptions
On November 2, 1918, the Irish Independent announced that the monarchy was ruled out of Austria under the revolutionary flag. The political changes were not always depicted as peaceful; occasionally, Irish newspaper reports analyzing the end of the monarchy pointed to demonstrations and a possible revolution, as well as “a Soviet in Vienna” (Irish Independent, November 2, 1918). Nonetheless, the Irish press did not focus on comparing the communist threat in Austria with that in Budapest at the turn of 1918–1919. The so-called red scare looked more imminent following Bolshevik Béla Kun’s takeover in Budapest in March 1919 and a similar communist coup in Bavaria in April and May.
The proclamation of German-Austria as an independent democratic republic in November 1918 attracted less attention in Ireland than the foundation of the Czechoslovak Republic or the revolutionary changes in Hungary between 1918 and 1920. Altogether, the influential Irish Independent portrayed independent Austria in a positive light, although it was mentioned that the leading Social Democratic Workers’ Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei Österreichs) insisted on state control of all spheres of life. Interestingly, in this case, the Irish Independent praised the social democrats and claimed that it was due to them “that the revolution and constitution of the new republic was carried out without any bloodshed” (Irish Independent, September 25, 1920). This was perceived to be in contrast with the aims and goals of the small Communist Party, who demanded the dictatorship of the Proletariat and counted only a few followers, and was therefore “in a pretty futile opposition to the official Social Democratic Party” (Irish Independent, September 25, 1920). Also, in April 1919, State Chancellor Renner’s statement was published in the Irish dailies, where he expressed faith in the future of democratic Austria: “I confidently hope that if we are not swept along by the great European revolutions we shall permanently be able to maintain a democratic policy” (Freeman’s Journal, April 8, 1919).
Irish confessional journals and diplomats focused with great intensity on the case of Austria’s Christian Social Party (Christlichsoziale Partei), and Monsignor Ignaz Seipel, and continued to do so in the late 1920s and 1930s. By October 1921, the Christian Social Party became officially the most dominant force in Austrian politics, and it remained in power during the interwar period and up till the Anschluss in March 1938. In interwar Ireland, priest and theologian Ignaz Seipel was openly admired, known for his anti-Marxism; however, his anti-Anschluss stance was more divisive. In postwar Austria, the Christian Social Party played a key role in the restoration of order, although the Social Democratic Workers’ Party, under the leadership of Karl Renner, won the elections in February 1919. Barbara Jelavich argued that Renner’s party recognized the significance of Catholicism, especially for the rural population, and therefore “did not oppose Catholicism as such” (Reference Jelavich1987, 179). However, it did call for separating church and state, which was in sharp contrast to the Christian Social Party’s program.
On the whole, in the immediate postwar years, the grave financial situation most powerfully shaped Irish images of the independent Austrian republic. Irish commentators who showed an interest in Austria considered the ongoing economic crisis to be a major impact on the young republic’s self-image and identity (Irish Independent, June 8, 1922). Two years after the end of the war, the gravity of Austria’s financial situation was still regularly highlighted in the Irish nationalist press, focusing on the suffering of the people. Recurring topics included the growing rate of unemployment, lack of food, and the spread of diseases (Irish Independent, March 3, 1921).
Several Irish commentators emphasized that it was not until they had seen “beautiful, starving Vienna” that they “got the real glimpse of Austria’s poverty” (Freeman’s Journal, July 9, 1921). In his travel account from August 25, 1921, Irish Slavonicist John J. R. O’Beirne also provided an insight into the monetary crisis in Austria (Freeman’s Journal, August 29, 1921). He had published many contributions in confessional Irish journals and nationalist newspapers. In his lecture “New Lands for Old,” he described his impressions of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, and he emphasized the overall “terrible conditions prevailing in those countries” (Freeman’s Journal, February 1, 1922). He claimed that Vienna was in a much worse state than most Austrian cities. The Irish Independent published an account of this talk (Irish Independent, February 9, 1922), highlighting that O’Beirne’s call for humanitarian aid was questioned in some circles in Ireland. In August 1922, several months after the first appeal, another appeal for funds was published in the Irish Independent, suggesting worsening conditions in Austria (Irish Independent, August 11, 1922). The Austrians themselves also pressed the severity of their situation before the League of Nations, stating that Austria was in dire need of immediate help in order to avoid complete chaos. In Ireland, calls for donations continued even in 1923 (Irish Independent, September 4, 1923).
When a student of University College Dublin, Celia Shaw, visited Austria in August 1922, she portrayed Vienna in the same light as did the articles of Irish dailies: empty shops and cafés, hungry-looking and dispirited locals, dear and scarce food (NLI, Ms. 23,410). On a positive note, she highlighted that the working-class population seemed “much tidier, cleaner, better groomed and better kept in general than the same classes in England or Ireland.”Footnote 7 Nonetheless, Shaw did not reflect on the political beliefs of the workers or any political trends associated with them—including any references to the social democrats who enjoyed majority support in Vienna after the war.
The Question of Borders
In the early 1920s, Irish partition coincided with the birth of new states in East-Central Europe. Although the Paris Peace Treaties were theoretically based on the principles of democracy and national self-determination, the transformation of the political system in East-Central Europe did not proceed without complications (Sharp Reference Sharp1997, 18). After 1918, Irish commentators focused heavily on these newly drawn borders in Central Europe, including the redistribution of nationalities, which was considered a significant factor in the formulation of identities in the self-declared nation-states. The communist threat and the antagonism between nationalities appeared inseparable; in other words, the newly independent and formerly oppressed neighbours of Hungary feared the spread of bolshevism as well as the restoration of the previous Hungarian control over their territories.
After the first draft of the peace treaty was presented to German-Austria on June 2, 1919, social democrat Chancellor Karl Renner had already voiced his concerns on several occasions regarding the proposed peace. The Freeman’s Journal reported that the Czechoslovaks “appealed to historical frontiers,” which the paper saw as “trampl[ing] Lower Austria’s historic right under foot” (Freeman’s Journal, June 12, 1919), alluding to the presence of German-speaking populations in Bohemia and the Lower Austrian territories near Gmünd (Cmunt) and Feldsberg (Valtice)—both transferred to Czechoslovakia under the terms of the treaty in the end. Hungary also built her claims upon her historical rights to maintain the lands of her thousand-year-old kingdom; the nationalist Irish press did not care to choose sides in this particular debate.
Like other peace treaties, the Treaty of Saint-Germain (signed on September 10, 1919, and ratified by the Austrian parliament on October 21, 1919) was received with suspicion by Austrian society (Scheuch Reference Scheuch1989, 181). And although peace with Austria was not the priority for the Allies, settling the controversies regarding Habsburg Central Europe was indispensable for ensuring a peaceful future for the region (Irish Independent, May 26, 1919). One of the most ambiguous issues was determining the exact status of Austria, whether it was the heir of the Habsburg Empire or a new and independent creation. At the peace conference, the Austrian Delegation emphasized the fact that they only represented the republic established on November 12, 1918, by the German population of the former monarchy. The Austrian Note emphasized that their newly independent republic had never been at war with anyone and therefore should not be regarded as the sole successor of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (Irish Independent, June 19, 1919). Consequently, the self-image of independent Austria reflected the political transformation of Habsburg Central Europe, identifying with the challenging situation that independent small nations found themselves in after the war. More specifically, the Austrians were reported to wonder “why the smallest and poorest and most peace loving of the States which arose out of the former Monarchy should be made the sole inheritor of its guilt and be expected to bear alone this consequences of the mistakes made by Hungarian, Polish, and Slovene statesmen” (Freeman’s Journal, June 19, 1919). According to the Freeman’s Journal, Austria insisted on removing all clauses from the Treaty that identified German Austria with the old Dual Monarchy (Freeman’s Journal, June 19, 1919). Despite the Austria’s plea, the Allies concluded that before signing the treaty, “Austria was an enemy people,” but once the treaty was to come into effect, the Allies were hoping to maintain “friendly relations” with her (Freeman’s Journal, September 3, 1919).
For a large segment of Austro-German society, another controversial point of the Treaty of Saint-Germain was the prohibition of Austria’s union with Germany.Footnote 8 In addition, the coexistence of Austria’s German and Catholic loyalties was another intriguing aspect of independent Austria’s identity. The attitude of the Freeman’s Journal toward the Anschluss was controversial, also illustrated by the title of the article regarding the ban on German unification: “Compulsory Independence” ( Freeman’s Journal, September 1, 1919). Therefore, when discussing the question of Austrian borders and any possible related conflicts, generally a pro-Austrian tone characterized Irish articles.
After the birth of the German-Austrian Republic, the question of new borders was bound to stir emotions in the Irish press. Irish nationalists frequently aimed to connect the issue of changing borders and the ethnic composition of Austria to actual Irish problems, especially in relation to the question of (greater German) unity. As far as territorial changes were concerned, Austria lost several German-speaking territories. Despite her claims, the Sudetenland became part of the Czechoslovak Republic, and Austrian Silesia in the southwest of Poland became a source of conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia.
When the South Tyrol was occupied by Italy, the Catholic Irish intelligentsia was divided on the question. While Jesuit writer and theologian James MacCaffrey (Reference MacCaffrey1919, 91) was optimistic regarding the religious future of the region, not attributing any threat to the Italian leadership, the Irish Monthly’s regular correspondent and former resident of the Tyrol Rev. A. Raybould emphasized that the region’s unity that was “Catholic to the core” (Reference Raybould1921, 57) was broken up by the Treaty of Saint-Germain.Footnote 9 When the Tyrol became partitioned as a result of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, two-thirds of its territory, the South Tyrol (the larger portion, then Alto Adige), was allocated to Italy and according to Schweigkopfler, was “expected to become Italian,” while the northern part was left with Austria (Schweigkofler Reference Schweigkofler and Wolff2000, 65; Raybould Reference Raybould1921, 57). Raybould was deeply sympathetic toward the population of the South Tyrol, explaining how the political situation was extremely gloomy. Similarly, most Irish nationalist dailies published the same view in the press regarding the Austrian protest against Italian territory gains. The Irish Independent, for instance, argued that the Tyrolese “talk and think in German”, explaining Italian hegemony as “a case of the predominance of the most selfish material considerations” (Irish Independent, May 5, 1919).
In contrast to the German-speaking parts of Bohemia and the Tyrol, Austria successfully claimed Western Hungary (Burgenland, except for Sopron, also known as Oedenburg) and was permitted to occupy these territories on August 7, 1921. In the city of Sopron a plebiscite decided in favor of staying under the Hungarian state. The plebiscite was attacked by many (non-Magyar) contemporaries. Throughout the conflict, the Irish press, relying on Reuters cablegrams from Berlin and telegrams from Vienna, echoed the Austrian opinion.Footnote 10 In addition, on October 20, 1920, Carinthia, with its mixed population of German and Slovene speakers, voted to stay with Austria. This particular plebiscite attracted considerable attention in Irish diplomatic circles since the North-Eastern Boundary Bureau (NEBB) and the Boundary Commission investigated similar “territorial transfer on the basis of local plebiscites” (Carpenter and White Reference Carpenter, White, McGuire and Quinn2009) in postwar Europe in order to support Irish nationalist claims with successful precedents. In addition to Carinthia (with special regard to Klagenfurt), the NEBB had also found the settlements of Silesia, Schleswig-Holstein, and Hungary noteworthy (Murray Reference Murray2011, 146). Interestingly, NEBB documentsFootnote 11 regarding continental precedents such as the case of the territorial disputes about Klagenfurt between Austria and Yugoslavia, or the case of the Bohemian Germans, were all based on the Czech and Yugoslav memoranda, respectively, presented at the peace conference.Footnote 12 In consequence, when it came to Irish claims in relation to the north-eastern boundary, there were very few references to other Austrian or Hungarian case studies, despite the high number of incidents there (including the occasional plebiscites). As the Austro-Hungarian Empire was defeated in the Great War, their leading successors’ claims were treated differently by the great powers at and after Versailles than the victorious, newly independent small states in the region. Altogether, the very fact that the question of boundaries was in dispute created a greater Irish interest in territorial settlements in Europe.
Catholicism as a Marker of Identity
In independent Ireland, Catholicism was a crucial element in the formulation of Irish self-identity, which had an impact on Irish perceptions of the wider world, including the successors of Austria-Hungary (MacMahon Reference MacMahon1981, 279). Therefore, Irish nationalist commentators considered it important to highlight the fate of Catholics, the changes in church-state relations and, most importantly, the impact of the Catholic faith on the national spirit of Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
By 1920, the consolidation of the new order had taken place in Central Europe. Therefore, Catholic Irish intellectuals such as Rev. Myles V. Ronan and James MacCaffrey provided an outlook to show how the overall political transformation impacted the Catholic Church in the newly independent successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Unsurprisingly, the Irish clergy spoke positively of the role of Catholicism in the Dual Monarchy, even after they lost the war. For example, when preaching in Skibbereen in April 1919, Rev. Kelly, Bishop of Ross was reported emphasizing that Austria-Hungary “was broken up, but still it was one of the greatest Catholic areas in the world” (Freeman’s Journal, April 16, 1919). It is worth noting that the statement was made a few weeks after the communist takeover in Hungary, but there was no mention of this in the bishop’s speech.
Austria’s Catholic identity, both in the imperial context and after the war, was a primary concern for those Irish authors who investigated Austria from either political or socioeconomic perspective. For instance, in November 1918, during the days of the Empire’s dissolution, the Irish Independent still labelled Austria as “being regarded as the outstanding Catholic Power of the world” (Irish Independent, November 14, 1918). James MacCaffrey was convinced that Catholicism was not likely to become extinct in the former Habsburg territories and that there was “no need for alarm about the future of religion, although the principle of self-determination should be applied to the former provinces of the Empire” (Reference MacCaffrey1919, 91).
As far as this link between the government and the Catholic Church was concerned, the significance of the Christian Social Party under the leadership of Monsignor Ignaz Seipel attracted the most attention in Catholic nationalist circles in Ireland after the Great War. After the general elections for the Austrian National Assembly in October 1923, Seipel’s merits were emphasized in the Freeman’s Journal, commenting on “the recovery which Austria [had] made under the coalition, of which he [was] the pivot and guide” (Freeman’s Journal, October 22, 1923). Therefore, the Catholic nature of the Austrian successor state was a topic of priority for Irish scholars and Catholicism, and hence it was deemed inseparable from Austrian national identity. In contrast to the appeals for helping Catholic Austria, pointing to the parallel situation of Catholic Ireland and Catholic Austria after the war, diplomat Sean T. Ó Ceallaigh (who became the second president of Ireland in 1945) adopted an ironic tone and questioned the validity of claims regarding the aid for suffering Austria during the Irish War of Independence: “Have our Irish bishops ever asked His Holiness to issue a similar appeal in aid of suffering in Ireland? If not, it is time they thought about it”.Footnote 13 He urged Irish bishops to demand a similar declaration from the Pope, bringing Catholics from all over the world to come to the aid of Ireland.
Treating social inequality and labor issues facing Ireland was a major concern for the Irish left as well as for certain Irish Catholics (both the clergy and Catholic lay intellectuals). As Joseph MacMahon has noted (Reference MacMahon1981, 264), little interest was shown in the efforts of Catholic social reformers on the continent. Nonetheless, the Church took action in the field of charity, as indicated in their interest in postwar Austria, for instance. A professor of history at National University Galway, Helena Concannon was well informed regarding the cause of Catholic women across Europe, including the successor states of the Dual Monarchy. She did not support feminist claims in politics but rather emphasized the domestic function of women and represented a conservative stance on social issues (Clancy Reference Clancy, Luddy and Murphy1990). She was convinced that “Austria, poor bankrupt starving Austria,” had “the noblest story to tell of the efforts of her Catholic women” (Concannon Reference Concannon1923a, 109). St. Brigid’s League and Caritas Socialis (the latter founded by Seipel) won Concannon’s admiration and support; therefore, in her articles in the Irish Monthly (Concannon Reference Concannon1923b, 157, 160) she called for public support and donations to help the above-mentioned charities. Accordingly, Catholic charity efforts in Ireland in the early 1920s focused a great deal of their efforts and sympathy on the independent Austrian state, which they perceived to be in a grave socioeconomic—but never a religious—crisis.
The headings of readers’ letters to the editor of the Irish Independent from March 1922 illustrate the feeling among the Catholic Irish public regarding the conditions of the clergy in Central Europe (Irish Independent, March 31, 1922; Irish Independent, April 5, 1922). In addition to the references to the serious state of poverty in Austria, Irish nationalist dailies and their readership also found the state of the Catholic Church and clergy alarming, calling for donations for the Viennese priests (Irish Independent, March 31, 1922). Helena Concannon reminded the readers of the Irish Independent that the historical and religious connection between Catholic Ireland and Austria should encourage further donations from the similarly distressed and impoverished Irish public (Irish Independent, March 31, 1922).
Conclusion
After 1918, the birth of independent small states in Central Europe attracted considerable attention in Ireland. The newly drawn borders in Central Europe and the communist threat in the region were recurring themes in Irish reports, closely related to the strong anti-communist tendencies that characterized Irish nationalist political and academic rhetoric during the interwar years.
As far as Austria was concerned, 1918 proved to be a watershed in some regards. Firstly, Irish nationalists unanimously viewed the independent Austrian Republic as a newly established small state sharing similar worries to Ireland in terms of national unity, as the cases of the South Tyrol and German Bohemia illustrated. It was the borderland regions of the former empire, such as the Sudetenland, Silesia, Ruthenia, Transylvania, and the South Tyrol, that were particularly analyzed in interwar Irish articles, due to the controversial territorial issues and border questions. On the other hand, the one element linking the Republic of Austria with the former monarchy was the perceived persistence of Catholic values, which formed the basis of a vast amount of newspaper editorials, diplomatic reports, and journal articles throughout the 1920s and 1930s.
The significance of religion in Irish national identity illustrates how postwar Austria became viewed in an overall positive light, as an independent, Catholic small state as opposed to being judged by its imperial legacy. Undoubtedly, in independent Ireland, Catholicism came to symbolize more than the everyday religion of most of the population; it was a crucial element in the formulation of Irish self-identity. The idea that “Irishness became almost synonymous with catholicity” (MacMahon Reference MacMahon1981, 279) also manifested itself in Irish perceptions of national identities of, among others, the successor states of the Dual Monarchy. Nonetheless, Catholicism was not the only important factor to shape the Irish image of Austria: shared concerns regarding national unity and minority problems foreshadowed that the interwar years were about to witness Austria and Ireland developing closer links with each other.
Disclosure
Author has nothing to disclose.
