German-Slovene Relations in the Slovene Lands from the Mid-19Th Century Until Today Matjaž Klemenčič University of Maribor Matjaz.Klemencic@Um.Si

Home , Bleiburg, Bogo Grafenauer, Carinthia (Slovenia), Fran Zwitter, Hans Sima, Ptuj

ONOMÀSTICA 3 (2017): 127–160 | REBUT 27.4.2017 | ACCEPTAT 4.7.2017

German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands from the mid-19th century until today Matjaž Klemenčič University of Maribor [email protected]

Abstract: This paper traces the development of Slovene-German inter-ethnic relations in the Slovene ethnic territory from the 19th century onwards. After the March Revolu- tion of 1848, the Slovenes in Carinthia and Styria, as minority groups in the Habsburg Empire, clashed with the dominant German-speaking groups and were exposed to a progressive process of Germanization and assimilation. After the 1920 plebiscite, Ca- rinthian Slovenes were exposed to accelerated processes of Germanization, while during the Second World War the Nazis sought to resolve the Carinthian question once and for all by instigating forced migrations. In the post-war, bilingual schooling was introduced in southern Carinthia, where it was used as tool for defining the bilingual territory. Further, the Austrian State Treaty appeared to offer guarantees of certain minority rights; however, these have been largely unforthcoming. Recent years have been marked by the Ortstafelsturm – a battle against erecting bilingual village signs – and reforms to the Law on Ethnic Groups. Key words: Slovenes, Germans, Styria, Carinthia, Germanization, Slovenisation, Nation- al minorities, Bilingual village signs.

Les relacions germanoeslovenes en territoris eslovens des de mitjan segle xix fins avui Resum: En aquest article s’examinen les relacions entre eslovens i alemanys des de mitjan segle XIX fins al moment actual. La primera part abraça fins al final de la Primera Guer- ra Mundial, i planteja com els eslovens −un dels grups ètnics de l’Imperi dels Habsburg, on els parlants alemanys eren el grup dominant− van quedar exposats, especialment després de la revolució de 1848, a un procés progressiu d’assimilació i germanització. Com es considera a la segona part, aquest procés s’accentua a les dècades posteriors, i especialment en el període d’entreguerres i durant la Segona Guerra Mundial (sobre- tot en relació amb la població eslovena de Caríntia i sota el règim nazi). La tercera part analitza la introducció del sistema escolar bilingüe al sud de Caríntia, amb especial èmfasi en aquesta mesura com a eina de definició del territori bilingüe a la Caríntia meridional. L’última part de l’article e la “no implementació” de l’article 7 del Tractat de l’Estat austríac per part dels governs austríacs. Aquí, es fa un èmfasi especial en la

127 Matjaž Klemenčič

qüestió de la senyalització pública de localitats bilingües, des de l’anomenada Ortsta- felsturm de 1972 fins a la llei reguladora de l’estatut dels grups ètnics de 2011. Paraules clau: Eslovens, alemanys, Estíria, Caríntia, germanització, eslovenització, mi- nories nacionals, senyalització bilingüe de pobles.

1 INTRODUCTION According to Slovene scholars, Slovene ethnic territory comprises those lands in which Slovenes lived as an autochthonous/indigenous population before the onset of the industrial revolution in the mid-19th century. This territory lies at the intersection of four major European natural ge- ographical units (the Mediterranean, the Alps, the Pannonian Plain and the Dinaric Mountains) and at the junction of four linguistic groups (Ger- manic, Romance, Slavic and Finno-Ugric). It is located at the cross-sec- tion of important European traffic routes that connect Northern and Western Europe to Southeast Europe, and the Middle East and the Me diterranean to Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Roads were initially developed to traverse what was considered a relatively transitory territory. However, it should be stressed that the Postojna Gate [Postonjska vrata] serves as the lowest-lying and most accessible pass into the rest of Europe through the Dinaric Alp and down to the Adriatic Sea and the Po River Plain (Klemenčič V. 1992, 99–113). Throughout history, many peoples have crossed the Slovene ethnic territory, contributing to and benefiting from its unique and diverse culture and civilization. From the 14th century onwards, most of present-day Slovene ethnic territory (with the exception of the so-called “Venetian Slovenia”, which was part of Italy) was in the possession of the Habsburgs, and later in that of the Habsburg monarchy. The territory was historically divided into the provinces of Carniola, Carinthia, Styria, Trieste, Gorizia and Istria and the counties of Zala and Vas, which formed part of Hungary. Over the centuries, two processes unfolded in the region that resulted in changes in the ethnic/linguistic population structure:

(1) The German-speaking population migrated from north to south, gradually Germanizing the Slavic/Slovene-speaking population in the northern part of the Slavic ethnic territory and (2) German-speaking immigrants lost their identity and language and became members of the majority i.e. the Slavic/

128 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) . Slovene Ethnic Territory in the Mid-Nineteenth Century in the Mid-Nineteenth Territory Ethnic . Slovene Map 1

129 Matjaž Klemenčič

Slovene-speaking population south of what was then the Slovene-German ethnic/linguistic boundaries. In Carinthia, residents have been subjected to intense pressure to Germanize since the mid-19th century (Grafenauer 1994).

Until the modern era, Slovene-German linguistic duality in the Slovene ethnic territory did not result in any inter-ethnic clashes. This is reflected, for example, in the draft of Bojan Schnabl’s doctoral dissertation on the constitutionally guaranteed equality of both peoples in Carinthia in the provincial Constitution of 1849 (Paragraph 3) and, consequently, in the bilingual nature of official documents and the official lists of bilingual place names in Carinthia until the collapse of the monarchy (Schnabl 2016). Until the mid-19th century, people living in the countryside were able to communicate in both Slovene and German. This in spite of the fact that immigrants from the Tyrolean Pustertal in South Tyrol, who had moved to Baška grapa in the 13th century, had been almost completely “Slovenized”. Today, only the German names of the streams (e.g. Kacen- poh = Ger.: Katzenbach; Slo.: Mačji potok) and the names of some of the nearby peaks (Hohkoubl = Slo.: Matajurski vrh) serve as reminders of these migrants. With the modernization of the Habsburg Monarchy, the German language began to gain in importance and anyone who wanted to advance in state or public services, or in private economic ventures, had to know German. The question of the legal situation of peoples under the Con- stitution of the Habsburg Empire and the recognition of the equality of ethnic Slovenes came to the surface after the March Revolution of 1848. The Slovenes, with their national program of a “Unified Slovenia”, called for the unification of the entire Slovene ethnic territory and raised the question of linguistic demarcation in Carinthia and Styria (Gestrin and Melik 1966, Granda 1999). By means of this program, the Slovenes sought to exercise their political rights as a modern European nation. Howev- er, their national interests clashed with the plans of the Greater German nationalist circles. For German nationalists, Carinthia and Styria represented historically ethnic German duchies, and attempts to enforce Slo- vene equality were identified as a threat. From the German nationalists’ perspective, the Slovenes, because of their small number and cultural underdevelopment, were “doomed” to Germanization. It is unsurprising, 130 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) therefore, that the Austrian authorities began, in the mid-19th century, to exercise a policy aimed at the assimilation of Slovenes (Cvirn 1995, 73–82). The purpose of this paper is to monitor the development of Slo- vene-German inter-ethnic relations in the Slovene ethnic territory from the 19th century onwards, and to examine the way in which discrimi- nation against minorities, in conjunction with several major historical events, influenced the development of these minorities and their efforts to achieve equality.

