CEU eTD Collection A C In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts OMPARATIVE M INORITY Department of International Relations and European Studies B URGENLAND C Supervisor: Supervisor: ErinK.JenneProfessor M ASE Central European University European Central OBILIZATION FOR S C Gudrun E.Ragossnig Gudrun Wordcount: Wordcount: 16,993 TUDY OFTHE Budapest, Hungary ROAT Submitted to Submitted R IGHTS 2007 By M INORITIES IN C ARINTHIAN L A ANGUAGE USTRIA S LOVENE AND CEU eTD Collection external mobilizational resources, which empower them to defend their interests. and internal existing the of function a but place, first in the policies assimilationist of function a not is mobilization Minority changes. mobilization of intensity the and mobilize to minority a capacity of change,the to always subject are factors these ofminorities.Since structures opportunity structures formobilization language isclaims largely function institutionala or of discursive political well as thecases as two the between explain differences minorities to of the powers mobilization internal differences withinare similar. context political featuresandthe linguistic and each mobilization of ethnicthe minority languagefor – differsrights whileminority size, cultural case over method variabledegrees. In this Iusethe– of comparison asthe dependent difference, time.to 2003.Both minorities have mobilized forlanguage their rights, however very to different The analysis analysis of Carinthianthe minoritySlovene andthe Burgenland Croat infrom the period 1945 shows thattime? over change mobilization minority of intensity the does why minority Second, arenot? others claimswhereas language mobilized around minorities why arecertain language First, conflict: to related followingaddress the questions to seeks world.thesis My Linguistic diversity has emerged as a major source of political controversy in the modern I address these questions through a combination of longitudinal of and comparative a a combination through I address questions these Adopting the insights movements’of social literature, Ifocus on external the and the and of internal resources – such as elite cohesion or mobilizing A BSTRACT i CEU eTD Collection Bibliography...... 62 Glossary...... 61 Conclusion...... 58 4 Chapter 3 Chapter 2 Chapter 1 Chapter ...... 1 Introduction i Abstract...... Secondary Sources...... 62 ...... 62 Primary Sources List of Interview Partners...... 61 List of Acronyms...... 61 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 Mid-1990s – to 2003...... 57 1980s – 1990s: Demobilization vs. Ethnic ...... 56 Renaissance Late 1960s – 1980: Minority Rights Movement vs. Cleavages within ...... 55 the Minority 1955 – late 1960s: Period of Integration ...... 54 and Assimilation 1945 – 1955: State Treaty Negotiations ...... 53 Conclusion...... 48 1990s – to 2007: Demobilisation and institutionalisation of claim-making...... 46 1980s: Ethnic ...... 44 Renaissance Late 1960s –1980s: Intensification of Internal Divisions...... 42 1955 – late 1960s: Strong Assimilation Tendencies and further political division...... 40 1945 –1955: State Treaty Negotiations ...... 38 History of inter-ethnic ...... 36 relations Conclusion...... 34 Mid-1990s – 2003: New Wave of Mobilization for Language ...... 32 Rights? 1980s – to mid-1990s: ...... 30 Demobilization Late 1960s – 1980s: Slovene Minority Rights ...... 26 Movement 1955 – late 1960s: Period of Integration ...... 24 and Assimilation 1945 – 1955: State Treaty Negotiations ...... 22 History of inter-ethnic ...... 20 relations Conclusion...... 18 Methodology...... 16 Case Selection...... 14 Background...... 12 Resource ...... 9 Theory Literature Review...... 5 – Analysis of Ethnic Mobilization in Carinthia and ...... 51 Burgenland - The Croats in the Second Austrian Republic, 1945-2003...... 36 – The Slovenes in the Second Austrian Republic, ...... 19 1945-2003 - Internal 5 and External Mobilizational Resources. A Theoretical Framework T ABLE OF ii C ONTENTS CEU eTD Collection University Press, 2003), 4. Approaches,“ in 1 regionally-concentrated and historically-rooted languagehistorically-rooted groups. and regionally-concentrated havelanguagebetween and dominant taken the place of group various small,but state the intense of these most Historically,in the West. the conflicts many linguistic fact unresolved in are there Europe; confined Eastern isnot to conflict ethnolinguistic However, secession. languagemobilizedhave – forviolent rights from using everything to protest peaceful Europe Eastern of countries several in minorities ethnic communism, of fall the After world. Linguistic diversity has emerged as a major source of political controversy in the modern the 18 the hasnationalism greatchangefrom undergone 18 the nation. the debates over also languageare of a regional status the debates over the Therefore, state. thelarger within “nation” adistinct as forming also language, but distinct language. language just over Larger regional perceive a groups not ashaving themselves just debates not languagesare over becausegrant rights regional disputes these to reluctant in in andlegislatures, publicservice,and schooling, courts bilingual are States topography. language minority the use to right the include minorities for rights language such of Examples language for minorities resistance onthepartof strong rights. andmobilization generated historic by part of haveitsAssimilationist homeland. attempts dominant groups typically official the country,including minority those the regions language throughout that viewed as whennational attemptedstrongest toimpose dominant itsthe languagegroup as sole the the regional language groups of Belgium, Spain, Canada and Italy. Alan Patten and Will Kymlicka, „Introduction: Language Rights and Political Theory: Context, Issues, and th In the nationalism literature, the understanding of languageand linkbetween of understanding the the literature, nationalism In the have been minorities and groups between national linguistic Conflicts dominant century advocated“organic”von Fichte and an romantics, Herder, century Humboldt German Language Rights and Political Theory I NTRODUCTION , eds. , Alan Patten Willand Kymlicka (Oxford: Oxford 1 th century century today.to Primordialists suchas 1 Examples of these include these of Examples CEU eTD Collection change overtime? minorities Third, why do mobilizelanguageparadoxically for rights even mobilization minority the intensity of why does Second, not? are others whereas claims mobilized aroundlanguage why minorities languageare certain First, to related conflict: degrees. My very following toaddressthe however questions seeks three different thesis to Burgenland minorities. Croat minorities Both have mobilized for theirlanguage rights, the and Slovene Carinthian the and population majority speaking German the between mobilization. and organization political and social in role significant areinextricably tonationalistconflicts. languagerelated conflicts demands for bilingualism,manifestations ofcompeting In are nationalistsum, projects. national identities. Majority for monolingualism,support official as much asminority maker, is Languageis counter-claims. identity with which an associated particular ethnic and language majority as well as claims language minority for true is This identities. collective political conflicts. historical and contemporary it is unimportant.identity.” This factor of a a national “contingent identity – constitutes national aspect of and ethnic is shown bylanguage ofnationalism broadly –oranyspecificthat cultural constructivistargue accounts the heightenedContemporary literature. nationalism current in the dismissed been since long have salience of language issues in many 4 3 Patten andWill Kymlicka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 140. 2 importantmostdistinguishing characteristic of nationhood. be seenasthe to came language perspective, this In nation. of the (Volksgeist) character the and wasviewed “linguistic”as language, to particularly central culture, where nationalism or Patten, Kymlicka, „Introduction,“ 5. Ibid, 141. Stephen May, „Misconceiving minority language rights,“ in In the 20 the In Particular languages are clearly an important and constitutive factor of Particular languages are important andconstitutivefactorof individual an clearly and 3 However, the fact that language is a contingent facet of identity does not mean that mean not does identity of facet contingent a is language that fact the However, th century, linguistic century, conflicthas inAustrianalso occurred two provinces 2 Language Rights and Political Theory 2 These essentialist arguments essentialist These 4 Because of this, they play a , eds. Alan CEU eTD Collection “Language Policy and Political Strategy in India,” in Freedoms, in of Double Standards: Mass and Elite Attitudes toward Language Rights in the Canadian Charterof Rights and 6 Rustow, “Transitions to Democracy,” in cases as it outlines the history of Austrian minorities and minority protection. minority and minorities Austrian of history the itoutlines as cases methodology my toconduct was used itprovides Moreover, analysis. for thebackground my what explains and detail in more argument my outlines it Furthermore, claims. language determine why minorities two the mobilizenot. or to variables historical and cultural political, significant for control me to allow cases Croat and theSlovene of analysis comparative existence.The cultural to their threats greatest the face they when rights language for mobilize minorities that assumption widely-held the paradoxically with those very deep grievances not. This do often empirical challenges puzzle while mobilize, may grievances mild with minorities even contrary, the To policies. assimilationist in to moreresponse active necessarily arenot minorities cases showsthat andminority theBurgenlandCroat in from 2003. An periodthe 1945 to analysis these of a combinationthrough a longitudinalof and comparative analysis of Carinthian the Slovene Iwill external structures. political opportunity address these such resources, as questions as aswell structures mobilizing and cohesion, elite as such resources internal of function time. over mobilization minority of variations for account not can they However, validity. their have certainly propositions rights. language and education obtain to incentives economic have minorities that 5 linguistic rights. demands leadsof forprotection to group a separate exist as to desire the that argue scholars Some before? ever than rights more enjoy they when times at Paul M. Sniderman, Joseph f. Fletcher; Peter H. Russel; Philip E. Tetlock, “Political Culture and the Problem George Schöpflin, George The first chapter shows how the general puzzle of language policies relates to minority to relates policies language of puzzle general the how shows chapter first The a largely is claims language for mobilization minority that show will My thesis Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science Nations, Identity, Power, Comparative Politics (New York: New York University Press, 2000); Dankwart A. , (Vol. 22,No.2 Sep. 1989) 259-284; David Laitin, Policy Sciences Policy 3 (April 1970): 337-363. (22): 415-36. 5 Others claim 6 These CEU eTD Collection explanatory value of theories trying to explain minority mobilization. minority explain to trying theories of value explanatory longitudinal and comparative analysis. willbefollowed This byconcluding the remarks on mobilization of Carinthian the minority Slovene and Croat Burgenland by combining a minoritiesBurgenland respectively. Croat chapter provides Thean fourth analysis of ethnic The second and third chapter present the case studies of the Carinthian Slovene and Slovene Carinthian the of studies case the present chapter third and second The 4 CEU eTD Collection as the national language. as national the ethnically and homogeneous language explainsthe society,culturally which choicea given of an have to state the of need the of consequence is the conflict language that states Fishman consequence by protectcivil of servantsto theirlinguistic efforts the privileges. is language policy the he thatIndia’s when argues makes economic argument (1989) asimilar unlikely to cede rightslinguisticargue at (1989) Snidermanthat are etal. group majorities theexpenseof other. the to minorities because confers isthat language a education policy employment good public advantages andupon one it is in their best becauselanguage choice hasimportanteconomic policy this eyes, Intheir consequences. interestof choice the over notconflicts enter communities tolinguistic do economists, political so. to According Literature 1.1 Review disadvantages. may andthese from peripheral suffering rebelagainstminority status structural therefore with difficulty, undermining their education and employmentopportunities. Individuals communicate still may and language official the learning years spend minorities linguistic Members comeconflict. of language into groups of interests different and education, public of languages.When thelanguagesdesignate governments of business,official administration, A state’s choice of languageofficial is importantpoliticalan issue ina with world thousands Toronto: John Wiley &Sons, Inc. 1968, 7. 1968, Inc. &Sons, Wiley John Toronto: Ferguson and Gupta (eds.), 9 8 7 Joshua Fishman, “Sociolinguistics and the Language Problems of Developing Countries,” in Fishman, Laitin, “Language Policy,”436. Sniderman et.al, “Double Standards,” 544. Chapter - 1 I NTERNAL ANDNTERNAL Language Problems of Developing Nations 9 This language This policy resistanceoften encounters linguistic from T HEORETICAL E XTERNAL 5 F M RAMEWORK OBILIZATIONAL . New York, London, Sydney and R ESOURCES 8 Similarly, 7 Laitin . A CEU eTD Collection “Space and Freedeom: Conditions for the Temporary Separation of Incompatible Groups,” in Groups,” Political Scienceof Incompatible Review Separation Temporary the for Conditions Freedeom: and “Space 12 2, 495-5. 14 13 11 Pupier and José Woehrling, (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1989) 97. 10 generally pessimistic concerningthe resolvingpossibility conflicts. such of are scholars These communities. linguistic between incompatibilities inherent are there that of language conflict character uncompromisable divisive, symbolic, primordial, the emphasizes which explanation Rustow’s with consistent language, but a group consisting of about half the population can legitimately do so”. official additional an demand cannot user a single that example, for clear, is It efficiency. judicial or administrative of basis the “on languages in some bedenied may services says and public,” by many languagesspoken are to“use target the as as would governments require minorities because they might suffer disadvantages. De Witte insists that equality under law note however, that linguistic conflicts are not inherent to multi-ethnic polities. Examples of Examples polities. multi-ethnic to inherent not are conflicts linguistic that however, note other. the for loss a constitutes community one for a gain Thus, compromised. be cannot that fact –a identity national signifies language because divisive inherently is language official choice of the that They assert of struggles. these elements symbolic minorities. linguistic against discriminate for why fully states account analyses cannot Economic maybe compromise reached. more puzzling why linguistic groupsengage in costly when conflict a mutually beneficial in efficiency. losses any involve not does languages official multiple of adoption the Thus, time. same the at policy language fair and efficient an adopt can state a that inhis analysis economy political shows Jonathan (1991) Pool However, be reconciled. Schöpflin, Jean Laponce, Jean Rustow, “Transitions,” 363. Jonathan Pool Jonathan Bruno De Witte, “Droits fondamentaux et protectionde la diversité linguistique,” in Primordialist and constructivist explanations of language conflict focus Primordialist conflicton oflanguage the constructivist and explanations The common assumption of all these arguments is that efficiency and fairness cannot Nations, , “The Official Language Problem,” in Problem,” Language Official “The Langue etterritoire Langue 72. (5):125-138. . (Quebec: Les presses de l’Université Laval, 1984); Karl W. Deutsch, W. Karl 1984); Laval, l’Université de Les presses . (Quebec: American Political Science Review 6 13 (1970)and Deutsch’s andLaponce’sone 11 Therefore, it is all the Langue etdroit 14 , Jun91,Vol. 85 Issue It is It important to International 12 10 , Paul This is CEU eTD Collection conflicts over time. As Erin Jenne points out, empirical observation shows that there is no is there that shows observation empirical out, points Jenne As Erin time. over conflicts extent or not at all. Constructivists cannot account for the fluctuation of intensity of such dosotoalesser others whereas rights these for mobilize minorities some why however, explain, to fail They in general. minorities to important be might they is why this and genocide. cultural to are astantamount therefore perceived threats Assimilationist cultural reproduction. to itsminority right of veryand the over the existence struggles representing such conflicts, immediate consequencesof transcend linguistic the seemingly that things disputesover trivial argues,therefore, control. Schöpflin from this accrue that advantages asthe as well apparatus as group with state-makingthe nation this group andnominal provide state over the control linguistic one designate languages Official things. trivial apparently over mobilize minorities 16 Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Vospernik (Wien: Braumüller, 2004), 216. und Karten,“in in 15 for minorities. identity instrumentcreation of important arepartof language,place in theirheritage, arean names minority cultural the which Thus, by them. created lives wasalso minority the where region the landscape of cultural the fact that the minority.symbolise They ethnic or linguistic of a recognition are asymbolic Carinthian bilingual over dispute signs. street PeterJordan bilingualargues that signs street 1960s, Finland and Switzerland. of the movement Francophone the andafter Quebecbefore include peaceful coexistence Schöpflin, Ortstafeln auf Namen geographischen von Wirkung symbolische Die Kulturgut. als „Ortsnamen Jordan, Peter Constructivist arguments hold that language rights have a highly symbolic character symbolic highly a have rights language that hold arguments Constructivist foraccount why approach in to asimilar order Schöpflin constructivist takes The stakes of language conflicts seem to be rather trivial such as in the case of the 16 Nations, Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten –Krise oder Chance?, 75. 7 15 ed. Martin Pandel, Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, CEU eTD Collection University Press, 2007), 4. present day.present the in 1990s upto inthe again theendof intensified has language the conflict Carinthia years,fifty of last the in course the minority protection theirextension of achieved significant has minority Slovene Carinthian the though even Moreover, rights. language for demands has education, been minority language mostthe activeinAustria minorities of in all their state-funded enjoys which Carinthia, in minority Slovene the contrast, By inactive. politically which Europe, havefacedbrutal cultural and linguistic butwhich have assimilation remained throughout includeExamples Romathe populations greatest. are pressures assimilation when likely occur most arelanguage to disputes argues that theory As mentionedabove, this ithas language value emergence However,for no the of of conflict. predictive conflict. such light haswhich on the shedsimportant right to culturally each group sociology the reproduce elucidate claims for bilingual signs.street cannot butlanguage education,in explanations for areaof these the can claims account explanations economic in Moreover, arebilingual. Austria andCroats all Slovenes practically cases in present because value the explanatory havenot do great to itsconsequences material emergelanguage language in twocases.Thetheory pattern of that due disputes these conflicts the for account can explanation neither that shows cases Croat Burgenland the and Slovene Carinthian tothe theories these An of arguments. application symbolic economic the and 17 languagerights. over mobilization their faceand minorities pressures assimilation degreeof the between correlation one-to-one Erin K. Jenne, Erin The argument that groups fight over language policy because it signifies the extent to extent the signifies it because policy language over fight groups that argument The the are conflict language of roots the about explanations held widely two the sum, In Ethnic Bargaining. TheParadox of Minority Empowerment 17 8 . (Ithaca and London: Cornell CEU eTD Collection 133-5. 18 sufficientappropriate provideorganization andnumbers to a basesocial/organisational –and existing ones and turn them intovehicles of mobilization. Thus, itis the minority’s capacity to appropriate minorities organizations, new rather than creating that they However, emphasize atits –aminority havemobilisinghaschallenging in structures to disposal. this case group – movements. in these role important an played elites whether determine to closely cases the examine will I claims, language over mobilize minorities which to the influence extent the variables these determine to whether order day.present In case studies and at the changes of socio-economic conditions over the period from 1945 to the champions.” conspicuous most its become universities especially and as schools just nationalism, schools measures thatof anduniversities by occupiedhithertoof elite. Theprogress a small of largeareas of‘new into classes –theeducational numbers men’ “theprogress educated is movements nationalist of driver the that asserts Hobsbawm Eric movements. of emergence minorities tomobilize, including internal and external resources. Rather than looking at the grievances of minorities, I will focus on those factors that empower my framework. basis of forms the mobilization collective generate alone cannot grievances that literature movements’ social the of insight central The mobilization. minority for languagefor I will that rights. develop aframework challenges the widelyheld assumptions Slovene and Burgenland minoritiesin Croat in Austria, to explainorder minority mobilization Carinthian the of analysis longitudinal and comparative a combine will I mythesis, In Resource 1.2 Theory Eric J. Hobsbawm, In their theories on social movements McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly argue that the that argue Tilly and Tarrow McAdam, movements social on theories their In With regard to internal resources, I examine the role of the intelligentsia in the 18 In these cases, I will focus on the behaviour of regional elites in the selected Theof Age Revolution: Europe 1789-1848 9 , (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), CEU eTD Collection Univ. Press, 1998), 85. governing structures are vulnerable. structures governing inthe authorities and whereelites show and allies potential reveal action, of collective costs changeslower by to the encouraged sometimes respond leaders, in that their opportunities citizens, ordinary when form movements Social challengers. disorganized or weak by even elite– of can be power that unlike money,or cohesion taken structures, mobilising advantage 21 67 (March 1973): 11-12. 20 Press, 2001), 47. foreign engagements. with preoccupied become rulers its when or liberalizes government a when claims 19 mobilization makespossible. itself –thatorganization that not defined as opportunity structure to transmit mayaction. intogrievances be Political opportunity structure vehicles to organisations of these turn them into contention.minority appropriated political and for theimpactorganisational base. Iwilllook Totest of mobilizing at structures, these culturalcondition for aunified is animportant elite cohesion leads theseorganizations, usually minority organisations in the region to analyse to what extent the Sidney G. Tarrow, Review Science Political American Cities,” in American Behaviour ofProtest Conditions “The Eisinger, Peter Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, Charles Tilly, The concept of political opportunity resources emphasizes of opportunity political The concept According to the social movements’ literature, there must also be a political bealsomust there literature, movements’ social the to According structure structure of political and opportunities, political behaviour.” linkage, in understood between environment, the of terms notion the of a or interaction, sense, in this is, There itself. system political of the resources resources the of function a simply not is then, behave, system political inthe groups political open activity it.foravenuesor Themanner, in whichindividuals and they command, but of the openings, weak spots, barriers, and “elements in the environment [that] impose certain constraints on constraints certain impose [that] environment the in “elements Powermovement: in social movements and contentious politics 21 Political opportunity structures might promise minority promise might structures opportunity Political Dynamics of Contention 10 (Cambridge: Cambridge University 19 20 Since the minority elite external . (Cambridge: Cambridge to the group – group the to CEU eTD Collection 26 25 24 draw uponin process framing.the of strategic inideational areavailablethat forresources a givenenvironment political entrepreneurs to 23 opportunities open up for who socialusually actors lack them. asBurgenland case a mechanism for possible minority activating and resource mobilization. indiscursive in language opportunity fieldand threat policy the Carinthian andthe of the objectives.” of pursuitpolitical in [can] bedeployed pool that resource ideational and toolbox asa“normative functions centre. minority the and the emergesalter is between that relationshipthe to structure environment asthepolitical defined 22 assimilationist to in response active necessarily isnot minority the why explains theory Tarrow’s Furthermore, time. over mobilization inminority differences the explaining for one – goesalong explaining way towards “why”.beThis its a seems to approach valuablevery “when”the mobilization movements’ social of – whenpolitical up opportunities are opening populations.” is activating mechanisman in forresponsible part mobilizationthe of inertpreviously potential andb)challengers perceived Attribution asanopportunity. opportunity of threat or however“Novisible invite unlessit objectively is opportunity will mobilization open, a) to framing their claims against the political centre. of equality,rights, minority rationality, that progress and can representatives draw upon when opportunity structures. Tarrow, McAdam, Tarrow, Tilly, 554. Liberalism,” “Global Adamson, Jenne, Fiona B. Adamson, “Global Liberalism versus Political Islam,” in Importantly, Tarrow emphasizes that movements are only created when political when created only are movements that emphasizes Tarrow Importantly, McAdam et al. assert that itis notenough that there geopolitical and institutional discursive, between distinction a makes Adamson Fiona Ethnic Bargaining Power in movement, 25 Following this argument, I will compare the attribution of institutional and institutional of attribution the compare will I argument, this Following 22 Dynamics of Contention , 4. Here, I will focus on the first two of first two of these. will Here,I the focus on 1. Discursive 24 An example of An isliberalism,exampleit of this as language the provides opportunity structure maps opportunity the structure symbolic, cultural, and , 43. 11 23 The discursive opportunity Thediscursive opportunity structure InternationalStudies Review, is a political opportunity apolitical opportunity structure. 26 Thus, according to Tarrow Institutional 7(2005): 554. opportunity CEU eTD Collection than ever before. Minority rights were primarily introduced by the Austrian government in government Austrian the by introduced primarily were rights Minority before. ever than more today enjoy rights to appear minorities ethnic Austria’s view,of From a historical point 1.3 Background a liberal whichgovernment, might befavourable to minority language claims. appropriation of existing discursive institutional and opportunity structures. languageclaims. over mobilization frameworkthe outlined aboveIdeducethefollowing hypotheses: From case over time. cases as within each well two differences as the the between differences for the causes the identify will My research language claims. over mobilization degreeof the of the Carinthian Slovene minority and the Burgenland Croat minority, which differ greatly in mobilization by This isparticularly exemplified languageclaims.around well a comparison Slovene and Burgenland Croatminorities in Austria toidentify shifts in degree the of study of minority mobilization in general. tothe contribute thereby claims and language around explainmobilization to framework 27 opportunities – may not. in while with movement, appear those lacking and deep grievances dense resources –but may resources internal few and grievances mild with minorities even then mobilization, pressure. If it is political opportunities translatethe that potential formovementinto Ibid., 18. H H H Carinthian the of analysis longitudinal and a comparative combine I mythesis, In 3 2 1 : Minorities mobilize when they have aninstitutional such opportunity structure, as : The “when” minority mobilizationof forlanguage claimsis by determined the minority of a precondition is basis intellectual broad aunified of existence : The 27 Thus, by testing the presented theories, I intend to create a 12 CEU eTD Collection 29 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 30. 28 tongue. pertaining laws toschooling. Both establish instruction aconstitutional to right in the mother Law for Burgenland from 1994 areenabling provisions 7 ofArt. in Treaty the of Vienna guidelines for framing more specific laws. be clarified, that the provisions of the treaty are vague, as they are only intended tobe general hasto It minorities. and Slovene Croat of rights the restrict is the aim to whose organizations on the basis of equality with other Austrian citizens; and Article 7.5 forbids the activity of any bodies judicial and administrative cultural, in participation guarantees 7.4 Article signs; street Slovene Article andCroatian; 7.3guarantees language rights and thebilingual of employment Article 7.2guarantees rightthe of persons belonging ethnic to toinstruction in groups Carinthia and theCroatianin minority states Burgenland.Art7.1 principlethe of equality, in minority Slovene tothe special rights asitguarantees purposes for our relevant most Habsburg Monarchy), the Treaty of St Germain, and the Treaty of Treaty the of Vienna of 1955. Vienna. The latter is the responseinternational to pressure, such as in the case of the Treaty of St Germain of 1919 and minority language as an official language and regulates the financing of the minorities. the of financing the regulates and language official an as language minority the of use the as well as areas minority in signs street bilingual of establishment the for minority such as the Carinthian Slovenes and Burgenlandthe Croats. Furthermore, it provides whichminority Austrianby isgroup, federal the recognized governmentas an autochthonous in 1976.Itstipulates establishmentthe of an Advisory Council for Ethnic for each Groups importantof enablingVienna. Themost is Act provision theEthnic whichwas Groups passed Polzer Srienz, “Austria an Overview”, 31. Mirjam Polzer Srienz, “Austria an Overview.” In The Minority School Law for Carinthia as amended in 2001, and the Minority School Minority the and in 2001, amended as Carinthia for Law School Minority The the (from Law Basic State the on based is system protection minority Austria’s Thus, various laws have been passed that elaborate the provisions set out in the Treaty 28 The ethnopolitical encyclopaedia of Europe 13 , ed. Karl Cordell 29 CEU eTD Collection ed.Karl Cordell (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 35. 31 30 border remained unchanged until 19 the 15 the Since colonisation. Bavarian of as aresult changed region Frank rule and was christianized by Bavarian missionaries. The ethnic composition the of 8 In the of Carinthia. parts southern the 8 from contemporary Carinthia, over large parts of Styria Lowerto Austria and existed until the The Alpine Karantania Slavsfoundedtheprincipality in 600AD anarearanging of around half 6 the of second inthe Carinthia province Austrian in today’s areaof settled the Treaty of Vienna. State Austrian language mobilization around claims 1945has since provisions tothe referred 7 of Art. minority all Nearly rights. minority of framework institutional auniform has period because this between 1945and2003 period the cover will minorities. analysis The Croat Burgenland and the Carinthian Slovene of the analysis a comparative-longitudinal conduct mightmultiethnicmobilizemight society languagenot or for Toanswer rights. this question I My thesisfactors determine aimsanswering the question at in why aminority what a Case 1.4 Selection Minority Languages. forfor Protection Convention Regional the Charter Minorities and National of European the Framework including European the minorities, of for protection the agreements international th Mirjam Polzer Srienz, “The Slovene Community in Austria.” In Ibid., 30. century. The political centre of of century. The of predecessors centre the political of Republic the isbasedSlovenia on The Carinthian Slovene minority is a so-called autochthonous ethnic group, which group, ethnic autochthonous so-called a is minority Slovene Carinthian The Since Austria’s accession to the EU in hassignedseveral EU the the to 1995, Sincegovernment Austria’s accession 30 th century. th century, Karantania was under Bavarian and later 14 31 The ethnopolitical encyclopaedia ofEurope th century the language th century. , CEU eTD Collection Karl Cordell. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 41. language minority mobilization for minority of –differs, ethnic the size, cultural rights while – thedependentvariable of as difference, method the I use undertaking this comparison, In in Austria. minority ethnic than any other mobilized more was minority Slovene Carinthian the cases.Infact, between two the greatly differs language rights around mobilization because inJennersdorf, which several Croatian densely-populated villages are situated. Burgenland. province the aredispersed They throughout of with of exception the districtthe lived for centuries. together According censusof the to living are17,241Croats 2001, there in over this territory. had Slovenes, Burgenland tothe Burgenland. neverenjoyedCroats sovereignty contrast In the 30percent constituted population aroundof of 30.000Croats century, population of the 16 Inthe inthisregion. theauthorities by were resettled Austria, others Slovakia and 34 als Konfliktpotential inOstmittel undSüdosteuropa 33 32 by Dalmatia in Ottomans the 16 the large of andin parts Bosnia, conquest Croatia settled the of asaconsequence Burgenland in this particular territory. peoplespeaking Slovene tothose refers Slovene community Carinthian Thus, the some parts. is over population scattered this The Slovene-speaking area,andmakes majority in up the Jauntal. and Rosental Gailtal, Carinthia: of south in the valleys three over spread essentially speakers inCarinthia onlyamounts toaround 13,000. The Carinthian Slovenes’ region is spoke German and one third Slovene. The census of 2001 showed that the number of Slovene Mirjam PolzerSrienz, “The Croat Community inAustria,” in Albert F. Reiterer, “Ethnisches Konfliktmanagement in Österreich: Burgenland und Kärnten,“ in This statement is equally true for the Burgenland Croat minority in Burgenland. In Burgenland, – several ethnic groups Croats, Hungarians, Germans andRoma –had Linguists claim that at the turn of the 20 the of turn the at that claim Linguists The Burgenland Croat minority is also aso-called autochthonous minority. The Croats I have chosen to compare the Burgenland Croat and the Carinthian Slovene minorities Slovene Carinthian and the Croat Burgenland the compare to chosen have I 33 32 th century. Some fled to western southern Hungary, western Some to fled century. , ed. Gerhard Seewann.(München: Oldenbourg, 1995), 341. 15 th century, two thirds of residents of Carinthia The ethnopolitical encyclopaedia of Europe 34 Minderheiten , ed. th CEU eTD Collection of minority of to determine in mobilization atorder level organizations any the of group the of mobilization over timein the cases under consideration.Additionally, Iconsulted the archives minority level todiscern in of shifts overall the literature secondary My drawson research 1.5 Methodology mobilization. thelevel on resources group of mobilization of internal and external from those of variables effects the these separate people. by cases, arealso regions populated these German-speaking in both However, Carinthia. partof in southern the more concentrated are Slovenes Carinthian are whereasmore theover dispersedof the Burgenland Croats Burgenland, territory relatively small. Austrianthe population size of numbersthe 8,032,926 minorities of autochthonous are of view In With population. the of proportion small relatively a constitute regard both they size, same the to territorialand linguistically.Afurther reasonfor this is choice minorities the that haveapproximately concentration,external homeland. Moreover, the Slovene and Croat minorities are very similar culturally they minoritiesBurgenland hadtheCroat same Slovene Carinthian and Yugoslavia in1991, the differ in theinternational force. andobligations legal in Additionally, break-upprovisions of until the sense setting, political national and that government federal same the court, constitutional same the subjected tothe areboth they context: political same cases sharethe The two mobilization. of level the influence might that factors state-level most for control I Austria, in regions homeland. external and linguistic features and the political context is similar; they also have had the same Havingmost for relevant controlled stateand variables, group-level Ican effectively both are Asthey comparison. controlled for candidates excellent are These cases 16 CEU eTD Collection secondary literature yet. literature secondary covered by arenot inbecause any therecentyears, they language claims mobilization around understand national helpful tothese levels?to wereparticularly the questions answers The and provincial municipal, the on decision-making political in the represented minority like? What homeland external the and minority the between relationship the was What wereclaims? similar the make minority the means representing organisations the Did mobilize? minority the did When at their disposal onwere: Ifocused The questions for rights. their mobilize minorities determinefactors why to fulfil theirinterviewed. been have Centre] Documentation and Cultural demands?[Croatian (HKDC) How (HKD) [Croatianwell Cultural Association] and the Hrvatski Kulturni i Dokumentarni Centar was the Slovenes]. Inthe case of representativesBurgenland, the of kulturno društvo Hravtsko the Carinthian the of [Council (NSKS) Slovencev Koroških Svet Narodni the and Organizations] Unity List, Carinthian the of representatives with the interviews these Iconducted Carinthia, case of thehave conducted interviews with the representatives of Zvezaminority parties and associations. In the Slovenskih in of analysis. period the mobilization Organizacij minority asameansof reconstructing served the government and minority organisations and between communications mediasurvey reports literature, data, secondary of analysis (ZSO) pursue given This approach bestbecausethe time. this way constituted to analysis, the [Central Association of Slovene I used the semi-structured format I usedthe detectinof with each whatsemi-structured respondents to set order To fill the potential gaps in the record and to check the reliability of these sources, I 17 CEU eTD Collection minorities. The next chapter will apply this theory to the selected cases. to selected the willapply theory chapter this next The minorities. of powers mobilization internal andthe focuses external on theory the Resource this chapter. in mobilization minority for approach alternative an outlined have I mobilization, minority for of fluctuations account not can theories andsymbolic thateconomic identified Having 1.6 Conclusion 18 CEU eTD Collection The sixty-year period of investigation of the Carinthian Slovene Carinthian the of investigation of period sixty-year The analysis. language in rights periodthe from 1945 to2003. Finally,summarize I the results of this majority relations in the post-war period. Second, I conduct an analysis of the mobilization for in as relations in the interwar understanding period for Carinthia a background the minority- pressures. or assimilation factors economic on focus which explanations, evaluate minority mobilisation theresourcehypothesis of in to alternative against order interveninginpressures, such variables, economic of andassimilationist as conditions terms discursive andinstitutional opportunity structures. The time segments will also be examined look atexternal capacity mobilisingthe appropriate existing Slovenesthe resources,I of to claim as youth Withbasis to organizations rights. an language organizational to regard Iwill Second, government. analyse whetherpolitical, minority the majority its utilized and cultural the toward strategy common a had elite this whether and elite intellectual resources of mobilising internal the to regard With Slovenes,mobilisation. for resources external and internal existing I concentrate on two of factors. amount relative the with inconnection period in time beeach analysed behaviour will First,Minority mobilisation. minority I of levels focus different represent which on segments, five into down the presence of an 35 For practical reasons I refer to Carinthian Slovenes as Slovenes. as Slovenes Carinthian to Irefer reasons practical For Chapter – 2 This chapter consists of three parts: first, it aims at outlining the history of history itethnic first, atoutliningof the consistsof aims This parts: three chapter T HE S LOVENES IN THE 19 2003 S ECOND A USTRIAN 35 minority will be broken be will minority R EPUBLIC , 1945- CEU eTD Collection (Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva,2000), 19. the minority resulted in significant losses of the Slovene intelligentsia in Carinthia. in intelligentsia Slovene the of losses significant in resulted minority the moved to Slovenia.moved to been established in1852 Klagenfurtand aimed atdistributing was Slovene literature whichhad house “Družba ideology,publishing Sv. Mohorja” the of centre national Slovene employmentof German speaking teachers inbilingual schools. such as a ban on Slovene newspapers,theremoval bilingual signsof street and the aGerman-nationalist Heimatdienst”, 42 Jahrhundert 41 40 of German-speakingall territories. in theperiod of Habsburg-Monarchythe and remained influential in Austria until 1945. It stoodunification for a 39 38 37 Braumüller, 2004),131. Krise oderChance?, the populationof Carinthia. Arnold Suppan,Geschichte „Zur Südkärntens,“ in 36 fact, many ethnic Slovenes had voted for the Austrian option. official results showed that a total of 59.04 per cent of the population voted to join Austria. In disputeNations, the border wasfinallyresolved101920.The byplebiscite onOctober, Slavic troops. Southern and Abwehrkämpfer) (Kärntner Federation Defence the fighting led question between Carinthian border to unresolved territory inhabitedsouthern by of Carinthia, which was predominantly Slovenes. and the newKingdom of and Serbs,Croats the Slovenes putforward competing claimsfor the Afterin fall the monarchy Austro-Hungarian the of Republic1918, the Deutsch-Österreich History of inter-ethnic 2.1 relations Andreas Moritsch, „National Ideologien inKärnten,“ in Arnold Suppan, Gerhard Baumgartner, 6xÖsterreich, 32. The German-nationalist movement (Deutschnationale Bewegung) was a political movement, whichemerged For the reasons why Carinthian Slovenes voted forAustria see: Suppan,„Geschichte Südkärntens,“ 133. Mirjam Polzer Srienz, “Slovene Community,” 35. According to1880, a census Slovene the in amountedpopulation to 100.000 people, constituting one-third of In the interwar period, Carinthian Carinthian influencedIn theinterwarperiod, by politics were “Kärntner the (Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1983), 165. Die österreichischen Volksgruppen. Tendenzenihrer gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung im20. ed.Pandel, MartinMirjam Polzer-Srienz, Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Vospernik (Wien: 42 39 organisation which promoted assimilationist policies, which promoted organisation 20 Kärntner Slovenen. 1900-2000 37 Under the auspices of the League of 38 40 Host state repression against Ortstafelkonflikt inKärnten – , ed. Andreas Moritsch. 36 41 The The CEU eTD Collection gesamtslowenischen Geschichte 49 48 Moritsch. (Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva,2000), 273. 47 46 45 44 43 state. parliament. federal or provincial the enter to havenot didbut of thevotes Carinthia electionsspeakingregions inthemunicipal Slovene successes inthe scored which Slovene party) Slovenska(Carinthian Stranka” “Koroska the Slovene the private schools. over dispute unresolved the over especially minority, the of behalf on Nations of League the to appealed cultural and religious and The“Sloveneorganizations associations. Association” School and many Carinthian Slovenes followed this proclamation. Germany Nazi against people Slovene the of battle common the for called Party Communist wereprohibited education Slovene and organizations was abolished inschools. Slovene forced 300families toresettle, were by waspersecuted intelligence NS-authorities, the and dissolution of minority ethnic the periodthe during of Thirdthe Reich.Slovene Reich. intheentire Third Naziregime the against movement military resistance only the represented OF (OF). The Front Liberation the so-called established organisations underground army. by German the Yugoslavia of occupation the after movement resistance a Slovene of was emergence all the place at take could mobilization that condition the However, by Slovenes. the regime Nazi the against mobilization themilitary trigger of the Valentin Inzko, Suppan, Valentin Sima, „Gewalt und Widerstand 1941-1945,“ in Suppan, Hans Haas, Karl Stuhlpfarrer, Ibid., 168. Suppan, 45 49 Nevertheless, Slovenes were confronted with policies aimed at the total assimilation total atthe aimed policies with confronted were Slovenes Nevertheless, At the time of the Anschluss, the Slovene minority proclaimed loyalty to the Nazi of network avery diversified developed Slovenes pressures, assimilation Despite these The repressive policy of the Nazi regime, in particular the resettlement in The in Nazi the repressive policy of resettlement particularthe 1942, was regime, Volksgruppen Volksgruppen Volksgruppen Geschichte der Kärntner Slowenen von 1918 biszur Gegenwart unter Berücksichtigung der , 174. , 172. , 147. . (Wien, Klagenfurt: Hermagoras Verlag, 1988), 112. Österreichund seine Slowenen 43 44 The minority organised itself into a political party, a political into itself organised minority The 21 Kärntner Slovenen. 1900-2000 . (Wien: Löcker&Wögenstein, 1977), 77. 48 Soon,anetwork of Slovene , ed. Andreas 47 The Slovene The 46 CEU eTD Collection Slovene schooling, and freedom of speech in the administration. of reestablishment Carinthia, in southern settlers German the of removal Slovenes, the of associations economic and cultural all of re-establishment resettlement, the for reparations bypromising minority Slovene the accommodate to government provisional Carinthian the forced party Communist Slovene the by claims irredentist and in Carinthia issue minority the 53 Kärntner Slowenen, 90. Carinthian Question,ed. Ministry ForeignforAffairs of the FPRY 1948) (Beograd 81 ff.;Haas, Stuhlpfarrer, 52 51 1945. Kärnten, ed. Helmut Rumpler andUlfried Burz, 107-137. (Wien, Köln,Weimar: Böhlau, 1998), 110. 50 Slovene small the of majority The votes. Slovene the of percent fifteen to amounting active, forSupport theOF 1945. came where from regions the partisan battle the hadbeenmost run in(OF) andintended provincialthe in the elections for first to November parliament the “Osvobodilna Fronta za Slovensko Koroško” (Liberation Front for Slovene Carinthia) Austrianprovincial government already established theirexisting tothe one. They next party, for unification Klagenfurt the with Yugoslavia. most active groupof minority.Already Slovene inthe 1945,theyheld May in demonstrations ineducation in bilingual of the re-established region Carinthia sameyear.was the October Joschkoincluded Tischlerin was in government provincial the July 1945,andbilingual demanded more participation. political by Dr. Petek and Dr. Vinko Zwitter, referred to their fight against National Socialism and leftCarinthia. troops these force, occupation British the were Only Klagenfurt includingoccupiedby Yugoslav capital the from pressure troops. after of Carinthia parts south-eastern 8 1945,the Reich onMay, Thirdthe of After capitulation the 1945 – 1955: State Treaty 2.2 Negotiations Suppan, Memorandum of the CarinthianSlovenes to Britishthe military government, 27.6.1945 – Documents on the Haas, Stuhlpfarrer, Kärntner Slowenen, 88. seit Bundesländer österreichischen der Geschichte in Besatzungsmacht,“ als Briten „Die Stieber, Gabriela In the beginning of the occupation period the Communist-oriented Slovenes werethe Slovenes Communist-oriented the period of In thebeginning occupation the Volksgruppen , 179. 52 To meet their demands, the Slovene teacher Dr. teacher Slovene the demands, meet their To 22 53 Furthermore, they established aSlovene established they Furthermore, 50 British pressure to find a solution pressureto British to 51 The Slovene minority, led minority, Slovene The CEU eTD Collection 58 3.2.1947 – Documents on theCarinthian Question, 128-131. 57 56 55 54 negotiations. international peace border changes bediscussedduring the of minority,would only Slovene the possible from representatives with the accept any itYugoslavia for unification not wouldthat demands OFinthe supported 1945. still organisations cultural of Slovene re-established the functionaries the intelligentsia and national life”.national a for of the existence nor development, andfor economic acultural possibility neither the petitioned priests foreignone theSlovenes minister tothe conferencein1947:“Austria gives fifty- of agroup Moreover, with Yugoslavia. unification for apropagandaoffensive started OF, the radical group, Themost rights. language extensive to Yugoslavia unification with foreignthe minister conference and in from Moscow London everything demanding various representatives of cultural Slovene political, or petitioned to religious organisations the capital from Allies the 247 km²of Carinthian territory,inhabitants encompassing 180,000 including Klagenfurt and the second major city in the region, Villach. include the protection of the Slovene and Croat minorities in the Austrian State Treaty. idea of unification with orof Yugoslavia territorial autonomy, Allies decided the in 1949 to territorial supporting and irredentism.demands for Slovene stopped In abandoning the return facethis modifiedits todivideAustriaopposition, Carinthia. of Yugoslavia wanted In itgradually lostthesupport of Slovenethe ofits population and parts intelligentsia. Themost Suppan, (Klagenfurt), Celovec Ministers, of Foreign Council the to of Carinthia priests Slovene of 51 Memorandum Ibid., 181. Ibid., 179. Ibid., 181. During the State Treaty negotiations, the Yugoslav government officially demanded Yugoslav government the Treaty negotiations, State During the In the State Treaty negotiations, neither the Allies – in particular Great Britain – nor The loss of Yugoslav support for unification constituted a for OFas the forturning unification support pointThe loss constituted Yugoslav of Volksgruppen 57 , 183. 54 However, already in July 1945 the British government asserted in government already British July However,1945 the 55 23 56 Consequently, 58 CEU eTD Collection 1980), 22ff. 62 61 60 59 Slovenes. Slovenes] (NSKS),organization, so-calledKoroških the Narodni svet Slovencev [Council Carinthian the of by Dr. Slovene political of another establishment the constituted OF the blow against decisive Joschko Tischler, the leader of the conservative group of the and municipal administration. Second, they and municipal they administration.civil Second, in demanded that servants bilingual regions territorial autonomy. First, they asked for proportional representation in the federal, provincial representation limited ofSlovenes inof Carinthia and and administration government ingovernment 1955.Their October mainly claims were aimed atachieving proportional issued federal to the Memorandum acommon (ZSO) inCarinthia] of organizations Slovene association [Central naKoroškem” organizacij slovenskih “Zveza NSKSand the conservative the Slovenes, the of organization political two The rights. minority of protection the injoined for the demand organizations Slovene two the cleavages, ideological these Despite 1955 – late 1960s: Period of Integration 2.3 and Assimilation laid in down 7 Art. TreatyState Vienna.of end andthe provisions protection for the of Slovenethe andBurgenland minority Croat were participation. hindered their political association a conservative Agriculture, the two groups cooperated andobtained twogroups Agriculture, the in representation body.this Chamberthe in of to elections inthe By contrast, parliament of the elections 1949. Krš the“Ljudskanor OF “Democrati the Gerald Stourzh, Gerald Ibid., 186. Ibid., 186. Suppan, Finally,in negotiations1955, the for the Austrian Treaty State Viennaof came to an Volksgruppen 59 The political division of the Slovene organisations intoa Communist-oriented and Geschichte des Staatsvertrages 1945-55, Österreichs Weg zur Neutralität þ na fronta delavnegaljudstva”na fronta of [Democratic front workingthe people] , 185. þ anka stranaka” [Christian People’s Party] won a seatin won provincial the Party] People’s [Christian anka stranaka” 62 24 60 Neither the successor of the (Graz, Wien, Köln: 61 CEU eTD Collection 68 67 Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Vospernik (Wien: Braumüller, 2004), 82. 66 Celovcu” [Secondary Celovcu” [Secondary forschool Slovenes in inKlagenfurt] 1957. v za Slovence of “Zveznagimnazija the theestablishment heard was was demand which 65 353. (Wien: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1988), 348. Minderheiten in der Politik. 64 63 minority. Slovene the of emancipation societal towards development ageneral was there and70s in 1960s modernization the to Due gradually disappeared. period Jurisdiction”. Language of “Lawonthe Law”, andthe “Minority School schools, of acritique the bilingual for one memoranda, only common three issued organizations Slovene of the representatives for Slovene schools. teacher education as administrativein independentwell as body an provincial the government demanded theestablishment of a Slovene secondary school and for aSlovene institution learn German knowboth, would andSlovene, within years. haveto or them three Third, they since the establishment of the Secondary school for Slovenes in Klagenfurt which Slovenes graduated inKlagenfurt for of school Secondary the since theestablishment 1971, theSlovene community shows avery in development dynamic educational the sector intelligentsia. its of agrowth by exemplified well (ÖVP). Party People’s Austrian conservative with the NSKS cooperated the whereas Party Social Democratic the supported TheZSO strategies: political their by reflected was division political The system”. the “within from goals political their achieve to in order structures political existing the into themselves integrate implemented. In late from period the 1960s, 1955 tothe Slovenethe to organizations tried Ibid., 207. Suppan, Rudolf Vouk, „DerAnlassfall,“ in Suppan, in Folklore,“ und Emanzipation zwischen Slowenen „Kärntner Sturm, Marian Memorandum der Kärntner Slowenen andie Bundesregierung derRepublik Österreich, 11.10. 1955. The great socioeconomic difference between the majority and minority of interwar the minority of majority the and between difference socioeconomic The great The Slovene organisations expected that the provisions of Art. 7 would be Art. 7would gradually of provisions thatthe expected The Slovene organisations Volksgruppen Volksgruppen 65 Cooperation with existingthe parties had onlylimited success, the only 63 , 194. , 208. ed. Bauböck, Rainer; Gerhard Baumgartner; Bernhard Perchinig; Karin Pinter, 344- Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten– Krise oder Chance? , 25 68 According to statistical analyses from 64 Thus, in the this period Thus, 66 ...und raus bist du! Ethnische 67 This is particularly This ed. Martin Pandel, Martin ed. CEU eTD Collection 70 (Klagenfurt, Celovec: Drava Verlag, 1996). 69 population. Austrian was significantly higher Carinthian than either the German-speaking the population overall or its class first in 1963. In1971 proportionthe in students of secondary school and university the social movement in 1968, and returned to Carinthia with a more radical in Carinthia amoreapproach to socialthe to returned with radical movement 1968, and ZSO Marjan “WeSturm states: [Slovene university students] wereinfluenced bytheideas of organisational minorityof structures the into question.organisations Today’s presidentof the in representatives 1960sandthe 1970s. their became professors university and journalists artists, lawyers, doctors, intelligentsia, representatives of importantSlovene most the were andteachers whenpriests period, interwar tothe contrast In its structure. of diversification the paralleled intelligentsia Slovene intense mobilization ethnic late 1960sandthe of 1970s.The increasein size the of the for the condition necessary was a community the Slovene within progress Socioeconomic Late 1960s – 1980s: Slovene Minority 2.4 Rights Movement to apply for Slovene schooling, necessitating stronger ethnic declaration than before. 1959, which significantly ofbilingual situation worsened the becausehadschooling, parents in waspassed Law” School A new “Minority abolished. was Carinthia in southern education Heimatdienst” wasre-establishedits duetoinfluence and onpolitics compulsory bilingual “Kärntner organization German-nationalist the was signed, Treaty State Austrian the shortly after However, minority. the of mobilization degreeof affectedthe barely occupation Suppan, Albert Reiterer, The new elite articulated claims which cast the existing power structures and structures power the existing whichcast claims The new articulated elite The re-emergences of German-nationalist forces after the end of theAustrian of end the forces after German-nationalist of The re-emergences Volksgruppen Kärntner Slowenen: Minderheit oder Elite? NeuereTendenzen der ethnischen Arbeitsteilung 69 , 187 ff. , 187 26 70 . CEU eTD Collection Gesellschaftskritik, 1988), 320. Politik, der 77 Böhlau, 1998), 506. österreichischen Bundesländer seit 1945. Kärnten 76 75 1900-2000 74 73 72 71 Art. 7, and completed the street signs in southern Carinthia with Slovene names in 1970. [Carinthian Student Association] these groups launched a campaign for the implementation of indijaška highly thezveza” “Koroška inKlagenfurt Organised were Slovenes politicised. elite”. existingpolitical the than politics Conference of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 1977. Discrimination Racial of Elimination the on Committee UN the of Conference Vienna the memorandum common the to published theorganizations two rapprochement, level. municipal the on success some achieved party Slovene parliament. provincial in a seat getthe KELto for the impossible became practically it and districts, electoral election the by into in the Slovenerules governingthe four territory 1979 parties, was divided in a change Dueto parliament. in provincial the a seat obtained almost and in Carinthia votes municipalthe and provincial elections. in (KEL) List] Unity [Carinthian lista” enotna “Koroška Party Slovene the of candidacy the NSKS and from ZSO,distancedthe big themselves the majority Theparties. NSKSsupported Slovene organizations and their politicalchanged. strategy Thetraditional organizations, the discriminating Slovenethe againstminorities. andCroat Furthermore, theYugoslav of Austria accused Discrimination forRacial in UN-Committee the representative Yugoslav forSocialists. the vote Slovenes the that recommending Gerhard Baumgartner,„Minderheiten als politische Kraft,“ in AugustinMalle, „Die Position der KärntnerSlowenen im Nationalitätenkonflikt,“ in Suppan, in Parteien,“ politischen österreichischen die und Slowenen Kärntner „Die Smolle, Karel Interview with Vladimir Smrtnik. Interview with Dr. Marjan Sturm and Dr. Rudolf Vouk. Interview with Dr. Marjan Sturm. Due to the influence of the Slovene youth movement, the internal structures of the of structures internal the movement, youth Slovene the of influence the to Due International increasedInternational by onAustriapressure Yugoslavia againinthe1970s. The , ed. Andreas Moritsch. (Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva,2000), 233. Volksgruppen ed. Bauböck, Rainer; Gerhard Baumgartner; Bernhard Perchinig; Karin Pinter (Wien: Verlag für , 208. 74 By contrast, as an expression of the new political consciousness the consciousness newof the political as an expression By contrast, 73 71 , ed. Helmut Rumpler and Ulfried Burz (Wien, Köln, Weimar: In 1975, the KEL attained two percent of percentof KELattained all the In1975,the two Similarly, students from the Secondary school for 27 ...und raus bist du! Ethnische Minderheiten in 76 75 As an expression of their Similarly, ZSOstopped the Geschichte der Kärntner Slovenen. 77 72 CEU eTD Collection 81 Kärnten, 2006), 83. aus Expertensicht. Eine kritische Beleuchtung 80 (Wien: Böhlau, 1997), 310. 79 interpreted the Art. 7 State Treaty of Vienna in a restricted manner. The use of Slovene as Slovene of The use manner. in arestricted Treaty Vienna of 7State Art. the interpreted bilingual topography was implemented. area where the of determination for the beused not could results census the Consequently, census. secret the of for aboycott called organisations Slovene the In protest, in thepast. ethnic with declarations negative experiences because of mother astheirSlovene butGerman indicate not would many that fearingSlovenes measure, this condemned elite Slovene 1976 for all Austrian in provinces todetermine the sizeorder of bilingualarea.the The in languageuse on colloquial secret census a organized government The federal Slovene area. the whichdemands the extension the questioned of inGerman-nationalist associations, of to Slovene, German-nationalist andpolitical organisations parties,the Socialistgave government “Ortstafelsturm”. the iscalled which incident bilingual signsbyforce, set-up thenewly an removed organization German-nationalist 78 bilingual intopography villagesspecific in Carinthia was finally inenacted 1972. favourable by youth fell thecircumstances, fertile campaigns Slovenethe ground, and on international if organisations Austriafind didnot asolution to minority the problem. responsible the to lodge acomplaint to authorities Austrian the threatened government the Carinthianthe majority provincial parliamentwith an since 1970. absolute for liberalisation,Socialistand the whichstrove federalgovernment governed Party (SPÖ), governing Austrian elites provedtobe an for the structure opportunity Slovenes. TheAustrian Ibid., 83. Stefan Karner, “Bemühungen zurLösung des Kärntner Minderheitenproblems 2005,” in Steininger, Rolf; Michael Gehler. Fritz Robak, Shortly after, the federal government passed the Ethnic Groups Act of after, federalShortly Act the of governmentpassedtheEthnic1976, which Groups a and Heimatdienst”, “Kärntner the protests in violent resulted The enactment The international liberal combined with pressure a more political climate among the Kroaten im Burgenland. Eine Dokumentation. Österreich im 20. Jahrhundert. Vom Zweiten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart. , ed. Peter Karpf and Thomas Kassl (Klagenfurt: Verlag Land 28 81 In the subsequent negotiations between the between negotiations subsequent the In (Wien, München, Zürich: Europaverlag, 1985), 68. 