Fried makes an excellent case for the primacy of Balkan war aims in the wartime diplomacy of Austria-Hungary. Besides, Tisza had no intention of absorbing more Slavs into the Monarchy, an issue that Conrad simply dismissed or overlooked. In any case, the ultimate commander in chief of the armed forces - Kaiser Franz Joseph - tended only to discuss foreign policy with his foreign minister. Yet continued military defeats always deprived him of any real influence. His plan, after Serbia’s defeat, would become one of annexing the rump of Serbia, once Bulgaria had been paid off with Macedonia, annexing Montenegro and dismembering Albania. Conrad, on the other hand, saw victory on the Eastern Front and the defeat of Russia as the key to any general peace, although he did realise the economic importance of the Balkans to the Monarchy. So, too, did Berchtold, who was willing to lose Galicia but not control of Serbia. Tisza saw this as the most important war aim for the Monarchy. It was also important that neither Bulgaria nor Germany should dominate the Western Balkans, which should be Austria-Hungary’s exclusive sphere of influence. Specifically, these included the north-western corner of Serbia called the Mačva, the north-east of Serbia around Negotin, and Belgrade itself. Instead, she was to cede territory to Bulgaria, Albania and Greece but pay reparations to Austria-Hungary which would also receive some territory as “strategically important border corrections”. Serbia, Vienna soon agreed, due to the influence of Tisza, the Hungarian premier, was neither to be annexed nor destroyed. Yet as the war continued and as it became clear that it would not be a short one, more extensive war aims developed. True, at the start of the war, Vienna had few specific war aims in mind apart from defeating Serbia militarily and making her a tributary or dependent state. Fried insists in his work on three basic points: first, that Austro-Hungarian war aims were more offensive, expansionist and annexationist in the Balkans and in Poland than previously thought secondly, that the foreign ministry remained in overall control of the process of war aims formulation in opposition to the army’s policies and contrary to the German example and thirdly, that the war was prolonged due to Austria-Hungary’s at times almost delusional insistence on its principal war aims. Meanwhile he has published an article, ‘The Cornerstone of Balkan Power Projection: Austro-Hungarian Foreign Policy and the Problem of Albanian Neutrality, 1914-1918’. Fried’s views are summarized in his forthcoming article, ‘“A Life and Death Question”: Austro-Hungarian War Aims in the First World War’. This will be published in 2014 by Palgrave Macmillan, London, with the title The Final Stab at Glory: Austro-Hungarian War Aims in the Balkans, 1914-1918. The most recent and significant foray into Austro-Hungarian wartime diplomacy is Marvin Benjamin Fried’s 2011 LSE doctoral thesis, War Aims and Peace Conditions: Austro-Hungarian Foreign Policy in the Balkans, July 1914-May 1917. In turn, these other principles impose limits on the nature of and possibilities for counter-hegemonic struggle. It suggests that in order to understand, rather than merely judge, this strategy, it is important to see masculinity not as a completely discrete field of struggle, but as one of many mutually constitutive structuring principles underpinning a social order that is arranged not merely along patriarchal lines, but along lines of nation and class. It argues that despite rejecting many aspects of this norm, objectors nonetheless articulated their counter-hegemonic struggle in starkly militarised language, presenting themselves as heroes sacrificing their lives for the greater good. In a time when ‘if one was born a male, one became a soldier’, what does it mean to be a man who refuses to fight? This article uses Connell’s framework of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ to locate conscientious objectors’ male identities as a suppressed, subaltern manliness that deviated from the dominant norm of martial masculinity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |