We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
The destruction of the Habsburg monarchy forced the Austrian Germans to make a wholly unforeseen and, with few exceptions, a heretofore unthinkable decision about their destiny. The rump Austria of 1919 was too weak to command the allegiance of all its citizens. Many Austrians, despairing of mastering the economic and political problems in Vienna, searched for an easier solution: the realization of the forbidden but still anticipated unification with their conationals in the German Republic. For it seemed in retrospect that only their Habsburg loyalties had separated them from the main channel of the Germanic stream. Often Austrian civic virtues seemed to them to have been bought at some rummage sale of political ideas—the symbols of imperial order, the loyalties of political Catholicism, a collection of Francis Joseph's virtues—hardly the raw material from which to build patriotism in postwar Austria.
1 The best general approach to the Anschluss movement can be found in Walter, Goldinger, “Der geschichtliche Ablauf der Ereignisse in Österreich von 1918 bis 1945,” in Benedikt, Heinrich (ed.), Geschichte der Republik Österreich (Vienna: R. Oldenbourg, 1954), pp. 94–103Google Scholar; and Adam Wandruszka, “Osterreichs politische Struktur. Die Entwicklung der Parteien und politischen Bewegungen,” in ibid., passim. See also Margaret, Ball, Post-War German-Austrian Relations (Stanford University, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1937), pp. 8–113Google Scholar; and Mikoletzky, Hanns Leo, Österreichische Zeitgeschichte. Votn Ende der Monarchie bis zum Abschluss des Staatsvertragea 1955 (Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1962), pp. 81–83Google Scholar.
2 Kleinwaechter, Friedrich F. G., Selbstbestimmungsrecht fur Österreich (Stuttgart: Koch, Neff, and Oettinger, 1929), p. 23Google Scholar. See also Kleinwaechter, Friedrich F. G., Der deutschösterreichische Mensch und der Anschluss (Vienna: Eckart, 1926), pp. 47–89Google Scholar. The same view was expressed in articles by university teachers Wilhelm, Bauer, Robert, Lach, and Victor, Geramb in Kleinwaechter, Friedrich F. G. and von Paller, Hans (eds.), Die Anschlussfrage (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1930), pp. 11–19 and 245–295Google Scholar.
3 Joseph, Papasch, “Deutsche Kultur und Österreich,” in Hermann, Ullmann (ed.), Werdendes Grossdeutschland (Berlin: Kyffhäuser Verband, 1926), p. 12Google Scholar. For similar views, see Victor Geramb, , “Ein Brief aus Österreich,” Volk und Reich, Vol. II (February, 1926), p. 7Google Scholar. Pan-German Hohenzollern nostalgia was evident in the Deutschösterreichische Tageszeitung (Vienna), August 5,1927, and passim.
4 Viktor, Bibl, Der Zerfall Österreichs (2 vols., Vienna: Rikola Verlag, 1922–1924), Vol. I, pp. vii, viii, and 183–257Google Scholar; Viktor, Bibl, Metternich in neuer Beleuchtung. Sein geheimer Briefwechsel mit dem bayerischen Staatsminister Wrede. Nach unveröffentlichten Dokumenten ana den Archiven in Wien und München (Vienna: L. W. Seidel und Sohn, 1928), pp. 5–11Google Scholar. Bibl's view of Metternich was considered extreme. See Arnold, Winkler's review in Die Reichspost (Vienna), July 1, 1928Google Scholar; and Heinrich, von Srbik's in Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Vol. XLII (1928), pp. 397–409Google Scholar.
5 Österreich-Deutschland, Vol. II (March, 1925), p. 8. Kleinwaechter discusses Renner's, attempt to delete Austria from the map in his Von Sehönbrunn bis St. Germain. Die Entstehung der Republik Österreich (Graz: Styria Verlag, 1964), pp. 145–146Google Scholar. Otto, Bauer's historiographic volte-face can be detected in Die österreichische Revolution (Vienna: Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1923), pp. 49–52Google Scholar. Note especially how this differs from even the postwar edition of his classic work on the national question: Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie (Vienna: Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1924), pp. xxviii, 501–502, and passim. The literature on the socialist and liberal attitudes is enormous; in this paper I have only attempted to cite the most relevant sources.
