Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNumérosLXXXVIII-4The Silent Majority: Attitudes of...

The Silent Majority: Attitudes of Non-prominent Citizens at the Beginning of the Great War in the Territory of Today’s Slovakia

La majorité silencieuse : attitudes des citoyens ordinaires au début de la Grande Guerre sur le territoire de l’actuelle Slovaquie
Gabriela Dudeková Kováčová
p. 699-719

Résumés

Ces dix dernières années, l’historiographie de la Première Guerre mondiale en Slovaquie a examiné la vie quotidienne des civils et la question des changements de loyauté, remettant en question l’idée reçue opposant le bellicisme allemand et hongrois au scepticisme des Slovaques et Tchèques face à la guerre. L’article examine ces nouvelles conclusions à partir de nouvelles sources : écrits intimes (correspondance, mémoires) comme rapports officiels sur le moral de la population. Plus que l’ethnicité, ce sont la position sociale et le degré de la menace que faisait peser la guerre sur les existences qui ont exercé une influence sur les changements de loyauté et les attitudes de la population en général. Pourtant, c’est cette même ethnicité qui se trouve au cœur des interprétations de la loyauté des soldats et des civils dans la Monarchie des Habsbourg. En réalité, la stratification sociale et le phénomène de « majorité silencieuse » (la passivité de la masse et ce qui la renverse) se montrent des éléments plus significatifs et féconds pour cerner les changements de loyauté.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1Various historical sources, especially contemporary press and memoirs written after the Great War, describe public sentiment in Germany and the Habsburg monarchy at the time of the outbreak of war as universal war euphoria. Interpretations of the Great War in Slovak and Czech historiographies since the interwar period has underlined that war euphoria in Austria-Hungary was expressed solely by the “ruling nations”–Germans and Hungarians–and that Slavic minorities opposed the war and sympathized with other Slavic nations such as Serbs and Russians. A gradual change of focus in World War I research has drawn attention to the history of war “from below,” considering also the war experience and the influence of war on the mentality of common soldiers and non-combatants. This has spurred deeper study on loyalty changes during the war, and the issue of war enthusiasm at the outset of WWI was re-opened. Regional research and a new detailed study of contemporary press and private sources (mainly diaries and correspondence) have questioned previous conclusions about war enthusiasm in the early days of the conflict amongst people not only in Germany and Austria-Hungary, but also in the opposite camp–in France, Great Britain, Russia and other warring countries.

  • 1 Benjamin Ziemann, Front und Heimat. Ländliche Kriegserfahrungen im südlichen Bayern 1914- 1923, Ess (...)
  • 2 Jeffrey Verhey, The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth, and Mobilization in Germany, Cambridge, Cambr (...)
  • 3 Ibid., Der „Geist von 1914“ und die Erfindung der Volksgemeinschaft, Hamburg, Hamburger Edition, 20 (...)
  • 4 Curious crowds, audience crowds, enthusiastic crowds, crowds against war, carnivalesque crowds, cro (...)

2The fact that Germany served as an ally and model for Austria-Hungary is essential to understanding the situation at the outset of WWI in the Habsburg monarchy, including the territory of today’s Slovakia (then “Upper Hungary”). During the past two decades, historians have revised their conclusions about universal war euphoria in Germany and Austria-Hungary and designated it the myth of war enthusiasm. They have shown that expressions of militaristic nationalism took place exclusively in large cities where they mostly concerned the nationalist bourgeois strata, while social democrats and inhabitants of rural regions expressed concern rather than enthusiasm towards the War.1 A monograph by Jeffrey Verhey, “The spirit of 1914,” which analyzes the situation in Germany,2 has become one of the most influential analyses for understanding this phenomenon in Austria-Hungary too. New research has shown that war euphoria in Germany was in fact not so intense as previously claimed and did not reach all of the population, and enthusiasm for the war concerned mostly the urban middle class. Initially, social democrats organized the anti-war demonstrations. People in the countryside and in small towns showed mostly fear and anxiety.3 It was a large proportion of intellectuals and young men, especially in the cities, who succumbed to German nationalist demagogy and militarism and volunteered for the army, though for different reasons. While patriotism significantly influenced their decision to enlist, other reasons and expectations (i.e. an aspiration to heroism and glory and to intense experiences and adventures, and defiance and desire to free themselves from the values and restrictive standards of bourgeois morality and a monotonous way of life) were equally important to them. Verhey called this attitude of youth and students a “naive carnival enthusiasm” for the war, while other population groups presented quite the opposite attitudes. Indeed, shortly before and after the declaration of war the people of Germany showed very different feelings and at public gatherings expressed various viewpoints, depending on their social class, gender, age and region of origin. Verhey has defined a number of basic positions and emotions (enthusiasm, curiosity, panic, anti-militarism, depression) and in reference to them metaphorically named “crowds” of people who publicly presented such positions and emotions.4 The reality was, however, a complex mixture of often contradictory emotions and attitudes, ranging from enthusiasm and joy through curiosity to fear, panic, sadness, disgust and anger.

  • 5 Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Anette Becker, 14-18: Understanding the Great War. New York, Hill and Wang (...)

3Earlier research pointed to the existence of similar shows of wartime mass hysteria at public pro-war gatherings that also broke out in the capitals of the Allied powers–Paris, London and Moscow when World War I was declared (though anti-war attitudes dominated in Britain before the beginning of WWI).5

  • 6 Jean-Jacques Becker, “Frankreich,” in: Gerhard Hirschfeld, Gerd Krumeich, Irina Renz (eds.). Enzy- (...)

4The latest comparative research of propaganda concludes that the unifying element was the focus on persuading an audience of the defensive character of the war, and of the obligation to contribute to the victory of the homeland. The creation of national unity and national reconciliation (Burgfrieden) became, within the nationalist rhetoric, a means to create a new quality of the German Nation, though also in France, when mobilizing the citizens at the beginning of the war, a similar language sanctifying national values was used: to defend the homeland, national unity – “union sacrée” was to be established.6 Methods and means of propaganda, which became part of the specific “culture of war,” were also alike. Both sides claimed to be leading a defensive war, asking the people to “sacrifice themselves for the homeland” while artificially, through media, maintaining a semblance of everybody being united in a joint effort to win.

  • 7 Jörn Leonhard, Die Büchse der Pandora. Geschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs, München, C. H. Beck, 2014, (...)
  • 8 Manfried Rauchensteiner, Der Erste Weltkrieg und das Ende der Habsburgermonarchie, Wien – Köln – We (...)
  • 9 Hermann J. W. Kuprian, “Soziale und wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse in Österreich-Ungarn,” in: Nicola (...)
  • 10 Oswald Überegger, “Illusionierung und Desillusionierung,” in: Hermann J. W. Kuprian, Oswald Übe- re (...)

5Recent studies do not deny that public expression of positive attitudes towards the declaration of war took place in Germany and Austria-Hungary. According to German historian Wolfgang Mommsen, the national “euphoria of August 1914” (Augusterlebnis) was not a myth, but varied in grade and intensity depending on social strata and was accompanied by deep concerns about the future. The state authorities successfully manipulated public opinion, strengthening the feeling of threat so that eventually, even social democrats agreed with the war. Recent publications released with regard to the centennial of WWI explain war euphoria in Germany in the same way.7 Similarly for the case of Austria-Hungary, Manfried Rauchensteiner argues in the new edition of his monumental synthesis on WWI that there were pro-war demonstrations in each region of the empire; moreover, they were publicly supported by intellectuals. He admits there were differences in the level of pro-war euphoria within the urban and rural populations and that the press mentioned only a selected portion of the public’s reactions; still, mobilization based on compulsory military service succeeded without any serious problems.8 However, research from local perspectives has more deeply put into perspective the myth of general war enthusiasm in Austria-Hungary. Historians analyzing war attitudes in the Tyrol region, for example, have proven that attitudes were strongly differentiated according to social strata, gender, age and nationality. Although middle classes publicly showed war euphoria in Tyrol immediately upon declaration of war, expressions of concern and skepticism multiplied. This occurred especially among women, the rural population, the older generation and the less educated classes, but also among the majority of soldiers, “who enlisted with a quiet sense of fear and concern” but nonetheless dutifully fulfilled their obligations.9 To emphasize the differing attitudes, Oswald Überegger uses the plural “August experiences” (Augusterlebnisse).10

  • 11 Marián Hronský, “Slováci na frontoch prvej svetovej vojny,” in: Milan Podrimavský, Dušan Kováč, (e (...)
  • 12 Dušan Kováč, “Prvá svetová vojna v slovenských dejinách a v slovenskej historiografii,” in: Podrim (...)

6The issue of war enthusiasm was traditionally an important topic in Czech and Slovak writings about the war during the interwar period. Building the national state idea of the Czechoslovak Republic influenced the interpretation of loyalties towards Austria-Hungary during WWI. According to this interpretation, Slavic solidarity and anti-Habsburg attitudes were dominant among Czechs and Slovaks, which is why they were not willing to fight against their “Slavic brothers” (Serbs and Russians). On the other hand, historians have often mentioned the loyalty and bravery of Slovak soldiers, praised by the army commanders in the first phase of the war. Since the 1990s, historians have started to point to a strong discrepancy between loyal behaviors of Slovak soldiers early in the war11 and their rebellions during late summer and fall 1918, with some calling for deeper study of the topic.12

  • 13 The gradual shift from military and political aspects to the social and cultural aspects of WWI in (...)
  • 14 Mannová, “Zmeny vo vedomí slovenskej spoločnosti za prvej svetovej vojny,” in: Podrimavský, Kováč (...)
  • 15 Kováč, “Die Flucht der Slowaken aus dem ungarischen Staatsverband,” in: Helmut Rumpler (ed.), Die (...)

7Research on the First World War in Slovakia in the last 15 years has examined the issues of the social conditions and everyday life of the civilian population as well as the problem of loyalty changes during the war.13 Historians have started to consider the great variety of reactions to the war and to challenge the traditional arguments for Czech and Slovak anti-war attitudes. An important conclusion is that ethnic identity was not the most important factor in determining loyalty towards the war and the state regime.14 The previous cliché about pro-Slavic attitudes of Slovaks is seen as ambivalent: it existed among some rural inhabitants living in eastern Slovakia (Upper Hungary), mainly among Ruthenians and partly Slovaks. However, the majority of the population remained loyal to the state and was influenced by war propaganda. Some conservative Russophile Slovak politicians hoped for cooperation with the Russians during the Carpathian operation, but this had no influence on the majority of the Slovak population.15

  • 16 Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň. Vojnové nadšenie, perzekúcie a problém lojality Slovákov v prvej svet (...)
  • 17 Id., “Vojenská cenzúra korešpondencie. Niekoľko úvah o vzťahu armády a spoločnosti za prvej sve- (...)
  • 18 See: Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň”; “Vojenská cenzúra korešpondencie”; documents published in: Duša (...)
  • 19 I have analyzed more than 40 unpublished oral memoirs of WWI veterans and some civilians which are (...)
  • 20 This selection contains 66 transcribed oral stories of Slovak veterans and civilians. Miloslav Smat (...)

8My previous research on the hinterland in today’s Slovakia during WWI has strongly challenged traditional beliefs about the war enthusiasm of Germans and Hungarians/Magyars on the one hand, and resistance towards war from Slovaks in the Kingdom of Hungary on the other (this being the case not only at the outset of war but especially in the context of loyalty changes during wartime).16 In connection to my previous research on loyalty changes based on analysis of correspondence, memoirs17 and official documents which describe the population’s attitudes,18 the aim of my paper is, firstly, to present new conclusions on war enthusiasm in the territory of today’s Slovakia based on analysis of private sources (memoirs and interviews) not previously used or analyzed from this point of view; and secondly, to discuss the conclusions of my analysis in the light of the findings of new research on this topic in the context of the Habsburg monarchy. I will focus on several main issues: 1. Attitudes of the civilian population at the beginning of the war and the phenomenon of mass hysteria manifested at public gatherings; 2. Soldiers’ motivations on enrolment, 3. Factors causing radicalization of attitudes during the war regime. The sources for my analysis are testimonies of the non-elite, mainly unpublished oral memoirs of Slovak veterans and some civilians, recorded by ethnologists between the 1960s and the 1980s.19 I have also analyzed a selection of a similar collection by linguists, which was recently published.20 The oral testimony’s authors are ethnic Slovaks from the rural lower-class and from all regions of Slovakia, mostly men. As for the issue of war enthusiasm, I have supplemented these sources with published and unpublished war memoirs by members of the Slovak political and cultural elites, both men and women.

  • 21 Mainly: Vavro Šrobár, Pamäti z vojny a väzenia (1914-1918), Martin, Matica slovenská, 1946; Janko J (...)
  • 22 Kováč, Muži deklarácie, 2nd ed., Bratislava, Veda, 2000; Peter Švorc, Rozbíjali republiku, Košice, (...)
  • 23 Some new personal stories and memories of non-elite persons have been published for the WWI Cen- te (...)

9Memoirs of the Slovak political and cultural elites published after the war are some of the most well-known and studied materials.21 The interwar regime focused strongly on and supported legionaries as founders of the Czechoslovak state; their testimonies were therefore published, but no attention was paid to “ordinary” people and soldiers fighting in the Habsburg army. Slovak historiography has so far focused on the situation of the Slovak elite, i.e. prominent intellectuals and politicians with Slovak national identity (members of Slovak political parties and groups, journalists and writers, activists of resistance against Austria-Hungary, legionaries) who were active during WWI and in the creation of Czechoslovakia.22 This focal point was the result of Slovak historiography primarily focusing on the history of the Slovak nation, and of the tradition of concentrating on those factors of World War I which led to the formation of the Czechoslovak state. After the fall of the communist regime, which strongly deformed the memory of WWI, especially the issue of legionaries, new sources have been published or made accessible for research. The focus is now more on the non-elite and non-prominent veterans and civilians.23

10Most of the population living in the territory of today’s Slovakia belonged to the “silent majority”–they were non-prominent inhabitants who did not express opinions publicly or write memoirs. However, personal testimonies of non-prominent persons are an essential source for analysis of attitudes and loyalty changes during the war regime, when most of the population of the territory of today’s Slovakia was rural and belonged to the lower strata. When discussing pro-war enthusiasm at the beginning of the war, it is essential to consider the attitudes of this segment of the population.

Attitudes of the Civilian Population at the Onset of War and the Phenomenon of War Mass Hysteria

  • 24 Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň”; Id., “Výnimočnosť alebo normalita? Každodennosť Veľkej vojny v P (...)

11Based on our research on the situation in the Kingdom of Hungary and specifically the territory of today’s Slovakia,24 we conclude that the myth of universal war euphoria in Austria-Hungary resulted from the psychological impact of an extreme situation, excessive generalization, censorship and propaganda, as well as the security measures of the emergency war regime, and, further, the consequent politicization of this phenomenon during and after the war. Not all of the population shared in the war craze, nor can generalizations be made about the attitudes of members of entire nations (as in a simplified schema that Germans and Hungarians were for war, but that Czechs, Slovaks and other Slavic nations were against).

  • 25 For more details on the social and ethnic structure of the territory of today’s Slovakia before WWI (...)
  • 26 For more details on Slovak politics in the context of the Kingdom of Hungary before WWI see: ibid., (...)
  • 27 See the declarations or articles of several Slovak political movements published in the collection (...)

12Most of the population in the territory of “Upper Hungary” was of Slovak ethnicity before WWI. However, as a consequence of ethnic diversity and the national policy of an integrated political Hungarian/Magyar nation (practiced after the 1867 Compromise in the Kingdom of Hungary), the majority of the nobility and middle class declared themselves Magyar or German. The majority of the population with Slovak ethnicity belonged to the lower rural class, only partly to the lower middle strata and to workers living in small towns. Slovak national activists mostly came from the lower-middle class, a fact that influenced their political orientation.25 Slovak politics saw relatively strong differentiation from the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, with the conservative Slovak National Party; the liberally oriented groups of the younger generation formed around the periodical Hlas (Voice) and later Prúdy (Currents); the liberals around Milan Hodža in Budapest; the catholic Slovak People’s Party; and a Slovak section of the Hungarian Social Democratic Party.26 Still, the Slovak national identity remained the strongest unifying factor. Regardless of political orientation, all Slovak political parties and groups declared political passivity in July / August 1914 for wartime and asked their members and readers of their press to follow the war regime’s orders.27 While the reason for such declarations was to defend national activists against persecution from authorities based on the newly established martial law, the authorities presented them as a declaration of loyalty to the state and war regime.

13When evaluating the phenomenon of mass war hysteria, it is important to analyze two levels: 1. the chronological aspect, because the situation and the response of the population saw rapid and significant changes; and 2. the specific attitudes of various population groups, not restricted merely to their ethnicity, but also by social strata, gender, age and political orientation. When analyzing changes in attitudes to war declarations, we should distinguish between periods:

14I. from June 28 (assassination of Habsburg crown prince) to July 23 (ultimatum of Austria-Hungary to Serbia);
II. from 25 July (Serbia’s response to the ultimatum and following declaration of partial mobilization in Austria-Hungary) to 28/31 July (Austria-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia / declarations of general mobilization);
III. August 1-4 (general enlistment); IV. after August 4.

  • 28 “Válečné štvanice,” in Robotnícke noviny, 9.7.1914, p. 1.
  • 29 “Pred vojnou,” in Robotnícke noviny, 6.8.1914, p. 4.

15The first decision phase on the war, the period between the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife (July 28, 1914) until the ultimatum for Serbia (July 23, 1914), was the largest shift in opinions presented in the press and in public in the Habsburg monarchy. Shortly after the assassination, attitudes were dominated by grief for the late emperor’s successor and sympathy towards his family. At the time, war was not mentioned in public media, or remained a farfetched solution to the crisis. However, grief was gradually replaced by anxiety and anticipation of whether war was coming. German and Hungarian nationalist newspapers advocated war as a solution, but the majority of the press did not support the idea. Leftist periodicals especially expressed their disagreement with pursuing war. The Slovak workers’ newspaper published in Hungary was critical of the “fabricated [negative] attitudes towards Serbia” and of the push towards war.28 A day after the ultimatum was presented to Serbia, Ivan Dérer, a Slovak leftist politician, published an article “Hyenas want war,” in which he criticized Hungarian nationalists for promoting vengeance towards Serbia and for taking advantage of the situation to strengthen their supremacy in Hungary. As a response to the article, he and the newspaper ́s editor, Jozef Gregor-Tajovský, were taken into custody to be investigated.29

  • 30 On July 25, special martial law No. LXIII/1912 was enacted. See: 1912 évi LXIII.törvénycikk a hábor (...)

16The enactment of emergency martial law in the Habsburg monarchy marked the beginning of the next phase of development of the population’s attitudes. Starting from July 25, based on the newly established emergency law,30 the public was not informed objectively. News became biased due to tightened censorship and war propaganda, fostering a feeling of insecurity and presenting war as the necessary defensive response of the monarchy. These would assign strict punishments for treason, prompting unrest and insulting the emperor and the monarchy. On July 28, Emperor Franz Joseph declared war on Serbia and, three days later, universal mobilization of the army. Soldiers were required to join the army on August 4. Public assemblies took place during the short period – from Serbia’s refusal of the ultimatum until universal mobilization – i.e. during the newly enacted war-police regime. These assemblies became later the basis for belief in universal war euphoria.

  • 31 Berhnard Denscher, Gold gab ich für Eisen, Wien – München, Jugend & Volk, 1987, p. 7-14.
  • 32 Our conclusions based on local press in Northern Hungary (today’s Slovakia) support the findings of (...)

17In Germany, the “pro-war assemblies” took place at the beginning of August, which is why the phenomenon of war euphoria was titled Augusterlebnis – an August experience. But in Austria-Hungary, the first public assemblies took place as early as July 25, when Serbia was supposed to deliver the response to the ultimatum of Austria-Hungary. In Vienna, masses of people spontaneously gathered in front of the Ministry of War to hear Serbia’s response and learn what would come next. When they discovered the decision of partial mobilization of the army, some groups expressed willingness to start a war. The next day, military music ensembles paraded the city and civilians spontaneously began to accompany them. Right-wing newspapers described the atmosphere as universal war enthusiasm, writing about “hundreds, thousands” of people expressing support for the emperor and the army under black and yellow flags and pictures of the emperor.31 Major daily periodicals in Budapest described similar enthusiasm in Hungary, this time under red, white and green Hungarian flags. On the other hand, leftist newspapers emphasized that those most passionate for war were inexperienced youngsters.32

  • 33 For example: Oral memoirs of Katarína Fojtínová, née Dugová, from July 1970. Archive of NSS, sign. (...)
  • 34 Terézia Vansová, Momentky zo svetovej vojny, manuscript, Archive Slovenská národná knižnica – Liter (...)
  • 35 In its journal “The Woman” (A Nő), the Feminist’s Association strongly promoted pacifism and a spe (...)
  • 36 Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň,” p. 246-260.
  • 37 Terézia Vansová, Ján Vansa. Život a práca verného sluhu pánovho (Biografické črty), Lipt. Sv. Miku (...)

18Attitudes changed significantly during the first days of August when men, called to general conscription, were actually to leave their homes and report to the headquarters garrison. In addition to secret reports from the authorities on the “moods of the population,” local newspapers also brought news of negative attitudes, especially in rural areas, where departing fathers expressed sadness and fear for the fate of their families and farms, when leaving them without a breadwinner. Most women reacted emotionally and disapprovingly, as was depicted by non-prominent women and men33 and Slovak female writers,34 accentuated by the radical Hungarian Feminist’s Association.35 As for the phenomenon of war mass hysteria, “pro-war demonstrations,” as labeled by the media in July 1914 in the Kingdom of Hungary, did not clearly express war euphoria in Hungary and particularly in “Upper Hungary”: people reacted to the new circumstances in different ways. Shouts such as “death to Serbia!” and “let there be war!” and feelings of excitement towards the war were expressed by a small part of the population which included townsmen and adolescent males mainly from the middle-classes in big cities, particularly Budapest. In addition, reports from local government offices in Hungary show that policemen accompanied public gatherings and processions to prevent possible acts of opposition. Local reports from small cities and the countryside about so-called “population moods” which were written by local officers and sent to the Ministry of Interior, noted that there were also expressions against the war and disloyal attitudes, but they were punished and suppressed. The police acted preventively against potential resistance, especially from national minorities. Examples of abuse of power by the police are documented in memoirs of Slovak national activists as well as reports by security forces.36 For example, according to the memoirs of the female writer and editor of the Slovak women’s journal Dennica, Terézia Vansová, people had to attend such public gatherings and shine a light in all of their windows.37 From the beginning, hatred towards Serbs, declared responsible for the war, turned against members of ethnic minorities.

19Memoirs of the Slovak cultural and political elite emphasized that pro-war enthusiasm was manifested mainly among Germans and Hungarians and that Slovaks did not share it, that they even sympathized with the Serbs and Russians. For example, Ivan Stodola, an army doctor during the war and later a famous Slovak dramatist, described the attitudes of inhabitants of the town of Liptovský Mikuláš in his memoirs:

  • 38 Ivan Stodola, V šľapajach Hippokrata, Martin, Osveta, 1977, p. 38.

On the day of the mobilization, I experienced a regrettable demonstration in Liptovský Mikuláš. On the evening street, a small group gathered and some ignorant “patriots” shouted “Éljen a háború! Éljen a háború!” [Long live the war!], proclaiming the glory of war. It should be emphasized that Slovak residents of Liptovský Mikuláš did not join the demonstrators.38

  • 39 In addition to the abovementioned authors, see mainly memoirs by female writer H. Gregorová and by (...)

20Prominent Slovak authors of memoirs39 underlined the fact that hatred of the war enemy – the Serbs – was accompanied by hatred of and repressive measures against alleged internal enemies of the homeland, accusing them of disloyalty.

  • 40 See for example: Vansová, Ján Vansa. Biografické črty. Diel II, Liptovský Sv. Mikuláš, Tranoscius, (...)

21In some towns in today’s territory of Slovakia, fanatical processions of middleclass citizens stood in front of the houses of famous Slovak activists, accusing them of being “traitors” and threatening them with physical violence or even the gallows.40

  • 41 For Vienna and Austria, see Denscher, Gold gab ich für Eisen..., p. 6-17; Jan Galandauer, “Wacht am (...)
  • 42 On war enthusiasm presented in Hungary, particularly in Budapest, see: Szabó Dániel, “A magyar hábo (...)
  • 43 For Pressburg (renamed Bratislava in 1919) and local press in July and August 1914 also reporting o (...)

22Escalated nationalism in the everyday life of a multi-national monarchy disrupted the fiction of a united homeland as presented by official propaganda. Analysis of newspaper articles from the time period shows a hierarchy of different loyalties in the Austrian and Hungarian parts of the Monarchy. In Austria, symbols of the Habsburg monarchy and German national symbols dominated: Black and yellow flags and tributes to Franz Joseph as an emperor of the whole monarchy were associated with the singing of German national songs as Wacht am Rhein and expressed German nationalism and superiority.41 But in Hungary,42 army units and masses of people declared loyalty to their homeland, the Kingdom of Hungary, and to Franz Josef as the king and not the emperor of the whole Habsburg monarchy. What dominated these crowds of people were Hungarian national symbols–red, white and green flags, national songs from the time of struggle for Hungarian independence in the revolution of 1848/49, and revolutionary poems by Alexander Petőfi (Talpra Magyar! – “On your feet, Magyar”).43

23Major newspapers and politicians talked of a supposedly unified pro-war stance of the whole population. They used vocabulary mixing nationalist, militarist and propagandist rhetoric. According to them, being part of a community of “national unity” and national reconciliation strengthened war euphoria. Public gatherings and the smooth process of conscription were declared clear expressions of patriotism and proof of loyalty to the state and dynasty, as well as agreement with the declaration of war. Most local newspapers repeated this rhetoric, while reporting on the situation in small cities more objectively. For example, conservative and leftist media in Pressburg wrote of processions through the city center from July 27 to July 30 with a sober distance. They commented:

  • 44 Chýrnik, “Na prešporský uliciach,” in Robotnícke noviny, 30.7.1914, p. 7.

All talk is about the war and every evening there is a military procession with music and torches, which aims to promote enthusiasm for war. And everyone’s face poses a terrible question: What will be next?44

  • 45 For example: A Nagy Háború irásban és képben, I. Ed. Lándor Tivadar, Budapest, Athenaeum, 1915, p. (...)

24Official propagandist publications about war selectively chose articles and photographs to create the fiction of national unity and war excitement. Due to censorship, no criticism towards the war or war regime could be published. Photographs depicting people waving scarves and throwing their hats above their head during a military procession were chosen to depict large cities between July and August. These pictures became famous and were used as proof of the attitude of the whole population.45 In reality, many of the photographs show gatherings in front of government buildings or newspaper offices.

25However, masses of people who enthusiastically celebrated the war were also a reality in this time period. Although they represented only a small part of the population, personal observers remembered them vividly. In their diaries and memoirs, people described the atmosphere from various perspectives and with different evaluations: their interpretation depends mostly on social status, political affiliation, ethnicity and time distance. Some of the most cited sources of the kind are memoirs of Austrian intellectuals who, in the spirit of German nationalism, wrote about uplifting feelings at the outbreak of the war, which they saw as a way to gain more independence in the monarchy. Some Hungarian nationally oriented townsmen shared this view, but Slovak historiography assigned the viewpoint to all Germans and Hungarians. However, even many non-prominent Hungarians who gave in to the nationalist rhetoric were not enthusiastic about the war.

  • 46 See the editions of war diaries, memoirs and war correspondence of the Hungarian population: Szenti (...)

26Several diary entries and memoirs of Hungarian townspeople and members of the nobility and intelligentsia46 do not confirm the simplified idea of the war enthusiasm of Hungarians at the outset of the war. Even Hussar officer Miklós Kozma and his colleague, also a professional officer, disagreed with the expressions of mass hysteria at the beginning of the war. He wrote in his diary:

  • 47 Kozma Miklós, Egy csapattiszt naplója 1914-1918, Budapest, Révai kiadás [1932], p. 5.

[...] ultimatum to Serbia expired on July 23. The city [Budapest] overwhelmed with war enthusiasm. I walked with Captain Baron Béla Fiáth through the whole city. Crowds walking rhythmically, shouting “let Serbia perish!” We watch them, thoughtful. Fiáth speaks: “They do not know what war is. We fall, even more of these, and those who remain will yell for peace exactly the same as they yell for war now.”47

27The newly published diary of a civil servant from Budapest shows his understanding of the abuse of the national rhetoric and the irrationality of the masses who celebrated the outbreak of war at the end of July 1914. Although a Magyar nationalist, János József Lowetinszky, a member of the petite bourgeoisie, was aware of the ambivalent reactions in Budapest and of the possibility of the manipulation of the crowd. He watched the reactions of people on the streets in the Hungarian capital on the day of partial mobilization. He wrote in his diary:

Sunday, July 26... people are swarming the streets like an irritated anthill; at the church of Merciful Brothers [today’s Ferenciek tér] notes of the invigorating Rákóczy March suddenly roar, played by the instruments of the k.u.k. [Imperial and royal] black and yellow military band; folk roar, shout “down with the Serbs!,” screaming, hollering their “death;” then the chords of the Szózat and the Hymnusz [Magyar/Hungarian Anthem] ring out, the people are in ecstasy, poor Magyars are blinded again, forgetting about their problems and concerns, and for the tones of these three prayers they would perhaps charge even into hell. Oh, indeed. Very well is the Magyar soul known, how it can be prompted, and now they blindly chase towards their destruction– because it is my impression that this will become a world war. [...] everyone is excited, and I (an optimist by nature) am racking my head with pessimistic thoughts, pondering if all will be alright?

28Lowetinszky also noted a mixture of moods in the center of the city and at the railway station, observing the leave-taking of departing soldiers:

  • 48 Diary of J. J. Lowetinszky, the so-called “Magyar Švejk” – see entries from July 26 and 27, 1914: B (...)

July 27... Here we stand at the National Theatre, a huge commotion, people calling for glory, sounds of a military band somewhere in the front, the old and the young chanting “down with Serbia, down with Serbia.” A military orchestra is in the middle, lanterns all around, the fiery melody of the Rákóczy March resonates and the majestic and easily inspired people rage and roar, though in truth most of them will not have to risk their own skin... This is the mood now, we’ll see what it will be later. [...] at the Eastern railway station a great number of people dally, saying their goodbyes, crying, laughing; a bunch of drunken reservists – that is what they feel like – is staggering around; this is a picture of the war in the heart of the country.48

29Because of irrationality, a consequence of crowd behavior, I prefer the term mass war hysteria instead of war euphoria/enthusiasm. In memoirs of Slovaks from this time period, women writers depict the atmosphere of crowd behavior most eloquently. They write of a mix of conflicting opinions and attitudes, and of inflated emotions including fear and despair. I quote a part of such description by the Slovak female writer Terézia Vansová (related to the situation in Banská Bystrica):

  • 49 Vansová, Momentky zo svetovej vojny, p. 4-7.

On July 29 there was a great demonstration for the war in the town. Even those who are afraid of war shouted: “long live the war.” They yelled “down with them!” And the chants “down with Panslavs” could also be heard. Evening. A procession organized by the military and political ruling body walks through the town. Torches and lanterns glow, swinging on poles in the crowd. Crowd, drunk on the catchphrases, shoutings and outcries – what is always able to inflame the mass – marches throug town. Windows are illuminated; woe betide those who did not illuminated their windows!49

30But, while men were leaving their families for the army, another important transformation of attitudes took place: from former enthusiasm of part of the population to tension, fear and a feeling of responsibility. The atmosphere was seen as a big enlistment farewell. Great events were organized for soldiers leaving for the front, which normally included alcohol and self-representation of masculinity. The shift in attitudes is well depicted in the memoirs of Slovak shoemaker’s apprentice Viskup-Halík, who was as a teenager in Pressburg at the outset of the war. In his oral memoirs, he told of the period when the war was declared:

All around, there were shouts in Hungarian: “Éljen a háború!”–viva war. The whole city was full of lanterns, the military and the nation, and all around yelling: “viva war!” And I was thinking, what is this, how “viva war”?

31He depicted the changes in attitudes when the universal mobilization began:

  • 50 Oral story of J. Viskup-Halík, in: Miloslav Smatana, a kol., Rozpamätávanie. Prvá svetová vojna jaz (...)

They sat on their suitcases, well, those who had to go to the war... Women sat close-by and cried and moaned. Well then this is that “viva war” means? Before there was only “viva war” and now they have already had enough. As a small boy, I thought, “what does this all mean?” Four or five days ago, such large pro-war things happened, only to promote war and “viva war.” And now lamentations and all that in Pressburg, on the main square [...] These things were quite hard to understand.50

32National identity was important in shaping loyalties however, the change in attitudes among civilians and soldiers in the Habsburg army demonstrates common features and phases, regardless of ethnicity or nationality. Recent research in the regions of the Habsburg Empire with an ethnically mixed population has shown that the degree of loyalty, and especially its weakening during the war, were connected primarily to the social situation of individuals or groups. The erosion of loyalty to emperor and country was not primarily a matter of nationality, but one of social differences.

Soldiers’ Motivation and Behavior during Conscription and War

  • 51 Róbert Letz (ed.), “Listy slovenských vojakov z prvej svetovej vojny,” in Verbum Historiae, 2014, N (...)

33As with civilians, the attitudes of conscripted soldiers varied significantly, although propaganda claimed general enthusiasm and loyalty. Propagandist articles from the time emphasize patriotism and Slovak soldiers’ excitement for the war. Similarly, in letters sent by soldiers to newspapers, soldiers emphasized their patriotism, loyalty to the emperor and faith in God; a longing for peace became a part of these letters only from 1916, but loyalty to the monarchy was still stressed.51

  • 52 See footnotes 19 and 20.

34However, in the oral memoirs I have analyzed,52 veterans of WWI note the absence of war enthusiasm, especially when remembering the farewells of departing soldiers and their families just before leaving for the front. Their main motivation to join was the commitment and responsibility to defend the homeland. The vast majority of soldiers in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were called into the army under general conscription and, as it is clear from my analyses, they were mainly motivated by a sense of duty and the need to obey the orders of the establishment. They came to terms with the circumstances, believing the situation was temporary and the war would not last long. My analysis has identified various motivations and strategies employed by soldiers, which can be categorized as follows:

  • 53 Oral story of Juraj Pagáč, in the archive of the NSS, sign. 633, Arne Mann: Ľudové rozprávanie v (...)
  • 54 Oral story of Štefan Šlahor-Vacula, in the archive of the NSS, sign. 311, Zora Mitaľová, Rozprávan (...)

351. As the most common reason for joining the forces, soldiers name their responsibility to follow an order. A typical quotation went along the lines of: “And the war came; I had to go to war.”53
2. Patriotism or a need to fight for the homeland were cited rarely and without a nationalist tone. Soldiers rarely mentioned motivation to fight for their “Slovak national right.”
54
3. Soldiers who joined the forces young sometimes mention passion for the war because they hoped for new adventures, to demonstrate their masculinity, and to gain prestige through military success. However, they usually add that they quickly sobered up from their illusions once real fighting started. According to Ján Mališka, who was enlisted as 19-year old soldier:

  • 55 Oral story of J. Mališka, in: Smatana, p. 80.

In the First World War, when I went to the battlefield, I was as happy as a kid. If I managed to come back home one day, I would be proud of it, I would be able to say that I had fought, I had been to war. But this feeling quickly disappeared as we crossed the Carpathians.55

  • 56 Oral story of Štefan Šlahor-Vacula, in the archive of the NSS, sign. 311, Mitaľová: Rozprávania... (...)

364. Mentions of efforts to avoid conscription are relatively rare. Methods included travelling abroad, or using strategies to avoid direct confrontation on the battlefield. Avoiding the battlefield by voluntary escape to captivity was listed as a survival strategy by a small part of the veterans, although motivation to desert the army was rarely political – what mattered was to find a way to survive on the battlefield.56

  • 57 Ignác Gessay, Rozpomienka na uzavretie Československej dohody dňa 30. mája 1918 v Pittsburgu, Bra (...)

375. There were cases of men who had long been abroad, mainly in the USA, who willingly came back to Hungary because of war. As motivation for their return, they declared the aim to care for their families, but according to the deputy director of the Slovak organization in United States of America, Slovenská liga, many simply followed the enlistment order and demonstrated patriotism and loyalty to the Habsburg emperor.57

  • 58 Oral story of Ján Hložka, Archive of NSS, Mária Čambalová: Ľudová próza na Podjavorinsku (1971), (...)

386. Regarding the battlefield, veterans sometimes declared an unwillingness to kill based on reasons relating to religious beliefs and they mention several strategies to try to avoid breaking the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” They purposely shot away from the target, or believed that, if they avoided killing a human being, God would protect them from death and injury.58

  • 59 For more details see: Dudeková, “S Bohom za kráľa a vlasť? Problém lojality a bojovej morálky rad (...)
  • 60 Sabine A. Haring, “K.u.k. Soldaten an der Ostfront im Sommer und Herbst 1914. Eine emotionssoziolog (...)
  • 61 Holger B. Herwig, The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918, 2nd Edition, London – (...)
  • 62 Udvary Jenő, “Psychológiai megfigyelések a harcztérről,” in: Pilch Jenő (ed.), Hadtörténeti Közl (...)

39The attitudes towards the war mentioned above59 are largely in accord with the latest conclusions from historians60 (apart from the absence of nationalistic fervor), whose sources include psychological analysis of soldiers’ motivations during the war. According to the Canadian historian Holger H. Herwig,61 volunteers who joined the forces in Germany cited these as their reasons: a chance for an adventure, an escape from mundane life and love of homeland. Some volunteers saw war as a way to prove their masculinity; others accepted war was unavoidable. In the end, motivations varied: patriotism, enthusiasm and fulfilling one’s duty. Rare psychological studies of army officers, which aimed to understand the mentality of a soldier, show negative emotions on the battleground: hatred of the enemy, search for vengeance, fear. Evaluations of the reliability of soldiers based on nationality did not correspond with reality – they were based on ethnic stereotypes in the Habsburg monarchy.62

40Despite the different attitudes and motivations, the mobilization went surprisingly smoothly in the end in Austria-Hungary, although the main command expected resistance and feared that many men would not obey the call-up. Most soldiers, including Slovaks and Czechs, joined up without a fuss and upheld military discipline, and civilians also conformed to the imposed distinctive wartime regime. This was mainly due to preventive security measures. The belief that it would be a short-term, temporary deployment also played an important role.

  • 63 For example Činčurák, Vojna..., p. 42.

41The “baptism of fire” was a significant eye-opener and source of disillusionment for soldiers, even those who succumbed to the propaganda assertions of the opportunities to gain merit and become a hero in the war. The oral testimonies of veterans and some memoirs63 show that many soldiers, especially older regular soldiers and reservists, already experienced substantial doubt when leaving for the front, despite the pomp, splendor and propaganda that accompanied departure. The topic of sobering from war enthusiasm is practically absent in the memoirs of officers. An exception and also an important testimony is the confession of Ján Hrušovský, one of the very few military officers of Slovak nationality in the Austria-Hungary army, who later became a writer. He confessed in his wartime notes:

  • 64 Ján Hrušovský, Zo svetovej vojny. Halič, Ruské Poľsko 1914, Martin, Kníhtlačiarsky účastinársky (...)

I am not completely clear with myself and I do not understand a lot of things. Why am I not celebrating the victory? I have been thirsting for the extraordinary, for our bloody craft being unbound, horrors and colossal moments have lured me; I wanted to be drunk with the battle cry and the delight of victory. [...] Yes, everyone had imagined the war differently. Richer in color, in personal bravery and, although bloody, filled with cheerful moments and stories of a chevalier. In a way, how it used to be in the Napoleonic times. Today’s war is prosaic. There is no gleam of snow-white coats to be seen, none of the shiny swords or campfires – everything is gray, dirtygreen; there are no people in sight, only the rattling and yapping of invisible cannons.64

  • 65 There is a rare collection of censored (and never delivered) correspondence of soldiers with their (...)
  • 66 Hanák Péter, “Népi levelek az első világháborúból,” in: Id., A kert és a műhely, Budapest, Ballas (...)

42My analysis of war correspondence from the territory of today’s Slovakia65 reaffirms the conclusions of Hungarian historian Péter Hanák, that the mentality of a farmer/peasant in the Kingdom of Hungary, based on the values of faith in God, connection to the land and the local community, was universal regardless of ethnic affiliation.66 A consequence of this mentality was loyalty towards the authorities and regime, but very strong ties to family and local community. Even though soldiers expressed disagreement with the war and a longing for peace in their correspondence, military discipline and respect for the authority of the “upper class” acted as a great impediment to actively resisting the war.

43Based on my analysis of veterans’ memoirs presented here, we can conclude that even though veterans attitudes and motivations vary in their testimonies, the unifying themes are: 1. disillusion and shock as a consequence of direct battlefield experiences; 2. gradual radicalization of attitudes because of worsening socioeconomic conditions on the battlefield and in the hinterland, the war’s long duration, increasing social injustice, and failures of the war regime. The enlisted men went to war and civilians adapted to wartime measures convinced that they would not last long; most believed the propaganda slogan that the war would be over before the leaves fell from the trees. As the war dragged on, the emergency war-time circumstances became a bitter normality both on the front and behind it. Radicalization of soldiers was caused by negative experiences on the front and the growing disillusionment rooted mainly in insufficient troop support and massive differences between the situation of regular troops and officers, which regular soldiers perceived as a social injustice. Feelings of dissatisfaction among the troops resulted in the gradual radicalization of their attitudes, mainly due to the prolongation of the war, the deteriorating economic and social conditions, and failing war support on the front and at the rear. Nevertheless, most of the soldiers fulfilled their duty until the end of the war. In the final stage of the war, soldiers hoped for its quick end and expected compensation for their “service to the nation” and war suffering.

Conclusion: The Issue of the Silent Majority and Factors in Radicalization of Attitudes

44Considering my new research and analysis presented in this paper, the question in understanding the situation at the outset of the war needs reformulating: we should not ask why people supported the war, but rather why the majority did not publicly oppose the war and why it remained silent. Analysis of the attitudes of non-prominent citizens shows the reasons for their temporary acceptance of the war regime, while also showing the shift in their loyalties towards the regime during the war. In contrast to the public declarations and ego-documents of prominent nationalists, social, religious, and regional identity were most important for the everyday life of common people. In the end, people’s priorities were to find survival strategies for themselves and their families. The regime’s repressive measures towards potential rebels were effective for a quite long time, which is why people did not declare their disapproval of the regime’s practices in public – but did so in private. For this reason, organized resistance was weakened; it took place in illegality and manifested itself only towards the end of the war. Many soldiers were motivated to fight based on negative consequences: fear of punishment for breaching army discipline; for example, the punishment for desertion was to shoot the soldier and repress his family.

45An important aspect in the study of motivations and attitudes in the war is their radicalization during the period. While in the beginning, a small part of the population was undecided about its stance towards the war, starting from spring 1915, it is clear from correspondence and early demonstrations that there was strong hope for an end to the war. The most important factor in radicalization was social differences, which intensified during the war. Farmers in particular, who formed the majority of the population, shared the same mentality regardless of ethnic affiliation. Factors which influenced people’s attitudes towards radicalization in the hinterland were present from the beginning of war. As main factors of radicalization, we can distinguish corruption, social inequality, the negative impact of the emergency supply system (requisitions, food rationing), failures of the war regime, lengthening of the war, and a deep rift between propaganda and reality.

  • 67 Dudeková, “Výnimočnosť alebo normalita?...,” p. 193-211; Id., “Stratégie prežitia v mimoriadnej s (...)