2 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL NEGLECT OF SLOVENE HISTORIC LANDS

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Austro-Hungarian Empire sought to assimilate members of non-German and non-Magyar ethnic groups. In so doing, it used a variety of methods: neglect, especially in the field of culture, education and the use of minority languages in all areas of public life, and a restriction on economic development in minority settlement areas, especially those with sizeable Slovene populations (Klemenčič V. 1993, 20). Ironically, with the rise of German nationalism, Slovene natio nal identity actually strengthened. Slovenes developed their own literary language, published their own literature and journals, created their own works of art and founded social and cultural institutions. However, they were unsuccessful in their attempts to introduce Slovene as the language of instruction in secondary schools and as the working language in all offices. In addition, Slovene demands for the establishment of a Slovene University fell on deaf ears. At the same time, industrialization, closely tied to the growth of the railway network, was considerably less intensive in the Slovene territory than in other Austrian provinces (especially in the Czech lands). Moreover, ownership of capital remained largely in German hands. The Slovene rural population living in the overcrowded countryside migrated widely, mainly to adjacent industrial areas outside the Slovene ethnic territory (i.e. to Upper Styria) and, later, to other Eu- ropean countries and overseas. The intensity of the migration and Germanisation processes is captured in the population censuses. The first serious attempt to ascertain the -eth nic structure of the population was made by Czoernig in 1846, in a survey 131 Matjaž Klemenčič that recorded the ethnic character of individual communities in the Aus- trian part of the Habsburg Monarchy, though not the language of communication or mother tongue of individuals (Czoernig 1857, Grafenauer 1950). The survey results are quite reliable in terms of the total size of the population, as they were based on accurate data from military recruiting committees. More questionable, however, are the data on linguistic affiliation, since local authorities generally designated the language for each place, while the individual figures for the “citizens” of the individual communities were later calculated in the statistical office (Zwitter 1962, 211– 216, Grafenauer 1950, 117–164).

Table 1. Language Structure of the Austrian Part of the Habsburg Monarchy in the Historical Provinces where Slovene was spoken in 1846

Historical Slovene German Italian Others Total Province Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Styria 362,742 36.2 640,332 63.8 — — — — 1,003,074 100.0 Carinthia 95,544 30.0 223,033 70.0 — — — — 318,577 100.0 Carniola 410,722 88.1 37,788 8.1 — — 17,6991 3.8 466,209 100.0 Trieste 25,300 32.5 8,000 10.0 43,940 54.7 3,0602 3.8 80,300 100.0 Gorizia 128,462 67.0 1,385 0.7 61,489 32.1 4303 0.2 191,766 100.0 Istria 32,995 14.0 — — 60,000 26.3 136,040 59.7 228,035 100.0

Notes: 1 Of these, 17,697 were Serbo-Croatian (3.8%), and 2 Jewish (0.0%); 2 All Je- wish; 3 All Jewish; 4 Of these, 134,445 (59.0%) were Serbo-Croatian, 1,555 (0.7%) Ro- manian, and 40 (0.0%) Jewish. (Source: Hain, 1852)

Although the data from Czoernig’s survey are not entirely reliable, they nevertheless show that by the middle of the 19th century Slovenes had not yet massively emigrated from their ethnic territory. More can be as- certained about the emigration of Slovenes using census data from the second half of the 19th century, with which the Austro-Hungarian authorities also began to record the linguistic structure of the population. In 1880, in the Austrian part of the Monarchy, a survey of the “language of 132 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) communication” (Umgangssprache) was introduced as part of the regular population census. Such censuses took place in 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910. It should be stressed that the language of communication in the Austri- an part of the Habsburg monarchy (and the mother tongue in the Hun- garian part) was registered for each individual (Zwitter 1962, 219–216). In the middle of the 19th century, the Austrian provinces underwent intensive industrialization. Many Slovenes began to move from the overcrowded Slovene countryside to industrial areas outside the Slovene ethnic territory. This was mainly a result of: 1. The abandonment of production in manufacturing plants (iron- works, sawmills, etc.), whose products were unable to compete with modern industrial products; 2. The collapse of the previous means of transportation after the con- struction of the Vienna-Trieste railway line; and 3. The high natural population growth in the Slovene ethnic territory, reflecting an improvement in living conditions in the second half of the 19th century. In the 1860s and 1870s, most Slovenes migrated to industrial and min- ing centers in Upper Styria and other parts of the monarchy. According to census data, there were 7,389 documented people speaking Slovene as their language of communication and living in the area north of the Slo- vene-German ethnic border in Styria in 1900. In the same year, according to Dr. Richard Pfaundler (1907, 578), 50,000 people born in the Slovene ethnic territory lived in the German ethnic territory of Styria. The Umgangssprache was defined as the language used by a person in public, irrespective of their ethnic origin. It was almost impossible for a member of non-German nationality in the Austrian Empire, who lived in the German ethnic territory, to identify his/her language of communication as anything other than German. This was particularly true in Styria. In 1900, the newspaper, the Marburger Zeitung, for example, required the Slovene-speaking people “who found bread in the German Land, to identify German as their language of communication in the census.”1

1 Marburger Zeitung, 29 November 1900. 133 Matjaž Klemenčič Table 2. Population of Styria according to spatial-ethnic origins in 1900

Natural region German Slovene/Other (Political district) Number % Number % Central Lower Styria 20,893 13.17 137,682 86.83 (Slovenj Gradec, Maribor-Surroundings, Ljutomer) South Lower Styria 3,500 1.36 254,587 98.64 (Celje-Surroundings, Ptuj-Surroundings, Brežice) The Towns in Lower Styria with their own rules 13,979 42.11 19,218 57.89 (Celje, Maribor, Ptuj) Northwestern Styria 79,460 97.64 1,916 2.36 (Murau, Gröbming, Liezen) Upper Styria industrial area 173,525 92.43 14,237 7.57 (Leoben, Judenburg, Bruck) Eastern Styria 190,208 98.08 1,989 1.02 (Hartberg, Feldbach, Weiz) Graz-Köflach industrial area 110,042 93.57 8,223 6.43 (Graz-Surruoundings, Voitsberg) Graz-City 103,816 83.38 20,679 16.62 South Central Styria 141,614 93.66 9,592 6.34 (Deutschlandsberg, Leibnitz, Radkersburg)

Source: Pfaundler (1907, 578)

3 1910 CENSUS OF POPULATION

Unfortunately, population censuses recording “language of communication” quickly gained in importance. Before the censuses were to be conducted, propaganda would appear in the newspapers and even in the churches, in a process similar to that engaged in before political elections (Judson, 15). The methodology employed by the censuses heavily favored German as the language of communication, especially as their outcomes depended on German capital. German-speaking owners of the means of production consistently implemented the “right of the master” to determine the language of their workers. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Slovene share of the population in the ethnic Slovene territory steadily 134 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) declined, while at the same time, the share of the German-speaking population rose steadily – mostly in the market towns in the Slovene ethnic territory of Styria and Carinthia. This trend is confirmed by a comparative analysis of the results of the censuses conducted in southern Carinthia between 1880 and 1910, which indicates that the total population of the bilingual territory in southern Carinthia (as defined by the decree of the Carinthian provincial government of 1945) rose from 88,388 in 1880 to 90,903 in 1910. This reflects the growth in the German-speaking population, whose number increased by a factor of two and a half, while the number of Slovene speakers in the same period fell by almost a quarter.2