1985), Europaverlag, Zürich: München, (Wien, Die Ortstafelfrage 79 Due to these to Due 80 78 CEU eTD Collection Slovenebilingual political organizations, in education allkindergartens, primary and exceeded laidthat promised inthe down Art.7.They rights for financial support demanded more publicly-funded Slovene radioand television. secondary in aswell school andSlovene, Sloveneeducation as pre-school abusiness-oriented Slovene speakers in the provincial museum archives, and library. Furthermore, they asked for for posts of and creation the Klagenfurt of newly the established University at professors industries in Carinthia.Southern also They demanded theemploymentof Slovene university Carinthianthe region. border asked for bilingualism Second, they inadministration and for project development inaneconomic representatives Slovene of integration demandedthe whose implementation were a condition for cooperation in the Advisory Council. First, they negotiations encompassed Thisdocument with allthe Socialistdemands the government. 85 84 83 82 by supported a politicised intellectual public, which was interested in minority issues. organized severaldemonstrations in Vienna. Carinthia and In these were demonstrations, they Council. joinAdvisory not the Act, Slovenes the 7by did Art. Groups interpretation Ethnic the of restrictive the with discontent of expression As an council. in the representatives pertaining tominorities shouldnegotiated between be governmental the and minority infor Austria. eachethnic group twenty-five percent official languageSlovenes. and bilingual topography was implemented only in villages morewith than The act established the Advisory Councils on Ethnic Groups Suppan, „Geschichte Südkärntens,“ 210. Interview with Dr. Marjan Sturm and Dr. Rudolf Vouk. Karner, „KärntnerMinderheitenproblem,” 87. Federal Law on the legal status of ethnic groups in Austria (Ethnic Groups Act) –(BGBl.Nr396/1976). In 1979, the Slovene organisations issued the so called “Operation in their calendar” called “Operation issuedthe so organisations Slovene In 1979,the In addition to these largely justified claims, the organisations presented somedemands presented organisations claims, the justified largely these to In addition Instead, after the Ethnic Groups Act was passed, the Slovene student organizations Slovene the student Actwaspassed, Ethnic the Groups after Instead, 83 82 In order to safeguard the interests of the Slovenes, laws 29 85 84 CEU eTD Collection 88 Valentin, 277-290 (Klagenfurt: Kärntner Druck – und Verlagsgesellschaft,2001), 287. 353. (Wien: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1988), 350. Minderheiten in der Politik. was successful in the sense that a Slovene – Karel Smolle – obtained a seat in federal the a seat –obtained Smolle –Karel a Slovene that inthesense was successful party Alterative the Green with Analliance federal to the parliament. waselected Alternative Alternative.in Green minority opposition In1986,the the friendly Green parties, particular presentation in provincial By the contrast, parliament. theexisting ZSOsupported the the KELgainlanguage TheNSKS more to how rights. and demandedaminority supported for joining in 1979. Council inhaving rightsthey 1989without any had putforward obtained the asa of condition historisch betrachtet,“ in 87 Klagenfurt, 15.5.1979. 86 apparent. became demobilization of minority towards the ageneral political diminishedand arena trend lostmovement its force in 1980s.the extra-parliamentary the Moreover, backlash. political initial the after issue this to regard in noactalonelonger to hadanyinterest formerlySocial Democrats the particular pro-minority Social andpursue a Democrats Freedom common decided to Party) minority policy. In After the Ortstafelsturm, the major Austrian political parties (the Austrian People’s Party, 1980s – to mid-1990s: 2.5 Demobilization bilingual areas. secondary schools and bilingualism in the administration of state-ownedin industries Marian Sturm, „Kärntner Slowenen zwischen Emanzipation und Folklore,“ in Folklore,“ und Emanzipation zwischen Slowenen „Kärntner Sturm, Marian Hellwig Valentin, „VonderKonfrontation zum Dialog. Die Entwicklung der Volksgruppenfrage in Kärnten – Celovec/ Kreisky, Dr. Bruno Chancellor to Slovenes Carinthian of the organizations two of the Letter In the 1980s, the NSKS and the ZSO did not agree on a common political strategy 88 This is particularly well exemplified by the fact that they joined the Advisory the joined they that fact the by exemplified well is particularly This 86 Kärntner Jahrbuch fürPolitik., 2001 ed. Bauböck, Rainer; Gerhard Baumgartner; Bernhard Perchinig; Karin Pinter, 344- 87 Consequently, bargaining of the power Slovenes in the 30 , ed. Karl Anderwald, Peter Karpf, Hellwig ...und raus bist du! Ethnische CEU eTD Collection 93 Rumpler and Ulfried Burz (Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, 1998), 536. Minderheitenschulrecht,“ in „Das Glantschnig, Minderheitenschulrecht,“ Gerold schooling. bilingual to children their send parents more and more 92 Valentin, 277-290 (Klagenfurt: Kärntner Druck – und Verlagsgesellschaft,2001), 287. historisch betrachtet,“ in 91 90 89 Slovenes. the of not and Alternative Green the of opinion the represent to he showed that wasobliged conflict in school the However, parliament1986. 1920. Slovenian for the first timeinitiative by Christof provincial Zernatto ingovernor could1995, aSlovene in hold aspeech on the occasion of the Carinthian governmentandofficial theSlovenes improved and aneraof dialoguein. setan Due to celebrations foritslanguage momentum. lost claims of In course the relationshipbetween 1990s,the the the the plebiscite of place in andKlagenfurt Vienna. issue ofbilingual signsstreet had donein 1970s, whenthe several haddemonstrations taken in segregation. 1988. in reformed then was system school minority the referendum, the of results unclear Despite for apetitionsignatures forbilingual areferendum inagainst education schools. primary collected Heimatdienst”, “Kärntner organisation nationalist the with together (FPÖ), Carinthian and Freedom SloveneIn the organisations. Carinthian government 1984, the Party Karner, „Minderheitenproblem,” 88. „Minderheitenproblem,” Karner, As a matter of fact, the reform proved to be extremely positive for the bilingual education in Austrian and Austrian in education bilingual the for positive beextremely to proved reform the of fact, a matter As Hellwig Valentin, „VonderKonfrontation zum Dialog. Die Entwicklung der Volksgruppenfrage in Kärnten – Baumgartner, Smolle, „Die Kärntner Slowenen,“ 233. 93 91 The NSKS and the ZSO had been against the reform would thatit TheNSKShadbeen the andtheZSO resultand claimed reform against After thesolution minority school the of the question, ethnic mobilization around In this decade, the school question dominated the political discussion between the between thediscussion political dominated question school In thisdecade,the 6xÖsterreich 92 However, the school question could not mobilize masses of people as the Kärntner Jahrbuch fürPolitik., 2001 Geschichte der österreichischen Bundesländer seit 1945. Kärnten , 28. 31 , ed. Karl Anderwald, Peter Karpf, Hellwig 89 , ed. Helmut 90 CEU eTD Collection 98 97 2006), 32. Expertensicht. Eine kritische Beleuchtung 96 95 94 come. still to are seven decisions and cases, than inmore twenty favourably has already decided court constitutional far, the of signsin theSlovenes German street continuedchallenging 2001agroup So asVouk did. issue this on court constitutional the by decision the to Due signs. street bilingual have should topography. bilingual Act (1976) pertaining to as of Groups Ethnic the well astheprovisions (1977), Topography on Decree the andabrogated Vouk supported The court court. constitutional Treaty Vienna. of Art.7 violated sign monolingual as it police, the was unconstitutional fine tothe that street claiming German limitwhen entering Kanzian avillage called St. in Carinthia in pay 1994 andrefused to the speed exceeded the an interviewHe with. whom I conducted NSKS, representative of the Carinthia. territory entire of the to wasextended bilingual education extendeddue a language First, rights. to decision Slovene of in constitutional the court 1989, had last decade inthe Several decisions minorities. the protection of towards favourable Slovenes. The from 1990s period late totoday isthe byanew characterized by mobilization wave of the In this the Mid-1990s – 2003: periodNew Wave of Mobilization 2.6 for Language Rights? the decisions of the federal constitutional court had been population should have abilingual administration andjurisdiction. first tofourth grade. Third,it decidedmunicipalities that with as littleminority as 10.4 percent the from tongue mother in the instruction linguistic to right the extended court constitutional Interview with Dr. Rudolf Vouk. Polzer Srienz, “Slovene Community,” 34. in Sachverhaltsdarstellung,” Ortstafelfrage-eine “Die Glantschnig, Gerold Polzer Srienz, “Austria an Overview,” 34. Baumgartner, The fourth The fourth decision initiative of was theconsequence an a by Vouk, Dr. Rudolf 97 According to their decision,village a with a population of 10.4 percent Slovene 6xÖsterreich , 33. 98 96 The court proclaimed that the rationale of the decision was , ed. Peter Karpf and Thomas Kassl (Klagenfurt: Verlag Land Kärnten, In incident1999, the culminated in an appeal tothe 32 Die Ortstafelfrage aus 95 94 Second, the Second, CEU eTD Collection provincial parliament. provincial party, the Austrian Freedomfierce. right In 1999, the wing Haider became populist theprovincial Jörg when governor his Party obtained 41.1 percent of the votes in the elections to the 103 102 101 100 99 reach acompromise. not could organisations of Slovene the representatives negotiations, andthe governing the organisations, German-nationalist parties political on until the haveNegotiations by court constitutional implementation the dragged over decision the of the present day. decision. thecourt opposed Federation” Defence and“Carinthian Heimatbund” “Kärntner The bilingual street signs have yet to be implemented.live”. In the minority of the manymembers in relatively area this that aware public “maketo general the majority in the form the of with support the together initiated of were campaigns Slovene community. Several petitions, signature collections and cultural events. Heimat”. or“Vidna Domovina –Sichtbare KärntenKoroške” aninitiative –za called“pro plots, politicians have andjournalist forbilingual signs taken on responsibility the street on private artists, writers, intellectuals, Slovene Carinthian known well intellectuals, German-speaking ZSO gave the campaign for bilingual street signsforZSO differentnames. bilingualstreet gave thecampaign the Moreover, two consequence to internalCarinthian koroskih Slovenes” in[Skupnost Slovencev emergedSlovenk] (SKS), asa disagreement. Furthermore, divisions within political the minority emerge again.Athird organization, “Community of the as mentioned above the NSKS and the Glantschnig, “Die Ortstafelfrage,” 38. Ortstafelfrage,” “Die Glantschnig, Internet site for theinitiative pro kärnten–za koroško [http://www.prokaernten.at/] 27.05.2007. Interview with Dr. Marjan Sturm and with Dr. Rudolf Vouk. 51. Ortstafelfrage,” “Die Glantschnig, Vouk, „Der Anlassfall,“ 98. 99 Opposition to the decision by the constitutional court on decisionthe by Opposition courton bilingual constitutional the topography was to The open opposition to the implementation functioned as a mobilizing factor for the Despite this new wave of mobilization, the developments since 2003 indicate that since2003indicate developments the mobilization, new of wave Despite this 103 100 Particularly his party his organisations Particularly German-nationalist the party and 33 101 102 Supportedby CEU eTD Collection 104 tremendous modernization process and the size itsof intelligentsia has significantly increased. use this opportunity. fully an obstacle to constitute newinternal divisions minority.by However, recognized the position of in constitutional the thatwas 1990swasanewcourt the structure opportunity pro-minority succeed. Third,the likely made more to that mobilization structure opportunity institutional the constituted federal and provincial governments, Socialisttime, the same the At toframe their demands. structure opportunity discursive necessary them the with 1960s played rolein animportant the political emancipation asit Slovenes the provided of rights into the State Treatymobilizationforby was support for governmentthe theintegration Yugoslav the minority of of Vienna. Second, the incentiveachieve minority political the opportunity that itsfirst structures to The used goals. civil and human rights tothree mobilization phases correspond mobilization. three of The inminority fluctuations movement in the Changes in opportunity theirthese structures, openingsandcan closures, account for the mobilize institutionallanguage to claims. around structures and opportunity discursive in rights in case.this Intheperiod utilize minority the question, was able to the existing of language for fluctuations minority resources for the inminority mobilization can account internal and external the on focuses which theory resource as such model A dynamic 2.7 Conclusion stance. moderate amore take SKS the and theZSO whereas stance has amore radical theNSKS because negotiationsbilingual beabout with governmentthe very topography to proved difficult, Interview with Dr. Marjan Sturm and Dr. Rudolf Vouk. In the sixty years under observation, the Slovene minority has undergone a undergone has minority Slovene the observation, under years sixty the In 104 34 CEU eTD Collection weakened their position significantly.weakened their position itsas inforinternal purposes.However, 1990s of the 2003new divisions which emerged well of structures as fully usetheopportunity 1950s,1970s the Therefore theminority could organisations,minority betweenthetwo differences ideological Despite since disposal 1970s. the the NSKS and atits itshad internal resources size, into minority Relative dense the population Carinthia. the ZSO wereIn 1970s,the theminority already had abroader intellectual basis than majority the able to cooperate in minority rights matters. 35 CEU eTD Collection the Christian Socialist party structures and later into the structures of the authoritarian in integrated weresuccessively party. Croatian Christian Socialistorganisations conservative German inrequired industry. German-speaking the preferred German as thelanguage ofinstruction in for workers order to obtain levelthe of workers, the represented who Party, Democratic in Social the Croats the By contrast, Christian Socialist Party the introductionprevented of Austrian the lawschool in Burgenland. maintainlanguage schools in to astheinstruction and Croatian of the order therefore school question. The conservative wereparticularly over the divided twogroups conservative These ChristianSocialist camp. Croats wanted to maintain minority and between theSocial Democratic adeepdivision inemerged period, Croat the the influence of the church on Austria, whereas the region around Sopron remained part of of Hungary.remainedpart Sopron around region Austria, the whereas Hungarianthe cede westernrealm. Treaty Trianon of Hungary The obliged to Hungary to formedof part monarchy,Burgenland Austrian-Hungarian timethe Atthe break-upof of the History of inter-ethnic 3.1 relations results. the summarize formobilization language rights in periodthe from 1945 tothepresentday. Finally, I for understanding the minority-majority relations in the following years. Second, I analyse the outlines history the of ethnic relations in Burgenland intheinterwar periodwhich is crucial This chapter follows the same logic as the previous one and consists of three parts: first, it 106 105 Chapter - 3 Suppan, Polzer Srienz, “Croat Community,” 41. In the following years, the usage of Croatian was strictly associated with the Volksgruppen T HE , 109. C ROATSIN THE S ECOND 36 106 A USTRIAN R EPUBLIC 105 In the interwar the In , 1945-2003 CEU eTD Collection 111 110 109 108 107 political andtheCroat newspaperpositions wasbanned. for be elected could Germans signs only street were allowed, German only administration, in excluded from posts the Croats the them policiesReich towards Thirdthe of had(HKD), founded which been already in 19 the društvo[Croatian Association] kulturno State. Cultural The Hravtsko Austrian Corporate unemployment in the 1930s since most of them were small farmers or industrial and seasonal and industrial or farmers small were them of most since 1930s in the unemployment and recession by economic the affected badly were particularly who among Croats, in region. this pressures increased Südmark”assimilation Schulverein “Deutscher the by propaganda German-nationalist the and administration Karall, failed. party. TheHrvatska [CroatianStranka founded which Party], in1923by was Dr. Lovro politicalcommunity divisions thewithin Croat notsucceed in they an did ethnic establishing Croatian Social Democratic Newspaper “Naš Glas” was abolished. andthe introduced, schools were villages,German-only Social dominated Democratic in it Thus,was Croat becausewas asymbol that order. of denied everything conservative the Croats in the Social Democratic party developed an extreme pro-German stance. Party. Socialist Christian conservative the to linked closely was and minority the within differences if it aimed at representing the entire Croat community, it could not bridge the political Suppan, Suppan, Suppan, Baumgartner, Bauböck, Baumgartner, Perchinig, Pinter. In order to dissociate itself from the conservative Croat nationalist organisation, the Despite these repressive policies, membership in membership Despite these repressivepolicies, Nazi high the (NSDAP) was Party In the interwar period, modernisation, migration,In theinterwar theinfluence modernisation, period, of German the Volksgruppen Volksgruppen Volksgruppen 109 6xÖsterreich , 116. , 104. , 114. , 60. ...und raus bist du! 37 th century, was re-established in re-established 1929.Even century, was , 315. 111 110 After the Anschluss in 1938, the 108 As a consequence to the to consequence a As 107 They CEU eTD Collection 116 speaking Municipalities” as the “Robak Group”because of their spokesmanRobak. 115 114 (ÖVP). Party” People’s “Austrian conservative the with 1947 andaligned in Association][Croatian (HKD) wasre-established društvo Cultural Hravtskothe kulturno Burgenlandthe provincial federal andparliament Memberof On otherthe parliament. side, the Croat minority. Their spokesman was Fritz Robak, who was a Socialist major, member of existing ethnic powerstructures, political claimsremained a side issue. challenge not did Croats The structures. party existing the into organisations minority the 1955 is of from period period Third Reich. byanintegration the of 1945 to characterised The the before had existed after werere-established asthey Soon thewar,Croatian organisations 1945 –1955: State Treaty 3.2 Negotiations emerged minority. within the movement resistance no for the support NSDAPamong strong Croats, the to Asaconsequence authorities. in resettlementof Croats Croat minority 1941, the by was protected Burgenland the 113 112 inParty Municipalities,” Croatian the and Hungarian-speaking called Social of the Representatives “the Democratic agroup formed party Social Democratic inmajors the vice-majors On or side,Croat one structure. in reflected organisational their elected in 1946 was the Croat Dr. Lovro Karall. governor first the that was Burgenland in minority Croat the of integration political positive workers. Stefan Geosits, Stefan Hungarian- and Croatian the in Party Democratic Social ofthe “Representatives the to refer will I my work In Bauböck, Baumgartner, Perchinig, Pinter. Baumgartner, Polzer Srienz, “Croat Community,” 41. During this period, the Croat community couldnot overcome its political divisions as 112 Therefore, a paradoxical situation emerged: when Berlin planned aforced planned whenBerlin aparadoxical Therefore, emerged: situation 6xÖsterreich, Die burgenländischen Kroaten imWandel der Zeiten 60. ...und raus bist du! 38 113 , 318. . (Wien: Edition Tusch, 1986), 228. 115 which claimed to represent to whichclaimed 114 A symbol of the 116 In1947,the CEU eTD Collection 121 120 119 Popovi inAustria. Slovenes and Croats the for rights minority extensive of concession the to demands its lowered Afternot 1949,Russiasupport Yugoslavia did longer, inthese claims any and Yugoslavia interests. in theirwas not resettlement because aforced Yugoslavia, demands against the of 118 35. 117 minorityas Burgenland However, diaspora. Croatian the from benefited Croat Croats the the whereas the Robak group distanced itself from their former home-country and refused to see ofextremists”.“group HKD and the HAK representedthe that disputed they the majorityFurthermore, rights. minority any of the against were Croat Croats of majority population the and presented them as a aroundlanguagehelditparallel conference Robak where group claims.The athat proclaimed HKDforfrom the asked support Yugoslav forthe bilingualgovernment schooling and other government. Yugoslav the to Carinthia which followed shortly after, shed a very negative light on the HKD and its contacts exchange of population between the inCroats Burgenland andthe Germans livingin Southern in domestic affairs. intervention foreign invited itbecause release BurgenlandCroatwarprisoners. The Robak groupcondemned thismove by HKD the governmentto Tito the to of HKD the request by the wascaused dispute The first apparent. stance. ethno-political more in their HKD the supported Club] Academic Klub” was inViennaand Akademski (HAK) “Hrvatski [Croatian established Robak, Baumgartner, Robak, Suppan, Fritz Robak, ü On two occasions the conflict between the two elite groups became particularly As these two episodes showed, the HKD accepted Yugoslavia as their kin state, to the Austrian government in 1953, the newspaper “Naš Tajednik” backed by in newspaperthe backed 1953,the “NašTajednik” theAustrian government to Kroaten, Kroaten, Volksgruppen Kroaten im Burgenland. Eine Dokumentation. 6xÖsterreich, 44. 36. 120 , 122. 121 On the occasion of the visit of Yugoslav Foreign Minister Ko 61. 118 On this occasion, both camps of the minority protested openly 39 (Wien, München, Zürich: Europaverlag, 1985), Europaverlag, Zürich: München, (Wien, 117 The Yugoslav demand of an 119 þ a CEU eTD Collection Hrvatov kroz 450 ljet 124 122 Slovenes support bythe which insisted on minority for Yugoslav government, special the rights 123 concrete measures. concrete The Memorandum askedimplement thegovernment to provisionsthe 7and of Art. proposed Treaty. of Viennathe andpowers State in signatory the Eisenstadt, provincial government Vienna.Already in HKD1955, the issuedamemorandum the Austrianto the government, of Treaty 7State Art. in down laid rights minority of implementation the about opinions this of be constituency. real the representatives minority. Croat bymembers Socialistthe wasopposed whoclaimed of This Group, Robak to the represent to Austrian People’s of intoParty and claimed the party structure the integrated lists of the major political parties. the on parliament federal the and provincial in the represented were Croats period legislative in each size, their to wasproportional Croats of participation political The warcontinued. the divisions. Thetrend integrate to themselves in existing the started structures after political that Even in periodthe after1955, the Croatian political elitenot bridge could its political 1955 – late 1960s: Strong Assimilation Tendencies3.3 and further political Vienna. Treaty of mostwere the Austrianminority,werelaid privileged rights asextensive in 7State Art. down Bela Schreiner, Bela Stourzh, Suppan, division The most important divisionimportantThe most betweenthese in groups were their contextthis differing and Volksgruppen Staatsvertrage, Croats in the state treaty negotiations. Thus, the Croat and the Slovene minority Das Schicksal der Burgenländischen Kroaten durch 450 Jahre. Sudbina Gradiš 122 (Mattersburg, Austria: Buch und Offsetdruck Bernd Wograndl, 1983), 143. 124 , 130. 