Institutional Explanations of the Behavior of Austria-Hungary - Essay Example

Apply structural and al explanations of the behaviour of Austria-Hungary until 1914 Introduction The Austro-Hungarian war started in the year 1867. The war comprised of German, Ausgleich, Hungarian and Kiegyezes. Later the independence of the Hungarian Kingdom was partially re-established again. It was made as a separate kingdom that was not a subject to the rules and regulations of the Austrian Empire. During that period, the regions of the state of Austrian and Hungarian were under a different leadership system. The prime ministers and parliaments were separate from each other. In addition, the Emperor was in charge of the army and was the one who lead the army during the war by giving orders to the soldiers. Austria was a quasi-independent state in the Middle Ages within the Holy Roman Empire. The Habsburgs inherited the crown of Hungary with part of the Kingdom preserved from the Ottomans. The Ottomans were driven out of Hungary in 1669. Austria and Hungary were a personal union from1526 to 1848 under the Habsburgs (Fromkin, pp.11-16). Apply structural and institutional explanations of the behaviour of Austria-Hungary until 1914 Taking into consideration the status of the Hungarian Kingdom before the revolution, it can be seen that the kingdom was formally part of the Empire of Austria. Based on the Article of the year nineteen seventy, it was stipulated that the regnum independence with a separate Monarchy. The Empire of Austria had never lawfully included the Kingdom of Hungary. The policy was consistent with both public and constitutional law as discussed. The government of the Hungary Kingdom could be in a position of preserving a separate and independent budget since the begging of the personal union from 1527.The Hungarian budget was after the revolution of 1848 to 1849. The budget was independent too. Despite all these, the Kingdom of Hungary maintained its customs borders. The borders separated the Hungarian Kingdom from the other parts of the Habsburg ruled territories. The union had made a consent/agreement customs union between the Austrian and Hungarian where they were to negotiate in every ten years. The contracts were also renewed and signed by Budapest and Vienna at the end of every ten years since both countries hoped to get mutual economic benefit from their relationship (Fromkin, pp.11-16). Austria-Hungary also declared war on Serbia on July twenty-eight in the year 1914. Austria-Hungary made a step further to mobilize for plan B against Belgrade. There was the need for the warring governments to defend and explain their decision, with the Germans publishing a first set of diplomatic papers in early August. The propaganda machinery of the government supported the decisions that were made on 1914 July. Pribram worked tirelessly in creating encouragements to the soldiers to publish all of the relevant Habsburg documents on July 1914. This blame shifted away from Germany to Vienna. There was an agreement by the Austrian Authorities and, in fact, accepted to take some financial subsidy for such an effort. Pribram was also involved in executing an imperative role in selecting the documents once again and was assisted by the three experts. Among the three people selected 2 were responsible for making preparations of the publication reports. The collection of the papers ended with a letter from Emperor Franz Joseph to Kaiser Wilhelm two dated on 1st August 1914. Professor Bernadotte Schmitt was the first historian to use them in a limited fashion. His two-volume study, the emergence of the 1914 War was virtually finished when the volumes were published. The flood of memoir accounts and later the evaluations on the war outbreak and their conduct started to be evident barely prior the onset of the war. There were five volumes of initial Chief, Hotzendorf Von staff Conrad, he blamed every person and excluded himself. Classy Julius was among the individuals who were being blames together with Berchtold. Moreover, newspaper person, Kanner Heinrich did not have time to sympathize, anyone. On the contrary, others added bits and pieces of details about the Habsburg decision process. The principal characters’ such as the Emperor Joseph Franz and Ferdinand Archduke were also involved. It was evident that The media highly criticized Thronfolger unlike his counterparts such as Sturgkh, Ferdinand Franz and Joseph Franz who were sympathized by the press. Some loopholes were seen among the four principal decision-making participants prior the war coming to a halt. The government of Austrian did not utilize their limited capacity as compared to their German counterparts who challenge the Kriegsschuldfrage verdict (Fromkin, pp.121-164). The activist from Austrian as well as the students displayed the impact of access to the archives. It was discovered that some people like Peball Kurt and Broucek continued to write about different military planning aspects of military planning on the eve of the battle. Between the year 1858-1914, Armee K.U.K and Allmayer-Beck made their contribution. Austrian students now started benefiting from the access to the archives. Messler Host wrote criticism of the Conrad’s war plans via writing. On the other hand, Deuchamn Wilhelm was found to have made a significant contribution regarding the effects of Balkan battle. Moreover, the Hungarian historians were not left behind in making their historical contributions. They enjoyed considerable freedom under the regime of communism. In nineteen fourteen, Dioszegi Ist van executed the task of editing the Burian Diary. Later Dioszegi made the evaluation of the Clique Magyar. Galatia Joseph went ahead to write an interesting assessment about the establishments of foreign laws during the war. Their art of work was joined by Vermes’ who provided a comprehensive coverage of first van Tisza; he utilized substantial resources from the achieve to make his work. The thorough military study came from German Historian Gunther Kronenbitter and his blunt examination of the Habsburg army. It displayed the predicaments of both the archival sources from achieves as well as historical writings. In addition, Kronenbitter his long meditations about Habsburg military leadership to bear on his analysis. The social composition of the officer corps was also tracked and the ideological views of the army leadership and then realized the confrontation of that leadership with the reality of their strategic situation. He also analyzed the war- peace faced by Conrad, the military, and the civilian elite added copious details to an understanding of the miscalculations made in Vienna in the summer of 1914. The Pethos by Albert led to another set of insights on the extensive study of Habsburg intelligence operations before and during the war. He did exploitation on the archival papers of Maximilian Ronge, sometime head of military intelligence and relevant files of the general staff alongside the existing printed materials. A detailed analysis of almost every aspect of Habsburg intelligence operations before and during the war emerged. The outcome of Alfred Redl’s treason upon Conrad’s battle plan is. He concluded that the colonel did reveal the attack plan against Russia and gave St.Petersburg valuable information about the monarchy’s spy networks. Conrad’s impromptu shifts of troop locations in 1914 rendering much of the treasonous material of less value were among his thoughts. The question of whether his information about the attack plans on Serbia was not inscribed (Fromkin, pp.126-164). No attention was paid to the rivalries between the great powers for a brief moment on the eve of the World War by the people living in a time marked by disturbing events. There was a fight over colonial territory and the bitter struggles in the Balkans. The public briefly focused on the monstrous deeds in the midst of all the crises and the expectations of new and possibly even greater armed conflicts. The horrible deeds symbolized the monarchy’s moral decay. Scandals in civil administration and the army along with other scandals led to the picture of a crumbling, moribund Danube Monarchy. This kind of impression was fuelled by notorious spying cases like the exposure of the spy network of the Russian military attaché in Vienna, Michail 1 and mainly the rest of the detectives that characterized the period. Cooperation and distrust also bothered the intelligence officers of the Austro-Hungarian general staff because, in the course of trying to improve communications with St.Petersburg, the Evidenzbureau had reduced intelligence activities in Russia. The information posts had a yearly budget of 20000 koronas in 1903. In the East, the number was cut to 6000 koronas by 1906. Espionage network of the Austrian had decreased since fewer, and fewer informants were willing to continue in the light of these budget cuts. The remaining employees also cooperated occasionally with the Russian representatives. Further sanction collaboration by the leaders of the Austrian army because they did not see the Russians after their defeat in the East Asia as an immediate threat. Austrians were already in agreement with the Russians to establish exchange programs and the future rivals in the espionage duel (Fromkin, pp.126-195). Changes also occurred in the first few days after the exposure of the master spy on the general staff. The Budapest state police improved after the scandal of 1913. The border patrols in the Eastern part of the Habsburg Empire had already started participating in the proactive Kundschaftsdienst. The reorganization of the military intelligence service in Austria posted distinct problems due to one particular trait of the k.u.k espionage system. Several departments of the General Staff ran intelligence services unlike the Germans and section 3b was in charge of procuring information. The Austro-Hungarian Evidenzbureau assembled all these tasks. There was also a proposal of reassigning the Bureau’s employees to the war units of the operations office. It was where they would examine problematic cases (Fromkin, pp.226-269). Nobody was exactly sure as to how significant the files were when handed over to the Russians for the longest time. This lead to preparatory manoeuvres in the Kiev military district. Master spy was paid by czarist Razvedka for favours rendered which and was an enormous sum of money that reflected the significance of the material. Alfred was also able to provide the Russian military with information that was an invaluable by handing over the documents he had executed. The central department of the Russian general staff in St.Petersburg mostly attempted to fill in some gaps in their knowledge in the years before World War 1. They further claimed that the Habsburg army’s battle order was not complete yet. They were happy otherwise with the information they had. It was also clear that the file had contained up-to-date information. This fact was confirmed by the Russian intelligence officer Aleksandr A. Samojlo. The files also had designated that Alfred was probably seen as the most important but by far not the only top spy in Razvedka’s employ. The sensational infamy showed the Razvedka’s triumph and setbacks in the context of the overall development. Hohenzollern troops in Eastern Prussia were the primary target of Danilov. He targeted this after he noted an armed conflict between Berlin and Vienna on hand and Paris and St.Petersburg on the other hand. The war could cause the Habsburg and Hohenzollern troops to attack and occupy Russian Poland. Despite all these closures, the Vienna press reported improvements to the infrastructure and a support of troops in the Russian borderland in 1913. Nothing had worked out the way the Austro-Hungarian army had hoped from July of 1914. Permanent facts talked about Austria from the very start. Hence, Russia relayed on a much large number of subjects (Fromkin, pp.226-269). Conclusion Conclusively, it can be scrutinized that the political agenda was dominated by battles and defeat. It can be that Hungary and Austria had different parliamentary systems. The parliamentarians met in Vienna and Budapest respectively. The made policies/laws though they maintained the separate legal system. Every region had their governments that were governed by a prime minister as discussed. Vienna in France, the joint foreign ministers, and the Emperor was made up of a double monarchy that made control of the two regions as discussed in the study. The king was accountable for maintaining his status and privileges as a leader. A significant number Hungarians had taken the comprise as a result of threat and intimidation rather than free will and consent. The pressure was high for marginalization by various minority ethnic groups. It can be seen that in each decade there were some negotiations that were being executed. Such renegotiation caused the emergence of constitutional crises. The effects of dual or double monarchy in stabilizing a nation are even today. Work Cited Fromkin, David. Europes last summer: who started the Great War in 1914? Vintage, 2007. Good, David F. The economic rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750-1914. Univ of California Press, 1984. Krasner, Stephen D. "State power and the structure of international trade." World Politics 28.03 (1976): 317-347. Krasner, Stephen D. "State power and the structure of international trade." International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth (2000): 19-36. : Read More