Table 3. The Language of Communication of Inhabitants in the Bilingual Territory in Carinthia as Determined by the Decree on Bilingual Education of 1945

Slovene German Others Year Number % Number % Number % 1880 75,579 88.51 12,750 14.43 59 0.07 1890 75,602 83.00 15,391 16.90 95 0.10 1900 67,516 75.23 22,140 24.67 85 0.09 1910 57,816 63.60 33,036 36.34 51 0.06

Sources: Spezial-Ortsrepertorium für Kärnten auf Grund der Ergebnisse der Volkszählung vom 31. Dez. 1880. Wien: K.u.K. Statistischen Zentral-Kommission, 1882; Spezial- Ortsrepertorium für Kärnten auf Grund der Ergebnisse der Volkszählung vom 31. Dez. 1890. Wien: K.u.K. Statistischen Zentral-Kommission, 1893; Gemeindelexikon der im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreiche und Länder. Bd. 5: Kärnten. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Ergebnisse der Volkszählung vom 31. Dezember 1900. Wien: Verlag der k.k. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1905; Spezial-Ortsrepertorium für Kärnten auf Grund der Ergeb- nisse der Volkszählung vom 31. Dez. 1910. Wien: Statistische Zentralkommission, 1918; Klemenčič M. (1981, 137–153).

2 On the issue of population censuses prior to the First World War, much has been written, especially by Bogo Grafenauer (1946, 117–248), Matjaž Klemenčič (1981, 137– 153), Emil Brix (1981, 232–253; 1982), and Augustin Malle (2005, 23–29). 135 Matjaž Klemenčič The marked changes in the ethnic structure of the population of southern Carinthia, of course, were not merely the result of natural population movements and the mass immigration of German speakers. This is made quite apparent in the commentary on the census results of 1910, written by Franz Heiß (1931), then leader of the Austrian Federal Office of Sta- tistics (Bundesamt für Statistik):

A comparison of the results [of the] language censuses of 1900 and 1910 shows in many cities such large differences that they can no longer be solely explained by actual changes in language structure, but are more likely due to differences in census counting techniques (Heiß 1931, 143–144).

What criteria were used to determine the language of communication? Who was the census taker, and what controls were in place to ensure accuracy? What sanctions were imposed in the event of any irregularities? Doubts must be cast on the objectivity of the official census results regis- tering the numbers of people claiming to have certain languages of communication during the Habsburg era, their apparent aim being to record the highest possible number of German speakers in a given area, especially at the ethnic borders. In addition to the process of Germanisation, this was the main cause of the changes in the ethnic population structure of certain Habsburg provinces. The printed press, such as the German newspaper in Southern Styria, the Marburger Zeitung, called on the servants and maids who worked for German masters to identify German as their language of communication (Klemenčič M. 1978, 351). Census data for 1910 was published showing the results for the individual provinces of Austria-Hungary. Wilhelm Winkler (1931, 212–213) later compared those data with the census data on ethnic structure according to the censuses taken by the successor states of Austria-Hungary. For that area of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which after the First World War was formed by the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (hereinafter, the Kingdom of SHS), the data were converted to the level of the then recognized “provinces” so that they could be compared with the later Yugoslav censuses of 1921 and 1931.

136 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) Table 4. Number (in thousands) and percentage of the population according to mother tongue in “Yugoslav Slovenia” between 1910 and 1931

1910 1921 1931 Mother Tongue No. % No. % No. % Serbo-Croatian 0 0.0 11 1.0 24 2.1 Slovene 917 86.2 985 93.3 1,079 94.3 Hungarian 21 2.0 15 1.4 8 0.7 German 106 10.0 40 3.8 29 2.5 Other 20 1.9 5 0.5 4 0.4 Total 1,064 100.0 1,056 100.0 1,144 100.0

Note: 0 indicates less than 500. Sources: Winkler (1931, 212–213); Definitivni rezultati popisa stanovništva od 31. januara 1921 godine. Stanovništvo Jugoslavije po veroispoves- ti i materinjem jeziku – rezultati za opštine. Sarajevo: Opšta državna statistika, 1932; Prebivalstvo po veri in materinem jeziku po popisu od 31. 3. 1931. leta. Slovenija – pregled po občinah (Demografska statistika vol. 2, no. 4), Beograd: Državni statistični urad Demokratske Federativne Jugoslavije, 1945.

4 GERMAN-SLOVENE RELATIONS AFTER WORLD WAR I

The peace treaties signed on the conclusion of the First World War divi ded Slovene ethnic territory among four mutually hostile countries: the Kingdom of SCS, Italy, Austria and Hungary. But none of these countries was to comply with its promises, made under these treaties, to protect and develop its ethnic minorities. In seeking to promote their nation states, national minorities were perceived as a disturbance that needed to be eliminated as soon as possible, and in any way possible. After the new frontiers had been drawn up, the germans Slovenes who remained as a minority in Austria and who stayed in the Kingdom of SCS were perceived as “foreign objects”. As the late professor Andrej Moritsch (1994, 54) wrote, “they have experienced a fate that was at the time of integral nationalism granted in principle for all national minorities. The result was

137 Matjaž Klemenčič reflected from census to census […] one country accused the other [Yu- goslavia, Austria and vice versa] of raping national minorities.” Most Germans lived in the cities and market towns of Lower Styria, in Gottschee and Abstall and in the northwestern part of Prekmurje (Biber 1966, 11–15, Ferenc 2005, 212–213). Like other minorities in Central Eu- rope, the Germans in the Kingdom of SCS were promised basic minority protection by the Paris Peace Conference. The Kingdom of SCS was also mandated to protect ethnic minorities under Article 51 of the Saint-Ger- main Peace Treaty. Like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, and Greece, the Kingdom of SCS signed a special agreement with the super powers for the protection of minorities, that is, those groups considered different from the majority of the population based on race, language and religion. These guarantees were not included in the 1921 Vidovdan Constitution. In this first Yugoslav Constitution, the minorities were only mentioned in Article 16, which in principle guaranteed “minorities of another tribe or language” the right to education in the mother tongue under conditions provided for by law. However, the Law on Public Schools, passed in 1929, and the 1931 Constitution made no mention of minority rights at all (Ferenc 2005, 67). The first months following the end of the First World War were marked by the exodus of German officials and other people who considered themselves to be Germans. Thus, the number of Germans in Yugoslav Slovenia fell from 103,949 in 19103 to 41,514 in 1921.4 However, such a marked (statistical) fall in the German population in Slovenia cannot be attributed

