Nationalism and Empire. The Habsburg Empire and the Soviet Union by Richard L. Rudolph;David F. GoodReview by: Martyn RadyThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 550-552Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4211600 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:15:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

550 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

be produced in abundance. One of the most valuable aspects of this biblio- graphy is that it permits one to appreciate the vigour of Polish cultural life: Poland's brightest and best may all too often have been forced into exile, but even without them 'Polishness' bubbled along in Galicia. Gertraud Marinelli- K6nig is to be congratulated on her labours, which should greatly facilitate and stimulate further research into an important chapter of central European culture and history. School of History JERZY LUKOWSKI

University ofBirmingham

Rudolph, Richard L. and Good, David F. (eds). Nationalism and Empire. The Habsburg Empire and the Soviet Union. St Martin's Press, New York, in association with the Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota, I992. xi + 32I pp. Notes. Index. ?32.75.

AT first sight, the comparative study of the Habsburg Empire and Soviet Union appears an unscholarly and anachronistic exercise. A number of the contributors to the present volume accordingly either refuse the challenge of comparison altogether or instead compare aspects of the Habsburg and Romanov monarchies. As Sergei Romanenko of the Moscow Academy of Sciences explains (pp. Io9-Io), 'First of all, these countries [the Habsburg Monarchy and the Soviet Union] represent entirely different historical periods and have a different social basis. Second, a unique national-state structure has been formed and a different political structure has been developed in the USSR for over seventy years. Finally, it is wrong to ignore the peculiarities of the psychological situation in the USSR, especially its ethnic and religious aspects.' Romanenko's argument, however, almost certainly invalidates his own subsequent attempt to compare Finland and Croatia-Slavonia at the beginning of the twentieth century and, when taken to its logical conclusion, surely puts most comparative endeavours beyond the historian's reach. Moreover, the overly critical approach adopted by Romanenko is hardly likely to arouse the imagination. As Walter Leitsch argues, 'Does a person earning a living as a historian stop being a curious person asking strange questions? Those who ask strange questions often allow us to understand things better' (p. 305). In this respect, it may not be entirely coincidental that Romanenko's own essay is distinctly unilluminating (note his unrevealing conclusion [P. I29]: 'Militarization inevitably led to the breach of normal economic, social, and political links, and centralization tendencies in the policies of the central authorities inevitably increased the resistance of the various peoples and old, dormant decentralist tendencies'), whereas those contributions which rise to the occasion do yield genuine insights and new lines of enquiry.

The Habsburg Monarchy was, of course, never an 'empire' in the sense of the Soviet Union. At least, there is no definition of empire within which both structures may comfortably fit. The Habsburg Monarchy did not comprise a 'hegemonial state' which held other peoples and nations under its sway - to paraphrase George Lichtheim's classic definition (Imperialism, New York, 1975, p. 5). Nor may its political system be satisfactorily explained in terms of

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:15:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 55I

core and peripheral relations or of master and subject nations. The supposed German 'master nation' in the Monarchy had no sooner discovered its German identity than it was excluded from political influence in Cisleithania first by the 'iron ring' and then by a new round of 'electoral geometry'. And, as Istvain Deaik reminds us in this volume, over half the generals serving in the Habsburg army in I9I8 were of non-German stock. Neither does the relationship of an absolutist emperor to his domains, as discussed in this volume by Alexander Motyl,justify the Monarchy being called an empire. The relationship between the Habsburg ruler and the lands and kingdoms was characterized by an enduring constitutional dualism which effectively rules out the description of absolutism in the sense in which Motyl understands it. Almost certainly, it is the refusal of the Habsburg Monarchy ever to act like an empire which explains Robert Kann's curious comment (cited here, p. 2I) that it had entered into a process of decay as early as I526.

Nevertheless, the Monarchy and the Soviet empire may be profitably compared from the point of view of the breakdown of large political structures and of nationalities policy. Alexander Motyl argues that the tendency towards centralization which frequently accompanies imperial growth 'engenders pathologies that lead to its own degeneration' (p. 24). In order to obtain the resources and information upon which its power depends, the central authority will frequently be forced to rely upon a network of local agents. As these agents assume powers of their own, the central authority will be obliged to 'deabsolutize', granting the agents enhanced powers of their own. The now weakened centre proves particularly vulnerable to threats from abroad, but less so to revolution from below. Confronted by a popular uprising, centre and agents will join together. The greatest danger is, however, revolution from above. This pits the centre and its agents against one another and encourages the latter to appeal to local and regional sentiments in the struggle. Although in places vague and inaccurate, Motyl's scheme has at least the merit of placing the demise of the Monarchy and of the Soviet empire within the same analytical framework.

The relationship between the state and its constituent nationalities is explored in this volume by Miroslav Hroch and Teresa Rakowska- Harmstone. Refining Hroch's familiar A-B-C model, Rakowska-Harmstone argues that the self-identification of the group precedes the articulation of group-demands by an educated elite. As loyalty to the ethnic community proves ultimately greater than allegiance to the overarching state, so ethnicity becomes nationalism and demands for separatism grow. Multi-national states have a tendency thus to fall apart.

It may well be, as John-Paul Himka argues here, that the Habsburg Monarchy collapsed before its 'nationality problem became really nasty' and that the Soviet empire. from its inception in 1922, experienced 'in intensified form ... the problem that Austria confronted only in its twilight: the manage- ment of politically conscious, ambitious nationalities' (pp. 84-85). Neverthe- less, despite the obvious differences in the intensity of ethnic conflict, the fact that both the Monarchy and the Soviet empire partly fell on account of nationalist pressure from below justifies Rakowska-Harmstone's determin- ism. The examples of this century in Europe - from the Habsburg Monarchy

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:15:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

552 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

to Yugoslavia - amply suggest that multi-national polities just do not work. As Rakowska Harmstone puts it, 'the myth of "internationalism" . . . is now being replaced by a tide of nationalism' (p. 303).

Both the Austro-Marxists and the early Soviet leaders advanced their own solutions to the problem of ethnic diversity: the 'personality principle' and ethnic territorialization respectively. Because it conceived of nationality as pertaining only to the cultural and linguistic sphere, the Austro-Marxist solution failed to establish the relationship between nationhood and political power. Thus, it survives today only in its attenuated Belgian form. The second, originally devised by Stalin in response to the Austro-Marxists, presupposed that peoples could be conveniently packaged into republics and local autonomies. Lenin and Stalin, of course, imagined that ethnic allegiances would soon be replaced by a common Soviet identity. As Helmut Conrad suggests, their misunderstanding of the power of nationalism and their clumsy attempt at ethnic territorialization are partly responsible for the shambles and civil war currently affecting large parts of the former Soviet Union.

Varieties of the Austro-Marxist solution and of ethnic territorialization are still being promoted today as potential solutions to ethnic conflict in multi- national states. Only their names have changed: into consociationalism, federalization and cantonization. This ambitious comparative study suggests that their application to contemporary areas of inter-ethnic conflict will prove as unsuccessful as the methods previously employed in the Habsburg Mon- archy and the Soviet empire. Richard Rudolph explains, 'The paradox ... is that the idealistic philosophy of Hegel is wreaking its revenge on the material- ism of Marx in our age of reason. For it is these artificial and semi-religious creations that are one of the strongest forces in political and social life in this century and that have destroyed one empire after another' (p. I 2).

Nationalism and Empire contains revised papers originally given at a confer- ence held at the University of Minnesota in April i99i. Unlike many multi-authored collections published today, the volume has a proper intro- duction, several conclusory essays and an index. The editors deserve praise, therefore, not only for the imaginative scope of this volume, but also for their diligence. School of Slavonic and East European Studies MARTYN RADY

University ofLondon

Treptow, Kurt W. Dracula. Essays on the Life and Times of V/ad Tepeq. East European Monographs no. 323. East European Monographs, Boulder, Colorado, I99I. Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. 336 pp. Bibliography. Illustrations. Maps. Appendixes. $4I.50.

IF you ask British students these days what Romania means to them, they are likely to reply: Dracula and Ceau?escu. Romanians and others alike feel that the notoriety of the latter is well deserved, but for Romanians the status of the former is ambiguous. The Dracula of Bram Stoker was, until the I992 film of the novel, largely unknown to Romanians, and they were quick to point out that the only connection between Vlad Dracula the Impaler, ruler of the

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:15:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions