“The End of Autocracy”: Analysing Representations of the Austro-Hungarian Dissolution as the Foundation of US Hegemonic Discourse

Abstract

This paper investigates the manner in which the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was represented to the US public using a qualitative content analysis of articles from three major US newspapers in October and November, 1918. Against a geopolitical backdrop of the increasing global presence of the United States and assertion of its influence in international affairs, the analysis shows that three key themes were emphasised in the popular US political narratives at the end of World War I: national self-determination, legitimacy of governance, and the role of Eastern European diasporas and representatives in the United States. Throughout the essay, these themes are connected to key discussions of US hegemony in political geography. The critical geopolitics approach highlights how the articles signposted boundary markers of identity at a crucial, transitional point in US history, helping to crystallise an American sense of ‘Self’ increasingly based upon world leadership, and sending compelling messages about the expected behaviours of nations, states, and individuals. This work concludes that the stage was set early in the twentieth century for a phase of US global intellectual and moral leadership, and that the ascendance of US hegemony globally was accompanied by an active media project at home which sought to redefine Americans' collective sense of themselves as vanguards of liberal democratic values in a world of outdated and undemocratic regimes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to Keith Hitchins for his helpful suggestions for data sources for this project, Tom Schwandt for his advice during the review process, and Colin Flint for multiple readings and excellent comments on earlier drafts of this article. The anonymous referees also provided important and constructive feedback. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes

1. ‘Czechs Renounce Habsburgs’ Rule', New York Times 1857, 19 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 3.

2. D. Fromkin, Kosovo Crossing: The Reality of American Intervention in the Balkans (New York: Touchstone 1999); V. Mamatey, The United States and East Central Europe 1914–1918: A Study in Wilsonian Diplomacy and Propaganda (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1957).

3. The use of ‘American’ in this paper refers to citizens of the United States. Wherever possible, US is used in place of American, although phrases such as ‘American identity’ and ‘American public’ are employed to denote the sense of identity associated with US society, or the population of the United States.

4. J. Agnew, Hegemony: The New Shape of Global Power (Philadelphia: Temple University Press 2005) pp. 2–3.

5. Ibid.

6. I. Wallerstein, The Politics of the World-Economy (London: Verso 1984).

7. P. Taylor, Modernities (Cambridge: Polity Press 1999); N. Smith, American Empire (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press 2003); Agnew (note 4).

8. Taylor (note 7).

9. Taylor (note 7); Agnew (note 4) p. 3.

10. Agnew (note 4) pp. 2–3.

11. I. Wallerstein, The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World (New York and London: The New Press 2003).

12. T. Lears, ‘The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities’, The American Historical Review 90/3 (June 1985) pp. 567–593.

13. My use of the term ‘civil society’ accords with a Gramscian notion of civil society: the nonjuridical components of society, such as schools, the media, churches, trade unions, and political parties. See R. Bellamy and D. Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press 1993) pp. 118–119.

14. Taylor (note 7).

15. L. Ambrosius, Wilsonian Statecraft: Theory and Practice of Liberal Internationalism During World War I (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc. 1991).

16. Smith (note 7).

17. Ibid., p. 3.

18. Ambrosius (note 15).

19. Fromkin (note 2); Ambrosius (note 15); Mamatey (note 2); R. Hamilton and H. Herwig, Decisions for War, 1914–1917 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004); Smith (note 7).

20. K. Howe, ‘The Interpretive Turn and the New Debate in Education’, Educational Researcher 27/8 (Nov. 1998) pp. 13–20; see also M. Hammersley, ‘Get Real! A Defense of Realism’, in H. Piper and I. Stronach (eds.), Educational Research: Difference and Diversity (Hampshire: Ashgate 2004) pp. 59–78, in which the author argues for the possibility of a “non-foundationalist realism” (p. 61).

21. G. O'Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space (London: Routledge 1996); G. O'Tuathail and S. Dalby (eds.), Rethinking Geopolitics (London and New York: Routledge 1998).

22. I. Neumann, Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1999) p. 30; M. Kuus and J. Agnew, ‘Theorizing the State Geographically’, in K. Cox, M. Low and J. Robinson (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Political Geography (London: Sage 2008) pp. 95–106.

23. J. Sharp, Condensing the Cold War: Reader's Digest and American Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 2000); D. Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1998).

24. Campbell (note 23) p. 130. See also M. Sparke, In the Space of Theory: Post-Foundational Geographies of the Nation-State (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 2005), for further discussion of identity.

25. K. Dodds, ‘Steve Bell's Eye: Cartoons, Geopolitics and the Visualization of the ‘War on Terror’’, Security Dialogue 38/2 (June 2007) pp. 157–177; K. Dodds, ‘Popular Geopolitics and Audience Dispositions: James Bond and the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31/2 (June 2006) pp. 116–130; S. Dalby, ‘Warrior Geopolitics: Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and the Kingdom of Heaven’, Political Geography 27/4 (May 2008) pp. 439–455.

26. Sharp (note 23) p. 29.

27. Neumann (note 22) pp. 5, 26.

28. Sharp (note 23); J. Dittmer, ‘Captain America's Empire: Reflections on Identity, Popular Culture, and Post-9/11 Geopolitics’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95/3 (Sep. 2005) pp. 626–643.

29. J. Dittmer, ‘Changing American Metanarratives of Russia in NATO Expansion Debates, 1993–2002’, National Identities 9/1 (March 2007) pp. 49–66; J. Dittmer, ‘NATO, the EU and Central Europe: Differing Symbolic Shapes in Newspaper Accounts of Enlargement’, Geopolitics 10/1 (Spring 2005) pp. 76–98; B. Robison, ‘Putting Bosnia in its Place: Critical Geopolitics and the Representation of Bosnia in the British Print Media’, Geopolitics 9/2 (Summer 2004) pp. 378–401; Dodds (note 25).

30. M. Müller, ‘Reconsidering the Concept of Discourse for the Field of Critical Geopolitics: Towards Discourse as Language and Practice’, Political Geography 27/3 (March 2008) pp. 322–338.

31. Ibid.

32. Ambrosius (note 15).

33. G. Ó Tuathail and J. Agnew, ‘Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign Policy’, Political Geography 11/2 (Feb. 1992) pp. 190–204.

34. N. Megoran, ‘For Ethnography in Political Geography: Experiencing and Re-Imagining Ferghana Valley Boundary Closures’, Political Geography 25/6 (Aug. 2006) pp. 622–640; Müller (note 30).

35. I. Goldstein, Croatia: A History (London: Hurst and Company 1999) p. 90.

36. Mamatey (note 2).

37. J. Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (London and New Dehli: Sage Publications 2005).

38. Dodds (note 25).

39. Maxwell (note 37).

40. J. Penrose and R. Mole, ‘Nation-States and National Identity’, in K. Cox, M. Low, and J. Robinson (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Political Geography (London: Sage 2008) pp. 271–283.

41. See Mamatey (note 2) and Ambrosius (note 15) for histories of Wilson's foreign policy.

42. Mamatey (note 2) p. 41.

43. Mamatey (note 2).

44. ‘How the Austrian Empire Is Breaking Up’, New York Times (1857–Current file), 2 Nov. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 2.

45. G. Lundestad (ed.), The Fall of Great Powers: Peace, Stability, and Legitimacy (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press 1994) p. 387.

46. Ibid.

47. I. Deak, ‘The Fall of Austria-Hungary’, in G. Lundestad (ed.), The Fall of Great Powers: Peace, Stability, and Legitimacy (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press 1994) pp. 81–102, 94.

48. Deak (note 47) p. 95.

49. ‘Autonomy in Austria’, New York Times (1857-Current file), 11 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 10.

50. ‘Austria is Answered’, New York Times (1857-Current file), 21 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 14.

51. Ibid.

52. ‘Wilson Peace Answer Sounds Doom for Austria-Hungary’, Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File), 20 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, Los Angeles Times (1881–1986) p. I1.

53. ‘How Germany'sDefeat Will Transform Europe’, New York Times (1857-Current file), 20 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 70.

54. Mamatey (note 2).

55. B. Jelavich, History of the Balkans: Twentieth Century, Vol. 2 (New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press 1983).

56. Ambrosius (note 15) p. 102.

57. Ambrosius (note 15); Mamatey (note 2); Hamilton and Herwig (note 19).

58. This is the German equivalent of the phrase “drive toward the east.”

59. ‘Cementing the Wall’, New York Times (1857-Current file), 13 Oct. 1918, ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. X1.

60. Fromkin (note 2) p. 27.

61. Lundestad (note 45) p. 385.

62. Ibid., p. 396.

63. Wilson Looms Big in Austrian Fall’, Chicago Daily Tribune (1872–1963), 8 Nov. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, Chicago Tribune (1849–1986) p. 6.

64. Goldstein (note 35).

65. Ambrosius (note 15).

66. ‘The End of Autocracy’, New York Times (1857-Current file), 4 Nov. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 12.

67. Ibid.

68. ‘Austria-Hungary Passes’, Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File), 31 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, Los Angeles Times (1881–1986) p. II4.

69. Taylor (note 7) pp. 38–40.

70. Hamilton and Herwig (note 19) p. 210.

71. Hamilton and Herwig (note 19) pp. 219–220.

72. ‘Czechoslovak Day Celebrated’, New York Times (1857–Current file), 4 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 15.

73. Ibid.

74. ‘Chicago Serbs Joyful at Bulgar Flop’, Chicago Daily Tribune (1872–1963), 1 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, Chicago Tribune (1849–1986) p. 3.

75. ‘‘Urges American Rumanian League’, By Captain Vasile Stoica, President of the Rumanian National League of America’, New York Times (1857–Current file), 6 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2004) p. 37.

76. ‘Put Slavic Ring Around Germany, Masaryck Urges’, Chicago Daily Tribune (1872–1963), 10 Oct. 1918; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, Chicago Tribune (1849–1986) p. 6.

77. Ibid.

78. Taylor (note 7).

79. Hamilton and Herwig (note 19).

80. Lundestad (note 45) p. 383.

81. Lundestad (note 45) p. 398.

82. Fromkin (note 2).

83. Taylor (note 7); Wallerstein (note 11).

84. C. Flint and G. Falah, ‘How the United States Justified Its War on Terrorism: Prime Morality and the Construction of a ‘Just War’’, Third World Quarterly 25/8 (Dec. 2004) pp. 1379–1399.

85. Neumann (note 22); Dittmer, ‘Captain America's Empire’ (note 28) p. 626.

86. C. Flint, ‘Mobilizing Civil Society for the Hegemonic State’, in D. Cowen and E. Gilbert (eds.), War, Citizenship, Territory (New York and London: Routledge 2008) pp. 345–361.