3 Spezialortsrepertorium der österreichischen Länder. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Ergebnis- se der Volkszählung vom 31. Dezember 1910. Band IV: Steiermark. Wien: K. K. statistische Zentralkommission, 1917; Spezialortsrepertorium der österreichischen Länder. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Ergebnisse der Volkszählung vom 31. Dezember 1910. Band V: Kärnten. Wien: K. K. statistische Zentralkommission, 1918; Spezialortsrepertorium der österreichischen Länder. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Ergebnisse der Volkszählung vom 31. Dezember 1910. Band VI: Krain. Wien: K. K. statistische Zentralkommission, 1918; Recensement général de la population des pays de la sainte couronne Hongroise, en 1910. Premiére partie: Données prin- cipales de la population par communes et par hameaux, colonies plus populeux. Budapest: L’office central de statistique du Rayaume de Hongrie, 1913. 4 Definitivni rezultati popisa stanovništva od 31. 1. 1921. Stanovništvo Jugoslavije po verois- povesti i materinjem jeziku: rezultati za opštine. Sarajevo: Državni statistički ured, 1932; compare also Winkler (1931, 212–213). 138 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) . Slovene Ethnic Territory and Ethnic Minorities in the 1920s Minorities Ethnic and Territory Ethnic . Slovene Map 2

139 Matjaž Klemenčič solely to mass emigration, rather it reflects differences in the methodolo- gies employed by the respective population censuses conducted in Aus- tria and the Kingdom of SCS. While the census in the Kingdom of SCS in 1921 asked respondents to name their “mother tongue”, the 1880 census in Austria enquired about the “Umgangssprache”, the language of communication, of the population (Klemenčič V. 1988, 241). Counting people according to the “language of communication” in areas with a mobile population, a high level of communication and broad social differentiation (especially in cities) clearly favored the economically and politically domi nant groups. And the Germans were especially dominant in the cities and market towns until 1918. The fall in the German population in Yugoslav Slovenia was also influenced by the “re-assimilation” policy of the Slovene authorities. This was reflected in the abolition of German private schools and the restrictions placed on the German language in state schools, the abolition of most German clubs, and the limitations on the use of German in public life and on their land ownership in the border zone. The transition to the newly formed Kingdom of SCS did not, however, threaten the economic power of the Germans. The partial nationalization of certain enterprises and agrarian reform measures introduced at the be- ginning of the 1920s only affected a small part of German assets. Most of the vast estates owned by Germans remained in their hands; these were the owners of large industrial and commercial companies as well as the powerful, domestic landowners (Biber 1966, 27–28). In their possession were almost half of the vineyards around Maribor, Ormož, and Slovenska Bistrica, and more than half the wine-growing regions of Haloze, Gorn- ja Radgona and the Upper Cmurek (today Trate). In Maribor, they were the owners of 41% of the housing and other buildings; in Celje 40%; and in Ptuj 60% (Suppan 1988, 191). In 1924 and 1925, the Yugoslav authorities carried out several actions against the German minority, which prompted its representatives to push for the early solution of minority issues in Slovenia and Austria by appeal to the principle of reciprocity, in accordance with the principle of cultural autonomy. When, in 1928, it became clear that cultural autonomy for both minorities could not be achieved, the German political leaders in Slovenia sought to improve the situation of the German minority by other methods. These included drafting a memorandum on the situation of the 140 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) Germans in Slovenia in April 1929 and sending a petition to the League of Nations following the closure of the German House (a cultural center) in Celje in June 1930 (Cvirn 1998, pp. 87–88). Once again in the mid-1930s, representatives of the German minority in Slovenia attempted to revive the idea of reciprocity in minority issues for Slovenia and Austria. How- ever, because of the growing Nazi sentiments and irredentist tendencies of the German minority leaders, such attempts were destined to fail. Indeed, the leaders of the German minority in Yugoslav Slovenia sup- ported the rise of the Nazis in Germany. They considered the new frontier between Yugoslavia and Austria as eminently unjust. In the early spring of 1933, the Nazis’ rise to power was being hailed in German minority newspapers. But, because of their outspoken support for the Nazis, the Slovenian authorities gradually disbanded most of the local cultural asso- ciations of the Kulturbund. Likewise, in the autumn of 1935, they banned any speakers from Germany coming to address the minorities. However, the Slovene authorities failed to stop the Nazification of the German minority, a process that was intensified following the annexation of Austria by the German Third Reich in March 1938. The fate of the Gottschee Germans in the southern Slovene ethnic territory was tragic. In keeping with an agreement struck between Hitler and Mussolini on the relocation of members of the German minority in South Tyrol to the Third Reich, Gottschee Germans were also resettled in the Brežice-Krško Field lying on the Italian-German demarcation line. From here, the German authorities forcefully resettled the Slovene population to Lower Saxony as well as to Croatia and Serbia. After the Second World War, Gottschee Germans were displaced around the world. A very small number did not leave. They and their descendants today enjoy the support of the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Austria to pur- sue cultural activities in accordance with the Austrian-Slovene cultural agreement (Ferenc 2005).

5 CARINTHIAN SLOVENES AFTER THE PLEBISCITE (1920–1941)

As one of the defeated nations in the First World War, Austria was required by the Saint-Germain Peace Treaty (Articles 62–69) to guarantee 141 Matjaž Klemenčič adequate protection to national minorities. In propaganda for the plebiscite held on 28th of September 1920, Carinthian Slovenes were mentioned in a special proclamation by the temporary Carinthian provincial assembly: “that the Slovene fellow country men and women will have the right to preserve their language and ethnicity […] for all times and that the Carinthian provincial assembly will devote to their spiritual and economic prosperity the same care as they devote to that of the German people of the province” (Anderwald and Valentin 1995, 92). Despite these promises, shortly after the plebiscite, which saw the border between Austria and the Kingdom of SCS in Carinthia drawn very much in favor of the Austrians, the Austrian authorities began to restrict the language rights that Slovenes had previously enjoyed under the Aus- tro-Hungarian Empire. German became the sole official language; all -bi lingual topographic signs were removed, and the federal and provincial gazettes of Carinthia, which at the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had been published in both German and Slovene, were now only published in German (Klemenčič & Klemenčič 2010, 40–41). Anti-minority activities were led by the group known as Kärntner Hei- matdienst, which had been established before the plebiscite and which was renamed Kärntner Heimatbund in 1924. Its primary goal was to block the proposed solution to the Slovene minority situation that promised to see it achieve “cultural autonomy”. It soon became clear that the pro- posal from the German parties was much more strategic in nature, being submitted only to support the German minority in Yugoslavia. Predicta- bly, immediately after the Yugoslav elections in 1927, German Carinthian nationalists began to object to the proposed autonomy. The Carinthian provincial assembly presented all the political parties with a special statement dated 17 May 1929 that discontinued further negotiations with the minority. In this statement they blamed the Carinthian Slovenes, even though the minority had accepted most of the provisions of the proposed provincial law. In this way, the idea of the implementation of cultural autonomy was buried once and for all (Zorn 1974, 347–366). This period of negotiations for the cultural autonomy of Carinthian Slovenes was marked by the enhanced anti-Slovene activities of Kärntner Heimatbund, which sought to settle as many German families in southern Carinthia as possible. In this time, Austria did nothing to dampen the fervor of the 142 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) Greater Germany ideologists, a stance best illustrated by the fact that Aus- tria became part of the Nazi Third Reich in March 1938. Germanisation and assimilation pressures on Carinthian Slovenes are also reflected in the censuses carried out in Austria in 1923 and 1934. De- termining the number of Slovenes in Carinthia continued to be a form of pressure on the Carinthian Slovenes. In 1923, on the basis of the language of communication, or more precisely “the language which the person uses most fluently and in which he normally thinks”5, the census counted 39,292 (10.1%) Slovene speakers in southern Carinthia. By the year 1934, that number had fallen to 26,796 (Grafenauer 1946, 202). The accuracy of the data in both censuses is highly questionable, especially the figure published in the 1934 census, when linguistic affiliation was determined by the language “in whose cultural circle a person be- longed” (Podgorc 1937, 66). It is interesting to note that, even at the time, a number of German-speaking experts did little to hide the fact that such a subjective criterion for counting was being used to assimilate the mino rity population. Minority theoretician Wilhelm Greve wrote: “The assim- ilative power of Germanhood was such that the people who were actually not Germans, were counted as Germans. The affirmation of peoples’- na tionalities on the basis of statements that do not speak against this asser- tion, without taking into account any objective signs, was used to support assimilation” (Greve 1938, 31). This procedure was also recognized by the Austrian statistician Franz Heiss, who advocated a subjective criterion of linguistic/ethnic affiliation for determining nationality based on the -re spondents’ own statement (Heiss 1931, 155–156). Similar differences between the results of the official Austrian -cen sus and “private counts” can also be found in relation to the 1934 survey. Among the “private counts”, mention should be made of a survey conducted in 1934 by Carinthian Slovene students and intellectuals of the ethnic situation in most of the parishes in southern Carinthia. They used family language, that is, the language used at home in ordinary conversations, as their criterion. This count recorded 81,105 Slovenes (81.02%) out of a total population of 100,108 in southern Carinthia. If we add several places north of Klagenfurt/Celovec, especially in the area between Pörtschach/

5 Statistische Nachrichten 13. Wien: Bundesamt für Statistik, 1935, p. 74. 143 Matjaž Klemenčič

Map 3. Slovene population in the region of today’s southern Carinthia, according to the censuses of 1910, 1934, and 1939 (in various “Slovene“ and “Windisch“ categories) 144 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) Poreče and Maria Saal/Gospa Sveta, not covered in that survey, then we can estimate the number of the Slovenes in Carinthia in 1934 at around 90,000. A similar number of Slovenes was recorded in the survey of the Gurk diocese/Krška škofija, while the Slovene National Cadastre, con- structed in 1933/34 on the basis of mother tongue and family language in individual locations, records 97,129 Slovenes living in “Slovene Carinthia,” outside the commune of Villach/Beljak (Grafenauer 1946, 220). Counts made for 1934 by individual researchers dealing with the ethnic situation in Carinthia are even more varied. For example, the Austri- an jurist, Theodore Veiter (1936, 116–123), estimated the number of Ca- rinthian Slovenes at around 55,000. Slovene historian, Fran Zwitter (1937, 13), on the basis of children registered in public schools, estimated the number to be around 70,000. Slovene historian, Bogo Grafenauer (1946, 220–222), corrected Zwitter’s estimate to 81,592. American geographer, Richard Randall (1955, 125), provided the highest estimate of the number of Carinthian Slovenes in this period – 120,000 – in his doctoral thesis. These differences between the official Austrian censuses of population, on the one hand, and “private counts” and other estimates, on the other, can be explained by the fact that most of the Census Commissioners were Nazi-oriented teachers and, as such, the results are hardly surprising. That the population censuses of 1923 and 1934 served as only one of the means of assimilation of the Slovene minority in Carinthia is further confirmed by the results of the census of 1939, carried out by Nazi authorities. In this census, the criterion used was mother tongue. They counted 44,708 “Slovene-speaking” people, which represented the sum of all combinations of language categories with “Slovene,” and “Windisch” (Pleterski 1966, 176–181). After Austria joined Hitler’s Reich, the Carinthian Slovenes were exposed to new forms of pressure. In 1942, they were forced to emigrate and put into labor and concentration camps in Germany. The Nazis wanted to solve the “Carinthian question” once and for all. Carinthian Slovenes responded with armed resistance.

145 Matjaž Klemenčič 6 INTRODUCTION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN SOUTHERN CARINTHIA WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE DEFINITION OF BILINGUAL TERRITORY

While a significant number of Austrians openly collaborated with the Na- zis during the Second World War, on its termination Austria took imme- diate steps to show the world it was a minority-friendly country. On 3rd of October 1945, the temporary Carinthian provincial government issued a decree announcing the creation of new bilingual primary schools in 62 of the then linguistically mixed municipalities of southern Carinthia.6 The criteria used to determine the bilingual areas were the data from the 1910 census on the “language of communication”. The bilingual school regulation led the government to determine all the municipalities in which at least 10% of the population used Slovene as the language of communication. However, according to the census data of 1910, only six municipalities presented a minimum percentage (10–20%). In reali- ty, two-thirds of the municipalities of the territory in question had a Slo- vene majority.7 Under the new regulations, basic education for all people in the region was to be based on the equality of the two provincial languages (Glantschnig 1998, 520–522). The new system was designed to overcome long-standing German-Slovene discrepancies and feelings of hatred. It later transpired that the introduction of bilingual education was just one of the methods employed by Austria in the fight for the indivisibility of Carinthia and for the preservation of its territorial integrity (Pleterski 1960, 10). This was important, especially in light of the fact that it was the Austrian authorities that defined the area of settlement of Slovenes

6 »Neugestaltung der zweisprachigen Volksschulen im gemischtsprachigen Ge- biet Kärntens«, Kärntner Nachrichten 1, No. 152, (Klagenfurt, 11 November 1945): 2; 1. Erlaß der Landesschulrates vom 9. November 1945, Zl. 9406, an die Bezirks- und Stadtschulräte, betreffend Neugestaltung der zweisprachigen Volkschulen. Verordnungs- blatt für das Schulwesen in Kärnten, no. I. (Klagenfurt, January 1946), pp. 2–3. 7 For more details see Spezialortsrepertorium von Kärnten. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Ergebnisse der Volkszählung vom 31. Dezember 1910. Wien: Statistische Zentralkommis- sion, 1918. 146 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) . The region of bilingual education in southern Carinthia (from October 1945 onwards) 1945 October (from Carinthia southernregion of in bilingualeducation . The Map 4

147 Matjaž Klemenčič in southern Carinthia. Thus, all subsequent requests for the determina- tion of the territory where a Slovene minority lived and of their area of settlement can be regarded as attempts to delay the fulfillment of minority protection, or even to undermine the legal protection of the Slovene minority.

7 THE NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY

On 15th May 1955, the Austrian State Treaty (AST) was signed. Article 7 of this Treaty guaranteed the Slovenes of Carinthia and Styria and the Cro- ats of Burgenland ethnic minority rights in education, official language usage, and political self-representation. It should be stressed here that Ar- ticle 7 does not mention any large number or significant percentage of minority population in an administrative unit as a precondition for recognition of the minority’s existence and rights (Matscher 2005, 783–819). Thus, Austrian minority protection laws dealing with bilingual education, the use of minority languages before the courts and other official authorities, and bilingual “topographic” signs should have been deemed valid for all settlements in “the administrative and judicial districts of Carinthia […] and Styria, where there are Slovene […] or mixed populations…” (the so-called territorial principle) (Klemenčič & Klemenčič 2006, 44–52). In spite of this, after 1955 the Austrian authorities preconditioned minority protection with the need for a certain percentage of minority members in an administrative unit. They were also guilty of manipulating the data as they were the ones to carry out the census of the language of communication. The census-takers retained the praxis of the Nazi census of 1939 and differentiated between German, Slovene, and “Windisch” languages and used all possible combinations of these categories. In this statistical exercise, which was far from scholarly in its application, the Austrian authorities divided Slovene speakers in Carinthia – who spoke the same Carinthian dialect of the Slovene language – into two linguistic/ethnic categories, “Windisch” and “Slovenes”. In the 1951 census, the Carinthian Slovene, and German-speaking population was divided into ten linguistic groups according to the language of communication. The Austrian authorities also subsequently converted these data into catego- 148 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) ries of ethnic affiliation, in what must be considered a professionally in- admissible exercise. In so doing, the writers of the minority “protective” laws considered “Slovenes” as being only those who indicated their language of communication as being “Slovene” or the combination “Slowe- nisch-Windisch,” and “Slowenisch Deutsch” (Klemenčič & Klemenčič 2006, 65–83). The period after 1955 was marked by the activities of anti-Slovene Ger- man-nationalistic organizations which sought to impede the implementation of any of the AST guarantees. Austria made it possible for these nationalistic organizations – which should have been forbidden in accor dance with Paragraph 5, Article 7 of the AST – to cooperate with the state (political parties, law-making bodies) and at the level of the Carinthian “Province” to block the Treaty when questions were raised about the use of the Slovene language in dealings with the authorities and in education and the use of bilingual signs in towns and villages (Stergar 1976, 147–179). These organizations continue to dictate policy in Carinthia. Many of their ideas are advanced by political parties in Carinthia and they are subsequently taken up by Austrian political parties, the Austrian government, and the Austrian parliament. All initiatives “to solve the problem of the Slovene minority” represent good opportunities for politicians to win the popular vote at the ballot box and are opportunistically exploited by Austrian political parties in their campaigns. This being the case, succes- sive Austrian governments have failed to introduce minority protection laws in accordance with Article 7 of the AST. Failure to comply with ob- ligations under the ADP in Carinthia have often accelerated conflicts between the Slovene-speaking and German-speaking populations (Nećak 1985, 125–128). These tensions have come to the fore in the “efforts” made to solve the problem of bilingual road and village signs. Bilingual signs are important, as they are a visible indication of the existence of a minority and a symbol of the historical presence of that minority in a certain territory. They also mean that the majority population recognizes the minority as an equal partner in the creation of culture in a given region (Jordan 2004, 216–229). It is, therefore, understandable that the Carinthian Slovene leadership should be fighting so vehemently to find a just solution to this problem. The attempt by Carinthian gover- nor, Hans Sima, and Austrian Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, in July 1972 to 149 Matjaž Klemenčič install 205 bilingual village road signs8 ended in a “place name war” (Ort- stafelsturm). A few days after the installation of the first fifty bilingual signs, German nationalists had destroyed all of them (Stergar 2003, 202–223). After lengthy negotiations in the Austrian parliament, a Law on Eth- nic Groups (Volksgruppengesetz) was passed. In accordance with this Law, 25% of the population of certain villages or townships need to belong to the Slovene minority for bilingual place name signs to be erected. At the same time, a special census was conducted in all the Austrian provinces to determine just where Slovenes lived, although the Austrian Authorities already had this information. The Carinthian Slovene leadership called on the members of the minority to boycott the census either by not taking part in it or by writing on the census form any language other than Slovene. At the same time, they called on “democrats in other parts of the country to write Slovene in the census form”. The result of this action was that more Slovenes were documented in Vienna than in Carinthia. Most of the people outside Carinthia stayed at home. The Decree of 1977, based on the results of the 1976 census and the implementation of a complicated formula, provided for bilingual topographic signs in 91 out of 800 settlements in southern Carinthia. However, this figure was only partially met. By the year 2000, only about 70 bilingual signs had been erected. Because the Decree conditioned the provision of bilingual signs to settlements with a 25-percent minority population, many Carinthian Slovenes complained to the Constitutional Court. In December 2001, in response to one of these complaints, the Austrian Con- stitutional Court decreed that the requirement was unconstitutional and suggested “ca. 10-percent” of Slovene population “over a longer time period” as the requisite for erecting bilingual signs. On the basis of the ruling made by the Austrian Constitutional Court, the Carinthian Slovene leadership proposed the erection of bilingual signs in 394 settlements in southern Carinthia. However, it was clear that a new solution would have to be found (Klemenčič & Klemenčič 2006, 167–168).

8 270. Bundesgesetz vom 6. Juli 1972, mit dem Bestimmungen über die Anbringung von zweisprachigen topographischen Bezeichnungen und Aufschriften in den Gebieten Kärntens mit slowenischer oder gemischter Bevölkerung getroffen werden.Bundesge - setzblatt für die Republik Österreich 82 (1972): 1709–1713. 150 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today)

Map 5. Three unsuccessful attempts to solve the problem of bilingual localities signs

151 Matjaž Klemenčič The Austrian government attempted to negotiate with representatives of the Slovene minority, the provincial Carinthian government, Carinthian German nationalist organizations, and representatives of local authorities in southern Carinthia. However, its efforts failed to find a solution to the problem of bilingual “topographical terminology and inscriptions” in southern Carinthia in 2006 and 2007. Two proposals, one by Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel (of the Austrian Peoples Party) and the other by Chan- cellor Alfred Gusenbauer (of the Austrian Socialist Party), offered signifi- cantly fewer bilingual signs (141 and 162, respectively). Neither of the government proposals was accepted, although eventually minority representatives, under pressure from Austrian politicians, agreed to Gusenbauer’s solution, because of additional demands being made by the anti-Slovene Carinthian governor Jörg Haider. These included signed declarations from the leaders of Carinthian Slovenes that they would not make any additional demands with regard to the fulfillment of Article 7 of the AST. Bilingual topography of course means much more than simply bilingual village signs. It includes other topographic names, including those of rivers, mountains, streets, and official buildings (Klemenčič M. 2007, 190–193, 199–202). After numerous attempts to solve the problem of bilingual signs, representatives of the Austrian Federal Government, the Provincial Govern- ment of Carinthia, and three organizations of Carinthian Slovenes eventually reached a compromise agreement to install bilingual signs at 164 locations in 24 municipalities in Carinthia in April 2011. The new regulation took into account the 91 settlements which already had bilingual signs in line with the 1977 regulation. It also included signs in Bleiburg/Pliberk and Ebersdorf/Drveša, as had been ordered by the Austrian Constitution- al Court. In addition, it respected all the previous rulings of the Constitu- tional Court and provided for signs in all villages in which the share of the Slovenian population was at least 17.5% according to the 2001 census. This new threshold was inconsistent with the regulation passed by the Consti- tutional Court (namely a 10-percent threshold over a long period of time), and even less so with the AST, which, for the fulfillment of minority legis- lation does not require any minimum threshold of minority population.9

9 164 dvojezičnih napisov v 24-ih občinah in v štirih okrajih. Novice 16 (Celovec, 29 April 2011): 4–5. 152 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today)

and three organizations of Carinthian Slovenes (April 2011), were erected. were (April 2011), Slovenes of Carinthian organizations three and . Settlements in which bilingual “topographic signs”, in accordance with the “Compromise” “Compromise” with the accordance in signs”, in which bilingual“topographic . Settlements Map 6 between the representatives of the Austrian Federal Government, Provincial Government of Carinthia, of Carinthia, Government Provincial Government, Federal of the Austrian the representatives between

153 Matjaž Klemenčič Although the regulation allows for the possibility that “the municipal councils can decide to provide additional topographical signs”, the solution is far from satisfactory. In relation to the autochthonous settlements of Carinthian Slovenes, this should include bilingual road signs as well as other topographical signs, including street names, rivers, etc. Indeed, before we can claim that Austria complies fully with the provisions made in item 3 of Article 7 of the AST, these conditions must be met. In addition to the problem of bilingual signs, a compromise agreement also regulates the right to use Slovene as an official language in 16 municipalities. The Austrian authorities also committed themselves to introduc- ing regulations for the financing of a Slovene music school. This problem was resolved with the inclusion of such a school in the Carinthian provincial music school as one of its 28 departments. The plebiscite “gift” from the Austrian federal government of 2010 to Carinthia, granted to mark the 90th anniversary of the Carinthian plebiscite, was intended, in part, to support bilingual kindergartens. In addition, the Ministry of Educa- tion undertook to give additional resources to a Slovene High School in Klagenfurt/Celovec.10 It is worth mentioning that most places that should be marked with bilingual signs have very small populations: 92 settlements (or 56% of the total, according to the census of 2001) had fewer than 100 inhabitants, and 136 villages (83%) had fewer than 200. Only six settlements in 2001 had more than 500 inhabitants.

10 Memorandum betreffend zweisprachige »topographische Aufschriften«, die Amtssprache sowie Maßnahmen für die Zusammenarbeit mit der slowenischsprachi- geN Volksgruppe, Klagenfurt, 26. April 2011, accessed on October 10, 2015, https://www. bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=43356. 154 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) Table 5. Settlements that were supposed to get bilingual “topographic signs” in accordance with the “Compromise” of 11 April 2011.

Number of Number of % inhabitants settlements 1–50 37 22.6 51–100 55 33.6 101–200 44 26.8 201–500 22 13.4 501–1,000 3 1.8 More than 1,000 3 1.8 Total 164 100.0

Sources: Volkszählungen 1971–2001. Umgangssprache Kärnten, Gemeinden und Ortsc- haften (Auswahl). Wien, Statistik Austria, April 2002; Anlage 1 zu dem 46. Bundes- gesetz, mit dem das Volksgruppengesetz geändert wird. Bundesgesetzblatt für die Re- publik Österreich 46/2011.

Only a few important villages in the central area of the Slovene territory received bilingual signs. The signs were obtained by only 8 of the 24 municipalities in southern Carinthia. Of the settlements that should have received bilingual signs, many of great significance for the Slovenian minority, including Ferlach/Borovlje and Tainach/Tinje, were eliminated. The most obvious absurdity, however, is the fact that the village of St. Kan- zian/Škocjan was eliminated from the list. The ruling that 25 percent of a settlement must be made up of the Slovenian-speaking population for it to be given bilingual signs, as laid down in the 1976 Act of Ethnic Com- munities, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in 2001 precisely by recourse to the example of St. Kanzian/Škocjan. The biggest flaw in this “historic compromise”, which was enacted with amendments to the Ethnic Communities Act, is the fact that it was elevat- ed to the status of constitutional law. This means that the Austrian Consti- tutional Court has no jurisdiction to rule on its constitutionality. Another

155 Matjaž Klemenčič major flaw in this bill is that it does not even mention the Slovene minority in Styria, for which Article 7 of the AST provides minority protection.11 As we have seen, the eventual ruling was a political compromise. As a historian and longtime researcher of the Carinthia question, I have to conclude that it was a contemptible compromise. Indeed, a few days before the adoption of the contested bill, more than 60 prominent South Tyrolean politicians and scientists sent a letter of protest to the Chancel- lor, Werner Faymann, the President of the National Parliament, Barbara Prammer, and the heads of parliamentary groups in the Austrian Parlia- ment, urging them to ensure that the Law on Ethnic Communities should not take the form of Constitutional Law.12

Bibliography Anderwald, Karl, and Hellwig Valentin, eds. 1995. Kärntner Jahrbuch für Politik 1995. Klagenfurt: Kärntner Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft. Biber, Dušan. 1966. Nacizem in Nemci v Jugoslaviji 1933–1941. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Brix, Emil. 1981. Die Kärntner Volksabstimmung von 1920 im Kontext der österreichischen Nationalitätenstatistik 1880–1934. In Kärntens Volksabstimmung 1920: Wissenschaftl. Kontroversen und historisch-poli- titische Diskussionen anläßlich des internationalen Symposions Klagen- furt 1980, Hrsg. von Helmut Rumpler, 232–253. Klagenfurt: Kärntner Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H. —. 1982. Die Umgangssprachen in Altösterreich zwischen Agitation und Assimilation. Die Sprachenstatistik in den zisleithanischen Volkszählungen 1880 bis 1910. Wien / Köln / Graz: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. Cvirn, Janez. 1995. Slovenci in nemški državnopravni programi. In Slo- venci in država – zbornik prispevkov z znanstvenega posveta SAZU od 9. do 11. novembra 1994, (Razprave/Dissertationes 17), eds. Bogo Grafenauer Bogo et al., 73–82. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.

11 Jože Til, Ustavni zakon in Štajerci. Novice 25 (Celovec, 1 July 2015): 3. 12 Pismo prominentnih Južnih Tirolcev kanclerju Faymannu in parlamentu. Novice 26 (Celovec, 8 July 2015): 2. 156 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) Cvirn, Janez. 1998. Nemci na Slovenskem (1848–1941). In »Nemci« na Slovenskem 1941–1955, ur. Dušan Nećak, 53–98. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete. Czoernig, Carl Freiherr von. 1857. Ethnographie des österreichischen Kai- serstaates. Wien: K.-K Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. Ferenc, Mitja. 2005. Kočevska pusta in prazna. Ljubljana: Modrijan. Grafenauer, Bogo. 1946. Narodnostni razvoj na Koroškem od srede 19. stoletja do danes. In Koroški zbornik, eds. Bogo Grafenauer, Lojze Ude in Maks Veselko, 117–248. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. —. 1950. Czoernigova etnografska statistika in njena metoda. Raz- prave SAZU 1: 117–164. —. 1994. Oblikovanje severne slovenske narodnostne meje (=Zbirka Zgodovinskega časopisa 10). Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije. Granda, Stane. 1999. Prva odločitev Slovencev za Slovenijo: dokumenti z uvo- dno študijo in osnovnimi pojasnili. Ljubljana: Nova revija. Gestrin, Ferdo and Melik Vasilij. 1966. Slovenska zgodovina od konca osem- najstega stoletja do 1918. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. Glantschnig, Gerold. 1998. Die Minderheitenschulrecht. In Kärnten. Von der deutschen Grenzmark zum österreichischen Bundesland, eds. Helmut Rumpler in Ulfried Burz, 520–544. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau. Greve, Wilhelm. 1938. Die Bestimmung der Volkszugehörigkeit im Recht der europäischen Staaten. Essen: Essener Verlagsanstalt. Hain, Josef. 1852. Handbuch der Statistik des österreichischen Kaiserstaates, Wien: Tendler & Compagnie Hiess, Franz. 1931. Methodik der Volkszählungen. Jena: G. Fischer. Jordan, Peter. 2004. Ortsnamen als Kulturgut – Die symbolische Wirkung von Ortsnamen auf Ortstafeln und in Karten. In: Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten – Krise oder Chance? (=Ethnos, 64), eds. Martin Pandel et al., 216–229. Wien: Braumüller. Judson, Pieter. 2006. Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. Klemenčič, Matjaž. 1978. Germanizacijski procesi na Štajerskem od srede 19. stoletja do prve svetovne vojne. Časopis za zgodovino in narodo- pisje 49, no. 1: 350–391.

157 Matjaž Klemenčič Klemenčič, Matjaž. 1981. Die ethnische Entwicklung und ethnische Situ- ation der Bevölkerung in Kärnten vor der Volksabstimmung. In Kärn- ten: Volksabstimmung 1920. Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen (=Studien zur Gesellschaft in Slowenien, Österreich und Italien, 1), 137–153. Wien / München / Kleinnenzendorf: Löcker. —. 2007. Več kot pol stoletja po podpisu avstrijske državne pogodbe ostaja problem dvojezičnih ‚označb in napisov topografskega značaja‘ na avstrijskem Koroškem nerešen. Razprave in gradivo 53–54: 178–203. Klemenčič, Matjaž and Vladimir Klemenčič. 2006. Prizadevanja koroških Slovencev za narodnostni obstoj po drugi svetovni vojni. Celovec / Lju- bljana / Dunaj: Mohorjeva založba. —. 2010. Die Kärntner Slowenen und die Zweite Republik: Zwischen Assimilierungsdruck und dem Einsatz für die Umsetzung der Minderhei- tenrechte. Klagenfurt / Celovec–Ljubljana / Laibach–Wien/ Dunaj: Hermagoras Verlag / Mohorjeva založba. Klemenčič, Vladimir. 1988. Die Deutschen in der Statistik des jugoslawi- schen Slowenien zwischen den beiden Weltkriegen. In Geschichte der Deutschen im Bereich des heutiges Slowenien 1848–1941 = Zgodovina Nem- cev na območju današnje Slovenije 1848–1941, eds. Helmut Rumpler and Arnold Suppan, 241–247. Wien / München: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik / R. Oldenbourg Verlag. —. 1992. Die geopolitische Lage Sloweniens und seine Offenheit nach Europa. In Staatliche Einheit und Teilung – Deutschland und Jugo- slawien: Ergebnisse des deutsch-slowenischen Symposions der Südosteuro- pa-Gesellschaft anläßlich der Deutschen Kulturwoche in Ljubljana am 24. April 1991 (Südosteuropa Aktuell, 14), ed. Klaus Detlev Grothousen, 99–113. München: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft. —. 1993. Narodne manjšine kot element demografske in prostorske stvarnosti v alpsko-jadransko-panonskem prostoru. In Geografija in na- rodnosti (Geographica Slovenica, 24), eds. Anton Gosar and Marjan Ravbar, 19–31. Ljubljana: Inštitut za geografijo Univerze. Malle, Augustin. 2005. Wohin verschwanden die Kärntner Slowenen? Hi- storicum – Zeitschrift für Geschichte 86: 23–29. Matscher, Franz. 2005. Die Minderheitenregelungen im Staatsvertrag. In Der österreichische Staatsvertrag 1955: Internationale Strategie, rechtliche Relevanz, nationale Identität, eds. Arnold Suppan, Gerald Stourzh and 158 German-Slovene relations in the Slovene lands (mid-19th century – today) Wolfgang Müller, 783–819. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akade- mie der Wissenschaften. Moritsch, Andrej. 1994. Zur Problematik der Erforschung von Nationa- litätenfrage. In Narodne manjšine 3: Slovenci v avstrijski zvezni deželi Štajerski, eds. Boris Jesih et al., 50–55. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1994. Nečak, Dušan. 1985. Koroški Slovenci v drugi avstrijski republiki (1945–1976). Osnutek za politično zgodovino. Ljubljana: Založba Borec. Pfaundler, Richard. 1907. Die Grundlagen der nationalen Bevölke rungsentwicklung Steiermarks. Statistische Monatschrift 33, NF 12 no. 1: 557–592. Pleterski, Janko. 1960. Manjšinska zakonodaja na Koroškem po drugi svetovni vojni. Razprave in gradivo 2: 7–99. —. 1966. Die Volkszählung vom 31. März 1961 in Kärnten. Razprave in gradivo 4–5: 165–215. Podgorc, Valentin. 1937. Die Kärntner Slowenen in Vergangenheit und Ge- genwart. Grundsätzliches zur Minderheitenfrage. Klagenfurt. Randall, Richard R. 1955. The Political Geography of the Klagenfurt Ple- biscite Area – A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Clark Uni- versity, Worcester, Massachusetts, in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Geography, Worcester. Schnabl, Bojan. 2016. Koroška deželna ustava 1849 ter njeni izvori in posle- dice. Doktorska disertacija. Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru. Stergar, Janez. 1976. Kršitev določb petega odstavka člena 7 avstrijske dr- žavne pogodbe. Razprave in gradivo 7–8: 147–179. —. 2003. Obisk Koroške v času ‚vojne za krajevne napise’ (Ortstafe- lkrieg, Ortstafelsturm) oktobra 1972. Razprave in gradivo 43: 202–223. Suppan, Arnold. 1988. Zur Lage der Deutschen in Slowenien zwischen 1918 und 1938: Demographie – Recht – Gesellschaft – Politik. InGe - schichte der Deutschen im Bereich des heutigen Slowenien 1848–1941 = Zgodovina Nemcev na območju današnje Slovenije 1848–1941, eds. Hel- mut Rumpler and Arnold Suppan, 171–240. Wien / München: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik / R. Oldenburg Verlag. Veiter, Theodor. 1936.Die slowenische Volksgruppe in Kärnten. Geschichte, Rechtslage, Problemstellung. Wien und Leipzig: Reinhold. 159 Matjaž Klemenčič Veiter, Theodor. 1965. Die Sprach- und Volkszugehörigkeit in Österreich nach den Ergebnissen der Volkszählung von 1939. Europa Ethnica 22, Nr. 3: 109–123. Winkler, Wilhelm. 1931. Statistisches Handbuch der europäischen Nationa- litäten. Wien, Leipzig: Wilhelm Braumüller Universitäts-Verlagsbu- chhandlung. Zorn, Tone. 1974. Kulturna avtonomija za koroške Slovence in nemška manjšina v Sloveniji med obema vojnama. Zgodovinski časopis 28, no. 3–4: 347–366. Zwitter, Fran. 1937.Koroško vprašanje. Ljubljana: Akademska založba. —. 1962. Nacionalni problemi v habsburški monarhiji. Ljubljana: Slo- venska matica.

160