46The opinion of the population was negatively affected by the corruption of clerks and army officers, who abused their power to free men from conscription by proclaiming them essential for domestic industry. Offenses prosecuted were dominated by statements against the nation and insulting the majesty of the emperor. National controversies in the first months of the war were less dominant and were dampened by preventive police intimidation. Social injustice was experienced and felt mostly by the lower and lowest classes, which were affected the most by requisitions of horses and agricultural products, as well as by increasing food prices. People reacted to the declaration of war pragmatically, stockpiling food and taking out cash from banks. As a result, there were food shortages and a black market was created, accessible only to the wealthier classes. The first protests against the war regime in Hungary, as well as Austria, happened in spring 1915 when a rationing system for flour was put in place. These protests gradually evolved into demonstrations against the war in the Habsburg monarchy, and their attendants were mostly women.67

47Civilians started seeing the divide between propaganda and reality based on their own experiences as well as those of injured soldiers, who were transported to the hinterland in September 1914. While soldiers joined the army forces, civilians adjusted to the new war circumstances with the belief they were temporary.

  • 68 Czech historian Hutečka came to very similar conclusion about Czech soldiers while analyzing memoi (...)

48To understand the attitudes of the population, it is important to consider the broader context. An effort to avoid conscription does not necessarily imply antimilitarism, as was repeatedly implied in the case of soldiers with Slovak or Czech identity. Protests against supply deficiencies do not necessarily signal resistance towards the state and an effort to break the monarchy. Even desertions do not correspond to the goal to disintegrate the Habsburg monarchy: the testimonies of Slovak soldiers we have analyzed demonstrate that their motivations to desert were minimally political; most often, they aimed to save their lives or achieve better living conditions.68 The process of weakening loyalties towards the regime was gradual for the majority of the population regardless of ethnic identity and peaked in the last phase of the war, especially after the declaration of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Russia in spring 1918.

49A more thorough analysis of mass war hysteria and loyalty changes requires revising the simplistic image of the universal antimilitarism of Slovaks and Czechs and their resistance towards the Habsburg monarchy during the war. This image became part of the political memory of Czechoslovakia and remained in the Marxist and post-Marxist interpretation of history. The majority of soldiers, including Slovaks and Czechs, joined the army without obstruction and followed military discipline, while civilians accepted the emergency laws of the war regime. The simplifistic belief that all Germans and Hungarians supported the war is also untrue. The issue of the loyalty of various nationalities to the multinational Habsburg monarchy is still of key importance. New research into mentalities based on ego-documents show, however, that in this respect membership of a social class and religious affiliation were much more important factors than nationality. In the monarchy, the vast majority of soldiers and inhabitants providing war support were peasants who had long been loyal to the regime. Their loyalty was only gradually undermined by the negative impacts of economic and supply crises and poor support for families of enlisted men.

  • 69 Mannová, “Kríza lojality,” in: Kováč, Prvá svetová vojna 1914-1918..., p. 214.
  • 70 Rudolf Kučera, “Entbehrung und Nationalismus. Die Erfahrung der tschechischen Soldaten der öster- (...)

50My analysis supports the general conclusions of previous research by Elena Mannová, that during the war the “population of Hungary, regardless of ethnicity, was acting with loyalty towards the state,” on the battlefield and in the hinterland. However, the loyalty “usually did not take the form of active support, but of passive acceptance of the political system.”69 As for the situation in the army, however, my research only partially supports Rudolf Kučera’s conclusions70 whereby, firstly, that there were national differences in the army from the start, but that disagreements occurred only later on the battlefield, and secondly, that the disagreements were on social rather than ethnic grounds, meaning officers vs. regular soldiers. However, in Slovaks’ memoirs and interviews, national differences are closely related to social disparities from the beginning of the war. Most Slovaks were rural farmers, who served as regular soldiers in the regiments which experienced the most loss of life. An important factor was also the language issue in the army, especially for Slovaks. The Slovak rural population in particular experienced ambivalent feelings towards the state, accelerating the process of national identification and nationalization. Nevertheless, for most Slovaks, it was not the national/ethnic but social identity that was crucial, while religious and regional affiliation remained important factors. It is true that the ethnic identity of the civilian population was not the most important factor in the first phase of the war but, as a result of the emergency war regime, the importance of ethnic identity strengthened and led to ethnic conflicts in everyday life. Police surveillance and intimidation based on nationality and the policy of searching for an “enemy within” increased national hatred as well as the self-identification of people who were previously indifferent.

  • 71 For the problem of shifting loyalties, see also: Roman Holec, “Rok 1918 – Slováci medzi lojalitou k (...)
  • 72 This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract no. APVV-1 (...)

51The new research in sources presented in this paper also challenges the traditional conclusion that the loyalty of all non-dominant nations towards Hungary and the Habsburg state was so disrupted at the end of the war that each wanted the monarchy to dissolve and new national states to be created. The dwindling of loyalty to the regime and state was gradual for the majority of the population, culminating in the final stages of the war, especially after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Russia in spring 1918. New regional research in Slovakia shows, moreover, that loyalty towards new states was problematic and unclear, especially in regions where people lived in chaos at the turn of the years 1918/1919, when the borders between Czechoslovakia and Hungary were not yet directly set. The erosion of loyalty to the old regime and the monarchy was ultimately accelerated by chaos at the end of the war, additional military conflicts (this time between Hungarian and Czechoslovak troops), and the excesses of short-lived “socialist republics” that directly threatened civilians.71 The guarantee of more stable conditions became a strong motivation and the reason for the acceptance of the new Czechoslovakia, even for that part of the population that did not want the monarchy to collapse.72

Haut de page

Notes

1 Benjamin Ziemann, Front und Heimat. Ländliche Kriegserfahrungen im südlichen Bayern 1914- 1923, Essen, Klartext, 1997; Christian Geinitz, Kriegsfurcht und Kampfbereitschaft. Das Augusterlebnis in Freiburg. Eine Studie zum Kriegsbeginn 1914, Essen, Klartext, 1998.

2 Jeffrey Verhey, The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth, and Mobilization in Germany, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

3 Ibid., Der „Geist von 1914“ und die Erfindung der Volksgemeinschaft, Hamburg, Hamburger Edition, 2000; Wolfgang J. Momsen, “Deutschland,” in: Gerhard Hirschfeld, Gerd Krumeich, Irina Renz, Markus Pöhlmann (eds.), Enzyklopädie Erster Weltkrieg. Aktualisierte und erweiterte Studienausgabe, Paderborn – München – Wien – Zürich, Schöningh, 2009, p. 16-19; Thomas Flemming, Bernd Ulrich, Heimatfront. Zwi- schen Kriegsbegeisterung und Hungersnot – wie die Deutschen den Ersten Weltkrieg erlebten, München, Bücher Verlag, 2014, p. 23-39.

4 Curious crowds, audience crowds, enthusiastic crowds, crowds against war, carnivalesque crowds, crowds of panic and fear, crowds of panic and depression. Verhey, The Spirit of 1914..., p. 26-114.

5 Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Anette Becker, 14-18: Understanding the Great War. New York, Hill and Wang, 2002, p. 94-96.

6 Jean-Jacques Becker, “Frankreich,” in: Gerhard Hirschfeld, Gerd Krumeich, Irina Renz (eds.). Enzy- klopädie des Ersten Weltkrieges. Aktualisierte und erweiterte Studienausgabe, Padernborn – München – Wien – Zürich, Schöningh, 2009, p. 31-32.

7 Jörn Leonhard, Die Büchse der Pandora. Geschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs, München, C. H. Beck, 2014, p. 127-145; Sven Felix Kellerhof, Heimatfront. Der Untergang der heilen Welt – Deutschland im Ersten Weltkrieg, Bastei Lübbe, Qadriga, 2014, p. 25-69.

8 Manfried Rauchensteiner, Der Erste Weltkrieg und das Ende der Habsburgermonarchie, Wien – Köln – Weimar, Böhlau, 2013, p. 140-159.

9 Hermann J. W. Kuprian, “Soziale und wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse in Österreich-Ungarn,” in: Nicola Labanca, Oswald Überegger (eds.), Krieg in der Alpen. Österreich-Ungarn und Italien im Ersten Weltkrieg (1914-1918), Wien – Köln – Weimar, Böhlau, 2015, p. 209-238.

10 Oswald Überegger, “Illusionierung und Desillusionierung,” in: Hermann J. W. Kuprian, Oswald Übe- regger (eds.), Katastrophenjahre. Der Erste Weltkrieg und Tirol, Innsbruck, Universitätsverlag Wagner, 2014, p. 41-42.

11 Marián Hronský, “Slováci na frontoch prvej svetovej vojny,” in: Milan Podrimavský, Dušan Kováč, (eds.), Slovensko na začiatku 20. storočia (Spoločnosť, štát a národ v súradniciach doby), Bratislava, Histo- rický ústav SAV, 1999, p. 278.

12 Dušan Kováč, “Prvá svetová vojna v slovenských dejinách a v slovenskej historiografii,” in: Podrimavský, Kováč (eds.), Slovensko na začiatku 20. storočia..., p. 275-276.

13 The gradual shift from military and political aspects to the social and cultural aspects of WWI in Slovak historiography can also be observed in the synthesis and edition of WWI documents: Kováč a kol, Prvá svetová vojna 1914-1918. Edícia Slovensko v 20. storočí, druhý zväzok. Bratislava, VEDA, 2008; Id., Slováci v prvej svetovej vojne 1914-1918: zmeny na politickej mape Európy a odchod Slovenska z Uhorského kráľovstva do Česko-slovenskej republiky. Edícia “Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov XI.b.,” Bratis- lava, Literárne informačné centrum, 2010.

14 Mannová, “Zmeny vo vedomí slovenskej spoločnosti za prvej svetovej vojny,” in: Podrimavský, Kováč (eds.), Slovensko na začiatku 20. storočia..., p. 353-363; Id., “Die ungarische und die tschechoslowa- kische Staatsisdee: Der Bewusstseinswandel der slowakischen Gesellschaft,” in: Hans Mommsen, Dušan Kováč, Jiří Malíř, Michaela Mark (eds.), Der erste Weltkrieg und die Beziehung zwischen Tschechen, Slowa- ken und Deutschen, Essen, Klartext, 2001, p. 109-120; Mannová, “Koncept lojality. Postoj k autoritám na Slovensku počas prvej svetovej vojny, ” in Historický časopis, 55, 2007, 4, p. 681-698; Roman Holec, “Rok 1918 – Slováci medzi lojalitou k Uhorsku a k novej republike,” in Česko-slovenská historická ročenka, 2009, p. 17-33.

15 Kováč, “Die Flucht der Slowaken aus dem ungarischen Staatsverband,” in: Helmut Rumpler (ed.), Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848-1918, Band XI: Die Habsburgermonarchie und der Erste Weltkrieg, Teilband 1/2: Vom Vielvölkerstaat Österreich-Ungarn zum neuen Europa der Nationalstaaten, Wien, Verlag der Aka- demie der Wissenschaften, 2016, p. 735-765; Kováč, “Slovenskí vojaci v počiatočnej fáze prvej svetovej vojny,” in: Gabriela Dudeková, Elena Mannová et al, Vojak medzi civilmi, civil medzi vojakmi. Vzťah armády a spoločnosti v období modernizácie, Bratislava, Spoločnosť Pro historia, 2017, p. 149-160, particularly 152.

16 Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň. Vojnové nadšenie, perzekúcie a problém lojality Slovákov v prvej svetovej vojne,” in: Edita Ivaničková a kol (ed.), Kapitoly z histórie stredoeurópskeho priestoru v 19. a 20. storočí, Bratislava, Historický ústav SAV, 2011, p. 243-268; Id., “Mýtus vojnového nadšenia na začiatku prvej svetovej vojny,” in Historické štúdie, 51, 2017, p. 137-160; Id., “‘Kým opadne lístie zo stromov’. Prvý rok Veľkej vojny v zázemí,” in Historická revue, 26, 2015, No. 9, p. 44-51.

17 Id., “Vojenská cenzúra korešpondencie. Niekoľko úvah o vzťahu armády a spoločnosti za prvej sve- tovej vojny,” in: Vladimír Segeš, Božena Seďová (eds.), Miles Semper Honestus, Bratislava, Vojenský his- torický ústav 2007, p. 125-135; Id., “Protirečivé spomienky? Zážitky z prvej svetovej vojny,” in OS (Fórum občianskej spoločnosti), Vol. 10, 2006, No. 1-2, p. 102-114; Id., “Zajatci v prvej svetovej vojne – význam a miesto memoárov pri výskume,” in: Milada Sekyrková (ed.), Paměti a vzpomínky jako historický pramen, Praha, Národní technické muzeum, 2006, p. 221-241.

18 See: Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň”; “Vojenská cenzúra korešpondencie”; documents published in: Dušan Kováč, a kol., Prvá svetová vojna 1914-1918..., p. 126-132, 168-172.

19 I have analyzed more than 40 unpublished oral memoirs of WWI veterans and some civilians which are transcribed and preserved as a collection in the Archive of the Slovak Ethnographical Society: Archív Národopisnej spoločnosti Slovenska (Archive of NSS), zbierka ľudových rozprávaní o vojne.

20 This selection contains 66 transcribed oral stories of Slovak veterans and civilians. Miloslav Smatana a kol., Rozpamätávanie. Prvá svetová vojna jazykom prastarých otcov a materí, Bratislava, Veda, 2015.

21 Mainly: Vavro Šrobár, Pamäti z vojny a väzenia (1914-1918), Martin, Matica slovenská, 1946; Janko Jesenský, Cestou k slobode. Úryvky z denníka 1914-1918, Bratislava, Tatran, 1968; Ján Hrušovský, Stála vojna, stála..., Bratislava, Tatran, 1971; Jozef Gregor Tajovský, Rozpomienky o československých légiách v Rusku, Bratislava, 1920; Ivan Thurzo, Medzi vrchmi a na rovine. Spomienky, Bratislava, Tatran, 1987.

22 Kováč, Muži deklarácie, 2nd ed., Bratislava, Veda, 2000; Peter Švorc, Rozbíjali republiku, Košice, Východoslovenské vydavateľstvo, 1992.

23 Some new personal stories and memories of non-elite persons have been published for the WWI Cen- tennial, for example: “Vojnové príbehy (1914-1918)” in: Peter Brezina a kol., Prvá svetová vojna a Záhorie, Skalica, Záhorské múzeum v Skalici, 2015, p. 92-170; Činčurák, Vojna..., Pavel Mičianik, Július Lomenčík, Mišo Šesták (eds.), bez miesta vydania, Vyd. Miloš Hric, 2016; Jozef Honza-Dubnický, Zápisky legionára, Ferdinand Vrábel (ed.), Banská Bystrica, PRO, 2014.

24 Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň”; Id., “Výnimočnosť alebo normalita? Každodennosť Veľkej vojny v Prešporku/Bratislave,” in Theatrum Historiae, Vol. 16, 2015, p. 193-211.

25 For more details on the social and ethnic structure of the territory of today’s Slovakia before WWI see: Elena Mannová, Roman Holec, “On the Road to Modernization 1848-1918,” in: Elena Mannová (ed.) A Concise History of Slovakia, Bratislava, Historický ústav SAV, 2000, p. 185-189.

26 For more details on Slovak politics in the context of the Kingdom of Hungary before WWI see: ibid., p. 206-214.

27 See the declarations or articles of several Slovak political movements published in the collection of documents Kováč, Slováci v prvej svetovej vojne 1914-1918, p. 22-30.

28 “Válečné štvanice,” in Robotnícke noviny, 9.7.1914, p. 1.

29 “Pred vojnou,” in Robotnícke noviny, 6.8.1914, p. 4.

30 On July 25, special martial law No. LXIII/1912 was enacted. See: 1912 évi LXIII.törvénycikk a háboru esetére szóló kivételes intézkedésekről. 1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=7188

31 Berhnard Denscher, Gold gab ich für Eisen, Wien – München, Jugend & Volk, 1987, p. 7-14.

32 Our conclusions based on local press in Northern Hungary (today’s Slovakia) support the findings of Hajdu Tibor, “A magyar közvélemény alakulása a hadüzenet előtt és után,” in Hadtörténelmi közlemények, Vol. 127, No. 3, 2014, p. 611-627. Compare to: ifj. Bertényi Iván, “Éljen a háború!” in: Iván ifj Bertényi, László Boka (eds.), Propaganda az I. világháborúban. Az Országos Széchényi könyvtár kiállitása, Budapest: Országos Széchényi könyvtár 2016, p. 121-132.

33 For example: Oral memoirs of Katarína Fojtínová, née Dugová, from July 1970. Archive of NSS, sign. 438, Beata Kelemenová, Ľudová slovesnosť. Lokality Myjava a okolité kopanice, p. 32; Činčurák, Vojna..., p. 42.

34 Terézia Vansová, Momentky zo svetovej vojny, manuscript, Archive Slovenská národná knižnica – Literárny archív (SNK-LA), fond Terézia Vansová, sign. 41 YY 7; Hana Gregorová, Memoáre, manuscript, SNK-LA, sign. 43 GG 1, p. 480-484.

35 In its journal “The Woman” (A Nő), the Feminist’s Association strongly promoted pacifism and a spe- cial mission of women for peace. See for example argumentation in their support declaration to the plea for peace released by International Woman Suffrage Alliance in September 1914: “Az első békemisszió,” in A Nő (Feminista folyóirat), 1, September 20, 1914, No. 17, p. 1-2.

36 Dudeková, “Dvojsečná zbraň,” p. 246-260.

37 Terézia Vansová, Ján Vansa. Život a práca verného sluhu pánovho (Biografické črty), Lipt. Sv. Mikuláš, 1938, p. 356-358.

38 Ivan Stodola, V šľapajach Hippokrata, Martin, Osveta, 1977, p. 38.

39 In addition to the abovementioned authors, see mainly memoirs by female writer H. Gregorová and by J. Cablk, a member of the Slovak resistance group around the politician Milan Hodža, active in Vienna during WWI: Hana Gregorová, Spomienky, Bratislava, Tatran, p. 196-197; Ján Cablk, “Za hrsť osobných rozpomienok,” in Milan Hodža, publicista, politik, vedecký pracovník. Spomienky, úvahy, štúdie, Bratislava, 1938, p. 669.

40 See for example: Vansová, Ján Vansa. Biografické črty. Diel II, Liptovský Sv. Mikuláš, Tranoscius, 1948, s. 167-171; Ervín Holéczy, Životopisné čriepky, SNK-LA, sign. 219 L 1, published in edition of docu- ments Kováč, Slováci v prvej svetovej vojne 1914-1918, p. 31-33.

41 For Vienna and Austria, see Denscher, Gold gab ich für Eisen..., p. 6-17; Jan Galandauer, “Wacht am Rhein a Kde domov můj. Válečné nadšení v Čechách v létě 1914,” in Historie a vojenství, 1996, No. 5, p. 24-43; Id., “Češi a „válečné nadšení“ na prahu Velké války,” in Historická sociologie, 2014, part. 2, p. 85-92.

42 On war enthusiasm presented in Hungary, particularly in Budapest, see: Szabó Dániel, “A magyar háborús lelkesedés az első világháború kitörésekor,” in: Cornel Grad, Viorel Ciubotâ (eds.), 1918. Sfârşit și început de epocă. Korszakvég – korszakkezd. The End and the Beginning of an Era, Cluj-Napoca, 1998, p. 75-86; Id., “Magyarország nem volt, hanem lesz. Háborús lelkesedés a populáris színelőadások tükrében,” in: Gábor Gyáni, Gábor Pajkossy (eds.), A pesti polgár. Tanulmányok Vörös Károly emlékére, Debrecen, Csokonai, 1999, p. 185-198.

43 For Pressburg (renamed Bratislava in 1919) and local press in July and August 1914 also reporting on the situation in Vienna and Budapest, see: Dudeková, “Výnimočnosť alebo normalita?...,” p. 193-211.

44 Chýrnik, “Na prešporský uliciach,” in Robotnícke noviny, 30.7.1914, p. 7.

45 For example: A Nagy Háború irásban és képben, I. Ed. Lándor Tivadar, Budapest, Athenaeum, 1915, p. 1-14.

46 See the editions of war diaries, memoirs and war correspondence of the Hungarian population: Szenti Tibor (ed.), Vér és pezsgő. Harctéri naplók, visszaemlékezések, frontversek, tábori és családi levelek az első világháborúból, Budapest, Magvető, 1988; “Naplók, emlékiratok,” in: Szabó Dániel (ed.), Az első világhá- ború, Budapest, Osiris, 2009, p. 435-507.

47 Kozma Miklós, Egy csapattiszt naplója 1914-1918, Budapest, Révai kiadás [1932], p. 5.

48 Diary of J. J. Lowetinszky, the so-called “Magyar Švejk” – see entries from July 26 and 27, 1914: Balogh János Máthyás (ed.), A magyar Švejk. Egy napló kisember mindennapjai a 19-20. századi Budapesten, magyarsvejk.blog.hu/

49 Vansová, Momentky zo svetovej vojny, p. 4-7.

50 Oral story of J. Viskup-Halík, in: Miloslav Smatana, a kol., Rozpamätávanie. Prvá svetová vojna jazykom prastarých otcov a materí, Bratislava, Veda, 2015, p. 75.

51 Róbert Letz (ed.), “Listy slovenských vojakov z prvej svetovej vojny,” in Verbum Historiae, 2014, No. 1, p. 108-140; No. 2, p. 204-234.

52 See footnotes 19 and 20.

53 Oral story of Juraj Pagáč, in the archive of the NSS, sign. 633, Arne Mann: Ľudové rozprávanie v obciach Prietrž a Hlboké (1976), p. 63.

54 Oral story of Štefan Šlahor-Vacula, in the archive of the NSS, sign. 311, Zora Mitaľová, Rozprávania o I. sv. vojne – Myjava (1966), p. 55.

55 Oral story of J. Mališka, in: Smatana, p. 80.

56 Oral story of Štefan Šlahor-Vacula, in the archive of the NSS, sign. 311, Mitaľová: Rozprávania..., p. 41; Oral story of J. Plíž, in: Smatana, p. 73.

57 Ignác Gessay, Rozpomienka na uzavretie Československej dohody dňa 30. mája 1918 v Pittsburgu, Bratislava, Slovenský jubilárny rok, 1928, p. 6.

58 Oral story of Ján Hložka, Archive of NSS, Mária Čambalová: Ľudová próza na Podjavorinsku (1971), p. 32; oral story of O. Belan, in: Smatana, p. 93-94.

59 For more details see: Dudeková, “S Bohom za kráľa a vlasť? Problém lojality a bojovej morálky radového vojaka vo Veľkej vojne,” in: Dudeková, Mannová (eds.), Vojak medzi civilmi..., p. 163-196.

60 Sabine A. Haring, “K.u.k. Soldaten an der Ostfront im Sommer und Herbst 1914. Eine emotionssoziologische Analyse,” in: Bachinger, Dornik (eds.), Jenseits des Schützengrabens..., p. 65-86.

61 Holger B. Herwig, The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918, 2nd Edition, London – New York, Bloomsbury Academic Press, 2014, chap. The “mood of 1914,” p. 33-44.

62 Udvary Jenő, “Psychológiai megfigyelések a harcztérről,” in: Pilch Jenő (ed.), Hadtörténeti Közlemények XX – XXII (1919 – 1921), Budapest, A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1921, p. 157-170.

63 For example Činčurák, Vojna..., p. 42.

64 Ján Hrušovský, Zo svetovej vojny. Halič, Ruské Poľsko 1914, Martin, Kníhtlačiarsky účastinársky spolok, 1919, p. 246, 296.

65 There is a rare collection of censored (and never delivered) correspondence of soldiers with their families in Nitra local archives: archives of Nitra County, Slovakia. (Štátny archív v Nitre, Zbierka frontových pozdravov). Dudeková, “Protirečivé spomienky? Zážitky z prvej svetovej vojny,” in OS (Fórum občianskej spoločnosti), 2006, Vol. 10, No. 1-2, p. 102-114.

66 Hanák Péter, “Népi levelek az első világháborúból,” in: Id., A kert és a műhely, Budapest, Ballasi Kiadó, 1999, p. 157-187; Szabó Ferenc, “Az első világháború hatása a népi életszemléletre,” in: Régi és új peregrináció. Magyarok külföldön, külföldiek Magyarországon I, Budapest, Szeged: Nemzetközi magyar filológiai társaság, 1993, p. 339-346.

67 Dudeková, “Výnimočnosť alebo normalita?...,” p. 193-211; Id., “Stratégie prežitia v mimoriadnej situácii. Vplyv Veľkej vojny na rodinu na území Slovenska,” in Forum Historiae, 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1. forumhistoriae.sk/

68 Czech historian Hutečka came to very similar conclusion about Czech soldiers while analyzing memoirs by Czech veterans: Jiří Hutečka, Muži proti ohni. Motivace, morálka a mužnost českých vojáků Velké války, Praha, Lidové noviny, 2016; Id., “Císařovy bajonety: motivace a morálka českých c. a k. vojáků za Velké války,” in: Jaroslav Láník, Tomáš Kykal a kol., Léta do pole okovaná. 1914: proměny společnosti a státu ve válce, Praha, Ministerstvo obrany České republiky – VHÚ Praha, 2015, p. 243-244.

69 Mannová, “Kríza lojality,” in: Kováč, Prvá svetová vojna 1914-1918..., p. 214.

70 Rudolf Kučera, “Entbehrung und Nationalismus. Die Erfahrung der tschechischen Soldaten der öster- reichisch-ungarischen Armee 1914-1918,” in: Bachinger, Dornik (eds.), Jenseits des Schützengrabens..., p. 121-137.

71 For the problem of shifting loyalties, see also: Roman Holec, “Rok 1918 – Slováci medzi lojalitou k Uhorsku a k novej republike,” in: Česko-slovenská historická ročenka, 2009, p. 17-33.

72 This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract no. APVV-14-0644; the research was done in the SAS Institute of History within the project VEGA no. 2/0111/17 and the project Social and Political Consequences of the First World War and Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Gabriela Dudeková Kováčová, « The Silent Majority: Attitudes of Non-prominent Citizens at the Beginning of the Great War in the Territory of Today’s Slovakia  »Revue des études slaves, LXXXVIII-4 | 2017, 699-719.

Référence électronique

Gabriela Dudeková Kováčová, « The Silent Majority: Attitudes of Non-prominent Citizens at the Beginning of the Great War in the Territory of Today’s Slovakia  »Revue des études slaves [En ligne], LXXXVIII-4 | 2017, mis en ligne le 25 avril 2019, consulté le 18 avril 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/res/1341 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/res.1341

Haut de page

Auteur

Gabriela Dudeková Kováčová

Institute of History, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search