6 For the pro-imperial historiography, consult Alphons, Lhotsky, Österreichische Historiographie (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1962), pp. 197–212Google Scholar. See also especially Hermann, Bidermann, Geschichte der österreichischen Gesamt-Staats-Idee (2 vols., Innsbruck: Wagner, 1867–69)Google Scholar.
7 For the problems of historico-political entities versus centralizing forces, see Eann, Robert A., The Multinational Empire: Nationalism and National Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1848–1918 (2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), Vol. I, pp. 33–38Google Scholar; and Erich, Zollner, “The Germans as an Integrating and Disintegrating Force,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III, Pt. 1 (1967), pp. 204–205. Two attempts at explicating an organic unity can be found in Hermann Meynert, Geschichte Oesterreichs (2 vols., Pesth: Conrad Hartleben, 1843–46), Vol. I, pp. iv-v;Google Scholar and von Kralik, Richard, Österreichische Geschichte (Vienna: A. Holzhausen, 1913), p. 616Google Scholar. Others are discussed in von Srbik, Heinrich, “Österreichs Schicksal im Spiegel des geflügelten Wortes,” Mitteihmgen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Vol. XLII (1927), pp. 286–292Google Scholar.
8 Leonard, Doob, Patriotism and Nationalism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1964), p. 142Google Scholar.
9 Gustav, Stolper, Deutsch-Österreich als Sozial- und Wirtschafts- Problem (Munich: Drei Masken Verlag, 1921), p. 111Google Scholar. See also Viktor, Bibl, Geschichte Österreichs im XX. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Steyrermühl Verlag, 1933), p. 107.Google Scholar
10 Wilhelm, Bauer, “Österreich,” Österreich. Zeitschrift für Geschichte, Vol. I (1918), pp. 1–2Google Scholar. See also May, Arthur J., The Passing of the Hapsburg Monarchy (2 vols., Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1966), Vol. I, pp. 287–289Google Scholar.
11 Bauer's various articles set the tone for the journal Österreich, which especially emphasized the history of non-German Austria. Among the contributors to this publication was Alphons Dopsch, the famous medievalist, who made a less sanguine contribution in this vein. See his Österreichs geschichtlichte Sendung (Vienna: C. Fromme, 1917)Google Scholar. Another historian working along the same lines was Karl Hugelmann. See his Historisch-politische Studien (Vienna: St. Nobertus Buchdruckerei, 1915), pp. iv and 171–173.
12 It is interesting that the Austrians accepted their exclusion from these political forms more readily than the Germans, who emphasized the state as a binding national influence, more important than language. See the attack of Max Weber and Ferdinand Tönnies on an Austrian socialist who identified nationalism with language and culture in Verhandlungen des zweiten deutschen Soziologentages (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1913), pp. 50, 187, and passimGoogle Scholar.
13 For the roots of “anthropological” thought, see Albert Puchs, Geistige Strömungen in Österreich (Vienna: Globus Verlag, 1949), pp. 68–76; and von Kralik, Richard, “Die Entdeckungsgeschichte des österreichischen Staatsgedankens,” Die Kultur, Vol. XVIII (1917), pp. 99–137Google Scholar. Bahr's, prewar pro-Austrian writings were collected in Austriaca (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1911)Google Scholar; his most important wartime essays can be found in Schwarzgelb (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1917). See also his wartime diaries: 1917 (Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1918); and 1918 (Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1919). Discussions of Bahr's views can be found in Karl, Nirschl, In seinen Menschen ist Österreich (Linz: Oberösterreichischer Landesverlag, 1964), pp. 141–149Google Scholar; and Erich, Widder, Hermann Bahr (Linz: Oberösterreichischer Landesverlag, 1963), pp. 80–83Google Scholar. Hofmannsthal's, major wartime essays can be found in Gesammelte Werke, Prosa (15 vols., Frankfurt a. M.: S. Fischer, 1945–1960), Vol. III, pp. 189–409Google Scholar. All the voluminous works on Hofmannsthal discuss his Austrianism. Of particular relevance are Brian, Coghlan, Hofmannsthal's Festival Drama (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1964), pp. 83–149Google Scholar; Peter, Pawlowsky, “Die Idee Österreichs bei Hugo von Hofmannsthal,” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. VI (1962), pp. 177–185Google Scholar; and Claudio, Magris, Der habsburgische Mythos in der österreichischen Literatur (Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1966), pp. 214–234Google Scholar. Wildgans', writings can be found in Sämtliche Werke (7 vols., Vienna: Bellaria Verlag, 1948–1956), Vol. VII, pp. 335–362Google Scholar. See also Richard, Schaukal, Zeitgemässen deutschen Betrachtungen (Munich: Georg Müller, 1916)Google Scholar; and Richard, Schaukal, “Österreich,” Der Gral, Vol. XI (1917), pp. 37–39Google Scholar. Kralik, , in many ways the founder of Austrianism, was an extremely prolific writer. See his Geschichte des Weltkrieges: Das Jahr 1914 (Vienna: A. Holzhausen, 1915), pp. 1 and 2–4Google Scholar; and his Die neue Staatenordnung in organisehen Aufbau (Vienna: Tyrolia Verlag, 1918), pp. 32–38. Hanslik's and Müller's major works are cited in notes 15 and 16. The relationship between the major “anthropologists” is easily documented. Bahr was strongly influenced by Hofmannsthal. See Bahr, , Selbstbildnis (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1923), p. 281Google Scholar. Wildgans, and Hofmannsthal, reinforced each other's wartime patriotism. See Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal-Wildgans (Zürich: G. Heinz, 1935), p. 49Google Scholar. Bahr knew and read Müller, Schaukal, and Kralik. See Bahr, 1917, p. 37; and Bahr, 1918, pp. 226 and 261–262. Kralik edited Der Gral, which published various writings of Schaukal and Bahr. Bahr dedicated one of the Austrian volumes to Kralik.
14 von Kralik, Richard, Die Entscheidung im Weltkrieg (Vienna: A. Holzhausen, 1914), p. 5Google Scholar.
15 Robert, Müller, Österreich und der Mensch (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1916), p. 43Google Scholar.
16 Ibid., pp. 19–23; Erwin Hanslik, Österreich, Erde und Geist (Vienna: Verlag des Instituts für Kulturforschung, 1917), pp. 132–135; Bahr, Schwarzgelb, pp. 214–216.
17 Wilhelm, Bauer, Österreich in den reichsdeutschen Geschichtsschulbüchern (Berlin: Österreichisch-Deutscher Volksbund, 1927), p. 12Google Scholar. See also Wilhelm, Bauer's article, “Das Deutschtum und Deutsch-Österreichischer,” Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Vol. XVII (1927), pp. 341–342Google Scholar. Articles by Georg A. Lukas and Wilhelm Erben, both of the University of Graz, reinforced Bauer. See ibid., Vol. XIV (1924), pp. 154–157; and Vol. XVII (1927), pp. 342–354. Alphons Lhotsky suggests that Austrian historians viewed their state's sudden territorial implosion not only as a misfortune but also as a shameful fact. See his “Geschichtsforschung und Geschichtsschreibung in Österreich,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. CLXXXIX (1959), p.439.
18 Hans, Kelsen, Die staatsrechtliche Durchführung des Anschlusses Österreich an das Deutsche Reich (Vienna: Julius Springer, 1927), p. 7Google Scholar. See also Ludwig, Gerhard, Deutsche und österreichische Organisation der inneren Verwaltung (Munich: J. Schweitzer, 1926), p. 42Google Scholar; Franz, Klein, “Deutscher Einheitsstaat oder Deutsch-Österreich,” Die Hilfe, Vol. XXXIV (May 1, 1928), p. 201Google Scholar; Franz, Klein, Reden, Vorträge, Aufsätze, Briefe (3 vols., Vienna: Manz, 1927), Vol. II, pp. 1006–1014Google Scholar; and Österreich-Deutschland, Vol. IV (October, 1927), p. 4.
19 Bahr, 1918, p. 262; Bahr, 1919 (Leipzig: E. P. Tal, 1920), p. 306. Bertha, Szeps-Sucherkandl, “Gespräch über Österreich,” in Fiechtner, Helmut (ed.), Hugo von Hofmannsthal (Vienna: Humbolt, 1949), pp. 337–338Google Scholar.
20 Joseph, Roth, Werke (3 vols., Cologne: Kiepner & Witsch, 1956), Vol. III, p. 328Google Scholar. This was certainly in the same mood as Roth's major novel about Austrian nostalgia, Radetzky March (New York: Viking Press, 1933), pp. 208–211. In his “The Lost World of Joseph Roth,” Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Vol. XLV (1965), pp. 51–52, Robert Schwarz shows how Roth's nostalgia was rooted in his Jewish and Eastern European experience.
21 Helmut, Fiechtner, “Die Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal-Redlich,” Wort in der Zeit, Vol. II (1956), p. 26Google Scholar.
22 von Kralik, Richard, “Bismarcks Politik als Widerspruch zur deutschen Geschichte,” Schönere Zukunft, Vol. III (July 29, 1928), p. 944Google Scholar. See also von Kralik, Richard, “Weg der Revision der deutschen Geschichtsauffassung,” Schönere Zukunft, Vol. IV (October 14, 1928), pp. 47–50Google Scholar; and Rudolf Borchardt, “Hugo von Hofmannsthal,” in Fiechtner, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, p. 354. Bahr's views were expressed in his diaries. See also Fellner, Fritz (ed.), Schicksalsjahre Österreich 1908–1919. Das politische Tagebuch Josef Redlichs (2 vols., Graz: Böhlau, 1953–54), p. 323Google Scholar.
23 Briefwechsel Hugo von Hofmannsthal-Carl J. Burckkardt (Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 1956), p. 23Google Scholar.
24 von Hofmannsthal, Hugo, Selected Plays and Libretti (New York: Pantheon Books, 1963), p. 689Google Scholar.
25 Ibid., p. 729. This interpretation is the same as that of Emil, Staiger, in his Meisterwerke deutscher Sprache am dem neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Zürich: Atlantis Verlag, 1957), p. 225Google Scholar. For a discussion of Neuhoff's Prussianism, see Yates', W. E. introduction to Der Schwierige (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1966), pp. 25–26Google Scholar. Roger Norton has correctly pointed out that Der Schwierige was conceived in outline form long before World War I, but, interestingly enough, Neuhoff was not included among the characters in these earlier drafts. See his “The Inception of Hofmannsthal's Der Schwierige: Early Plans and Their Significance,” PMLA, Vol. LXXXIX (1964), pp. 97–103. Hofmannsthal considered this very much a contemporary play. See Briefwechsel Hugo von Hofmannsthal-Arthur Schnitzler (Frankfurt a. M.: S. Fischer, 1964), p. 287.
26 Hermann, Bahr, Österreich in Ewigkeit (Hildesheim: F. Borgmeyer, 1929), pp. 163–164Google Scholar.
27 Ibid., p. 104.
28 Ibid., p. 111.
29 Die Reichspost, June 24, 1925, August 5, 1927, and passim; Ernst, Bäumgärten, Die österreichische Presse in ihrer Stellungsnahme zur Anschlussfrage (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, 1950), pp. 115–121Google Scholar.
30 Die Reichspost, August 19, 1923. See also the pro-union petitions in Der Anschluss (Vienna), December 15,1928, and January 1 and 12,1929.
31 Wandruszka, “Österreichs politische Struktur,” pp. 330–331.
32 Ignaz, Seipel, Österreich wie es wirklich ist (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumiiller, 1953), p. 10Google Scholar. He expressed the same views in France. See Gessl, Josef (ed.), Seipels Reden in Österreich und anderwärts (Vienna: Heros, 1926), p. 323Google Scholar. For Seipel's prewar views, see his Nation und Staat (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1916), pp. 13–50; Kann, , The Multinational Empire, Vol. II, 213–219;Google Scholar and Rolf, Wolkan, “Der österreichische Staatsgedanke und seine Wandlungen im Zeitalter Franz Josephs,” Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Vol. XI, Ergänzungsband (1929), pp. 838–839Google Scholar.
33 Paul, Sweet, “Seipel's Views on the Anschluss: an Unpublished Exchange of Letters,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XIX (1947), p. 323Google Scholar. These doubts were often repeated. See Gessl, Seipels Reden, p. 322; Vorwärts (Berlin), Edition A, February 6, 1926; and Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Nationalrates, III Gesetzgebungs Periode, Vol. 1,1950, passim.
34 Peter, Mosser and Theodor Reitterer, Die Mittelschulen in Österreich (Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1929), pp. 68 and 86Google Scholar.
35 Robert, Janeschitz-Kriegl, Lehrbuch der Geschichte, Vol. II (Vienna: Franz Deuticke, 1932), p. 165Google Scholar; Heinrich, Montzka, Woynars Lehrbuch der Geschichte, Vol. II (Vienna: Hölder, Pichler, Tempsky A. G., 1931), p. 231Google Scholar; Andreas, Zeehe, Lehrbuch der Geschichte (Vienna: Ed. Holzel, 1930), Vol. III, pp. 162–172Google Scholar; Vol. IV, pp. 76–78. In a handbook designed for the teaching profession, Robert Endres demanded more than this vague nostalgia for the past. See his Handbuch der österreichischen Stoats- und Wirtschafts-Geschichte (Leipzig: A. Haase, 1922), pp. 4–5.
36 See Jose, Redlich's 1921 introduction to his Weltmacht des Barock (Vienna: R. M. Rohrer, 1961), p. ixGoogle Scholar; Josef, Redlich, Akademie-Festreden (Graz: H. Böhlaus Nachf., 1958), pp. 49–50Google Scholar; and Leo, Santifaller, “Oswald Redlich,” Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Vol. LVI (1948), pp. 154–165.Google Scholar
37 Heinrich, von Srbik, Metternich, der Staatsmann und Mensch (3 vols., Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1925, 1954), Vol. I, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.
38 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 558.
39 von Srbik, Heinrich, “Metternichs mitteleuropäische Idee,” Volk und Reich, Vol. II (September, 1926), p. 355Google Scholar. See also von Srbik, Heinrich, Deutsche Einheit: Idee und Wirklichkeit vom Heiligen Reich bis König grätz (4 vols., Munich: P. Bruckmann, 1935–1942), Vol. I, pp. 7–11Google Scholar. Jacques Droz correctly states that the first volume of Deutsche Einheit bears the impress of the pre- and not the post-1933 period. See his discussion in Lea révolutions allemandes de 1848 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957), pp. 17–18. Srbik's ideas were originally published in a 1929 essay, later produced in book form with amendations under the title Gesamtdeutsche Geschichtsauffassung (Leipzig: Teubner, 1932). See also von Srbik, Heinrich, “Reichsidee und Staatsidee,” in Fritz, Büchner (ed.), Was ist das Reich? (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1932), pp. 68–70Google Scholar.
40 Erich, Brandenburg, “Deutsche Einheit,” Historische Vierteljahrschrift, Vol. XXX (1936), p. 769Google Scholar. See also Fritz, Hartung, “Preussen und die deutsche Einheit,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte, Vol. XLIX (1937), pp. 1–21Google Scholar. A prominent German disciple of Srbik was Wilhelm, Schüssler, whose most important work was Deutsche Einheit und gesamtdeutsche Geschichtsbetrachtung (Stuttgart: J. Cotta, 1937)Google Scholar. His most important Austrian convert was Harold, Steinacker. See Volk und Geschichte (Brunn: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1943), pp. 1–110 and 171–275Google Scholar.
41 Both Kaindl, and Srbik, considered themselves disciples of Naumann. Theodor Heuss believed this was true in Srbik's case. See his Friedrich Naumann (Stuttgart: Rainer Wunderlich, 1949), p. 337Google Scholar. See also Paul, Sweet, “Recent German Literature on Mitteleuropa,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. III (1943), pp. 13–17Google Scholar.
42 Kaindl, Raimund Friedrich, Österreich, Preussen, Deutschland (Vienna: W. Braumüller, 1926), p. 11Google Scholar. See also Kaindl's autobiography in Siegfried, Steinberg (ed.), Die Geschichtswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen (2 vols., Leipzig: F. Meiner, 1925–1926), Vol. II, pp. 191–194Google Scholar; Theodor, Traber, “Raimund Friedrich Kaindl,” Neues Abendland, Vol. II (1947), pp. 174–176;Google Scholar and Alexander, Blase, Raimund Friedrich Kaindl (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962), pp. 38–68Google Scholar. Srbik's attack on Kaindl can be found in his “Kleindeutsch oder grossdeutsch. Ein kritisher Beitrag zu Kaindls Buch: Österreich, Preussen, Deutschland,'” Archiv für Politik und Geschichte, Vol. IV (1926), pp. 251–260; and his “Unmethodische Geschichtsbetrachtung,” Schönere Zukunft, Vol. III (October 30, 1927), pp. 104–106. Kaindl's reply is in “Professor von Srbik und mein Buch Österreich, Preussen, Deutschland,'” Schönere Zukunft, Vol. III (November 6, 1927), pp. 126–130. Kaindl carried his attack on German historians and the advocacy of the Mitteleuropa concept into the German Historical Conference of 1927. See Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. CXXXVII (1928), p. 416.
43 Hugo, Hantsch, Österreich. Eine Deutung seiner Geschichte und Kultur (Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1934), p. 16Google Scholar. See also Hugo, Hantsch, Die Entwicklung Österreich-Ungarns zur Grossmacht (Freiburg: Herder & Co., 1933), pp. 54–55;Google Scholar Volksdeutscher Arbeitskreis österreichischer Katholiken, Katholischer Glaube und deutsches Volkstum in Österreich (Salzburg: Anton Pustet, 1933), pp. 41–223.
44 Bartsch, Rudolf Hans, “Das österreichische Selbstgefühl,” Das Neue Reich, Vol. VI (February 2, 1924), p. 376. Among a host of other works in a similar veinGoogle Scholar, see Joseph, Eberle, “Deutscher Besuch in Wien,” Schönere Zukunft, Vol. III (November 27, 1927), pp. 181–182Google Scholar; Karl, Diwald, “1529: Osterreich rettet das Abendland,” Das Neue Reich, Vol. XI (September 14, 1929), p. 996Google Scholar; Schmitz, Oscar A. H., Der österreichische Mensch (Vienna: K. Fiedler Verlag, 1924), pp. 7–11Google Scholar; and Kunz, H., Neu-Österreich (Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1923), pp. 54–55Google Scholar.
45 Der Anschluss, January 15, 1928; Viktor, Dankl, “Nochmals: die österreichische Frage,” Das Neue Reich, Vol. VII (August 1, 1925), pp. 1029–1033Google Scholar. For a young monarchist's criticism of this leader's attempt to maintain the nostalgic concept intact without revision, see Hans, Karl, Otto von Österreich (Vienna: W. Braumüller, 1931), pp. 136–137Google Scholar.
46 Winter, Ernst Karl, “Österreichische Erziehungsprobleme,” Wiener politische Blätter, Vol. IV (July 5, 1936), p. 245Google Scholar. See the short biography by Alfred, Missong, “E. K. Winter—Mitschöpfer der Zweiten Republik,” Forum, Vol. XII (1965), p. 245Google Scholar. Winter's rejected dissertation, in which he argued that Austrianism was rooted in the baroque monarchy, was published under the title Rudolph IV von Österreich (2 vols., Vienna: Eeinhold, 1934–36). See Vol. I, p. ix. See also Winter, Ernst Karl, “Österreich im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” Das Neue Reich, Vol. VII (March 7-July 25, 1925), pp. 533 ffGoogle Scholar.
47 Alfred, Missong, “Österreichs Politik seit 1866/68,” in Winter, Ernst Karl et al. , Die österreichische Aktion: programatischen Studien (Vienna: Privately printed, 1927), pp. 111–112. Such radicalism worried the Germans, who regarded the “Action” as an indication of the failure of communications between the Germans and the AustriansGoogle Scholar. See Otto, Kunze, “Die Österreichische Aktion,” Hochland, Vol. XXV (September, 1928), p. 650Google Scholar.
48 Wildgans, Sämtliche Werke, Vol. VII, p. 423. The author's widow claims that the radio speech was very popular. See Lily, Wildgans, Der gemeinsame Weg (Salzburg: Berlang-Buch Verlag, 1960), p. 407Google Scholar. However, Wildgans was ignored in many influential circles. The Neue Freie Presse (Vienna), for instance, did not choose to mention the radio address. Given this paper's policies, such action can be taken less as an attempt to manage the news than an indication that the Presse saw no threat from Wildgans' direction.
49 Bahr, 1918, p. 17.
50 Hofmannsthal, , Geaammelte Werke, Prosa, Vol. III, p. 382Google Scholar.
51 Ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 412–413 and 508–509; von Hofmannsthal, Hugo, Geaammelte Werke, Aufzeichnungen (Frankfurt a. M.: S. Fischer, 1959), p. 53Google Scholar; Briefwechsel Hofmannsthal-Burckhardt, p. 227. See also Helmut, Fiechtner, “Hofmannsthal der Europaer,” Wort in der Zeit, Vol. II (1956), pp. 33–37Google Scholar.
52 Ernst Karl Winter, “Vorwort,” Die österreichische Aktion, p. 5. See also the work of another “Action” member, the legitimist leader Baron H. K. von Zessner-Spitzenberg, “Der österreichische Gedanke und der deutsche Weg,” Schönere Zukunft, Vol. III (July 22, 1928), p. 923; and Schmitz, Der österreichische Mensch, p. 68. Srbik's predecessor at the University of Vienna, August Fournier, held these views even earlier. See his Erinnerungen (Munich: Drei Masken Verlag, 1923), p. 10. Among others, Friedrich Schreyvogl attempted to integrate an eventual Anschluss with Pan-Europeanism; however, the propagandistic intent of these views precluded their serious consideration. See Schreyvogl's, Österreich, das deutsche Problem (Cologne: J. P. Bachem, 1925), p. 61Google Scholar. Contrary to this author's view that Europeanism was the effective component of Austrianism, Magris (see his Der habsburgische Mythos in der österreichwchen Literatur, pp. 7–27) has isolated two other elements of the nostalgic Austrian traditionalist concept: Viennese hedonism and respect for the imperial bureaucracy. While these did exist, they could hardly have been the source for a ground swell of patriotism.
53 Hans, Kohn, “AEIOU. Some Reflections on the Meaning and Mission of Austria,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XI (1939), pp. 521–524Google Scholar; Jacques, Droz, L'Europe centrale (Paris: Payot, 1960), pp. 261–262Google Scholar. Adam Wandruszka presents a not wholly inadequate case for the opposite interpretation—that Srbik's Austrianism remained stronger than his Germanism. See Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Vol. LIX (1951), pp. 232–233.
54 Among the many postwar discussions of Austrianism, two of the most revealing can be found in Forum, Vol. V (1958), pp. 260–262; and in Ernst, Hoor, “Die österreichische Nation—eine Realität,” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. I, No. 4 (1957), pp. 193–200Google Scholar.