22ff. 123 Members of the HKD were more andmore tightly 40 ü ankskih CEU eTD Collection differences in the socio-economic structure of these two groups, Croats lacked a broad very few were there that shows andcommunities German Croat the between comparison 1962. As bilingual law, of this wasseverely schooling a consequence restricted. due conditionsbilingual deteriorated forto the introduction schools new the of Law School Burgenland.” minority can in expectany help, Croatno the not because“there are proclaimed problems that this moment,In matters. scientific and Yugoslaviacultural in economic, agreement cooperation an conclude to again was keen to maintain friendly relations with Austria, and Bijedi 128 127 126 gemischtsprachigen Gemeinden(26.11.1955). 125 years in later President1972, the of Yugoslavthe Republic Džemal Bijedi for help in their efforts andto thegroup HKD) invited. Therepresentatives of HKDaskedYugoslav was politicians the implement the provisionsHaramija to Burgenland in October of1970, a delegation of Art.Croats (representatives of the Robak 7 State Dragutin Dr. President Minister by the visit Treatyofficial first the of occasion the On ofintensified. Vienna. Two implemented in periodthe from 1955 until endof the 1970s. the great influence in provincial politics, none of the provisions pertaining minorityto rights were minority”– “the silent inthe1960sand1970s. laid inprotection 7State Treaty Art. down Vienna, Croatof remained–in the Robak’s words Austrian-German cultural area”. Despite the non-fulfilment of the obligations for minority consideredTheir“belong Robak themselves Croats thatthe spokesman proclaimed tothe to federal parliaments that Croats wanted to assimilate and did not ask for minority rights. Schreiner, Robak, Baumgartner, und kroatischen der Vizebürgermeisterkonferenz und Bürgermeister- der Präsidiums des Resolution Despite the fact that Croatian primary education had been reintroduced in 1945, the been reintroduced had education Croatian factthat primary Despite the By contrast, the Robak group proclaimed on several inthe proclaimed provincial and occasions on several group By contrast, Robakthe In and 1960s,the relations between the the Yugoslav Croats the government Kroaten, Schicksal derBurgenländischen Kroaten, 127 6xÖsterreich, 59. 61. 41 137. 126 Due to the fact that the Robak group had ü visited Austria 128 Even if a 125 ü CEU eTD Collection 132 Chancellor from 1970 to1983. 131 130 satisfied with as isand situation the notdemandany would such additional as bilingual rights are Croats that indicate this that would argued organisation The they that were German. representatives of appealed Robakthe Croats, the Croats Group, indicate to in its leaflets to group. minority sizeof determineeach the in census to order asecret conduct to Kreisky decided governments, federal and provincial Socialist the of decisions the accept not did nationalist associations. for minority the subsidies and sector, regular demanded inreforms the educational as an opportunity to demand full implementation of Art. 7. It emphasized the importance of 7 of the State Treaty of Vienna Art. since of 1955. Theimplementation the HKD over saw the establishment representatives minority with of negotiate to the committeegovernment the by Bruno Kreisky As aconsequence in “Ortstafelsturm” of in the federal Socialistthe Carinthia 1972, chancellor Late 1960s –1980s: Intensification of 3.4 Internal Divisions proportion of secondary school graduates. region and 0.56percentfor Germans in Burgenland. Croatshad Furthermore, alower for inthe Hungarians 1.76 percent to asopposed was0.36percent, university graduates lower level of education than the rest of the Burgenland population. Their proportion of 129 basis. academic Letter by the HKD to the Federal Chancellor Dr. Bruno Kreisky (Eisenstadt, 13.1.1975). Kreisky, Bruno(1911-1990), Austrianpolitician for the Austrian Socialist Party (SPÖ) and Austrian Federal Suppan, Suppan, The census exemplified the division within the Croat elite: The Socialist The elite: Croat the within division the exemplified census The Volksgruppen Volksgruppen 132 131 However, as a consequence of the developments in Carinthia, where German- where in Carinthia, of developments the asaconsequence However, 129 installed a contact committee for minorities in 1974. This was the first move As aconsequence of dissatisfyingthe showed schooling situation, a Croats , 132. , 129. 130 42 CEU eTD Collection 137 136 135 134 municipalities in: Schreiner, 133 Croat minority. university HKD in the of that the indicated Croat wasthesurvey representation this graduates most of the Interestingly, representation. their theHKD that was indicated percent seven whereas felt forty- by “Robak group” of represented Croats the the percent only twenty-four minority notdid setup an Advisory Council in 1976. internal As divisions, aconsequence the Croat of Robakretired. end the 1970s,when the of Advisory Council. the enter “Robak which Group”, openly anassimilationistproclaimed policy,not be should allowed to nation”. anew enter who assimilate, Parliament proclaimed: “We want tobe at the centre of our lives, wewant toassimilate, as all of Member was also who Robak, Fritz organisation, Democratic the Social of representative signs,street bilingualinscriptions bilingual onpublicbuilding or education. – in particular their intelligentsia – for the HKD. census. the boycott it to HKDcondemned and recommended the leada restriction rights, their of census might to influencethe on considerable of group Robak the populationof parts andthatthe Croat the economic progress of working Croats the inGerman-speaking industries. By fearingcontrast, convinced that the proficiency of German was the mostimportant condition for socio- IFES-Analyse, 1975.In: Ibid., 213. Ibid., 168. Statement by the HKD to the census. In Speechby the member of parliament,Fritz Robak.In: Ibid., 211. Multilingual and Croatian the in Party Democratic Social the of Representatives by the issued Leaflet An analysis conducted by the Austrian research institute IFESin that indicated institute Austrian research 1975 An conductedbythe analysis 137 The results of the survey show the growing support in the Croat community 135 The HKDimmediately proclaimed thatorganisationssuch as the Schicksal der Burgenländischen Kroaten, 136 The conflicts between the Croat organisations continued until continued organisations Croat the between conflicts The Hravtske Novine Hravtske 134 As a representative of Croat workers, hewas workers, ofCroat Asarepresentative 43 (6.2.1976) 143. 133 The CEU eTD Collection focused legal mainly on questions. za prava Gradiš 1993), 53. 138 street signs were set up by the HAK, which was fined by the police. bilingual occasion since 1978.On this Day] mladine” [Youth yearthe “Dan organised each HAKhas youth, the toreachthe In order Croats. the of in situation the interest academic “Symposion Croaticon” at the University of Vienna. claim HAK organised In 1973 and the awaiting 1983,the minority andstarted to rights them. policy of accomodationist the challenge to first werethe students The Croats. the of direction “Croatian Cultural and Documentation Centre“(HKDC). the association created stance.In 1983, they formerfrom pro-German the themselves distanced Croats the of representatives Democratic Social the of Robak, retirement the challenged ofthe traditional the strategies political andchanged them.organisations the existing power structures and organizational structures of the minority intoquestion. They cast that claims andarticulated movement in andhuman of ideas rights civil the inculcated the predominantly its supporters andurban recruited from They politicised intellectuals. had been was one new the elite”, “old the to contrast In rights. guaranteed constitutionally of implementation for the andmobilized stance amuchmore radical took newcomers elite”. The “new bya place “old werereplaced elites” andthe change took In the 1980s, agenerational 1980s: Ethnic 3.5 Renaissance 142 141 140 139 burgenländischen Kroaten im Wandel derZeiten Franz Szucsich, „Das Vereineswesen der burgenländischen Kroaten,“ in Stefan Geosits, Stefan in Kroaten,“ burgenländischen der Vereineswesen „Das Szucsich, Franz Österreichisches Volksgruppenzentrum, Ibid., 232. Ibid., 231. Ibid., 230. Out of the HAK, several new organizations emerged. Amongst these was the “Komitet In the late 1970s and 1980s, the HAK had an important influence importantIn had the HAK late1970sandthe an 1980s,the political on ü anskih Hravtov” [Committee for the Rights of Burgenland Croats], which forof Rights the Burgenland Croats], [Committee Hravtov” anskih Burgenländische Kroaten 142 The numerous legal confrontations between Croat . (Wien: Edition Tusch,1986), 228. 44 140 The aim of the event was to encourage 139 . (Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva: (Klagenfurt: . 141 Die 138 After CEU eTD Collection 147 146 to time, Ministerand of tothe the FredSinowatz, of letter Culture Education indemanded a 145 Burgenland. Already since the the HKD areform 1970s, demanded bilingual school system of the in 144 1989, a weekly television for 20 minutes was granted on a state-funded regional TV station. 143 Carinthia. in following introduced asked for Croatian themodel hadalreadybeen that radio, organisations Croat several (ORF), Company Broadcasting Austrian Public tothe letter a introduction Croatian of radio organised amedia and campaign forCroatian inradio 1978.In for the and An“action house pressed rockbands, committee” apublishing several exhibitions. generations. initiative This for gavetheimpetus the several foundation and of Croatian pop- andbecame within years of younger the among afew a newethnic the centre consciousness administration. districts inBurgenland, of thestatus Croatian got an language inpublic official Act restrictive hadin been Ethnicseven Austrian 1976.Insixoutof Groups which passed of the in parts court 1987 repealed byfederalconstitutional acase the initiated andadecision Burgenland.had been Grandits denied an wedding inofficial ceremony She Croatian. in of language Croatian for status the the consequences had lawsuit far-reaching that Rights of Burgenland Croats”, Marijana Grandits, a Member of Parliament, launched a but forby by “Committee the a newself-understanding.Backedby assimilation the ethnic individuals with German-speakingthe administration 1980s showedmarked thatthe were not Suppan, Schreiner, Baumgartner, Schreiner, Baumgartner, These new alsogave newimpetus organisations a to organisations. Croat traditional Another new initiative wasKUGA – Kulturna which Zadruga, was established in1982 Volksgruppen 144 Schicksal derBurgenländischen Kroaten, Schicksal derBurgenländischen Kroaten, 147 Finally,in 1979,Croatian radiowas introduced, limited to42minutes a day. In 6xÖsterreich, 6xÖsterreich, In Association HKDand the BurgenlandHungarian 1983, the Cultural 143 , 132. 55. 55. 45 194. 180. 145 146 CEU eTD Collection from 1997 to 2000. 155 154 153 152 2001), 66. der territorialen Veränderung der größten autochthonenVolksgruppe Österreichs 151 150 149 Burgenländischen Kroaten, 148 for both school ethnic groups. establishsecondary a the provincial governor, Theodor Kery. Advisory Advisory Council. joined the associations Croat the fact that bythe reflected of wasalso Robak retirement In 1993, the rapprochement 1990s – to 2007: Demobilisation and institutionalisation 3.6 of claim-making of the socialist Minority School Law (1994). HKDC and the andthe (1989) lawa new onkindergarten improved dueto for bilingualeducation conditions conservativethe academies, training and teacher kindergarten such as system, school the areas of HKD after speakers. and Hungarian was openedfor Croatian school” inOberwart secondary the Chancellor Klima Viktor in Federal 1972. the oneinCarinthia to backlash similar itfeared political indicating that reluctantly, reacted federal chancellery minority. The Croat areaof the autochthonous in the Advisory Council were the HKD, the HKDC, the HAK and the initiative KUGA. even they though had become lessaccentuated. eliteexplainsnegotiationsin showedthat thedivisionsCroat persisted, within the Council the The politician in the Austrian Social Democratic Party, Dr. Viktor Klima was Federal Chancellor of Ibid.Austria Ivancsics. Martin with Interview Polzer Srienz, “Croat Community,” 42. Birgit Stabel, Baumgartner, Schreiner, Letter to the Minister of Education and Culture, Dr. Fred Sinowatz (25.02.1983). In: Schreiner, The firstissue tobe discussedin Advisory the Council was bilingual topography in the Schicksal der Burgenländischen Kroaten, Burgenländischen Kroatenzwischen Assimilation undethnischer Renaissance. EineAnalyse 6xÖsterreich, 152 However, as the chairman of the Advisory Council, Martin Ivancsics, 200. 155 55. signedimplementation thedecreefor inlevel only 2000.Onthe 151 149 Finally in Finally so-called1992, the “ethnic groups 46 200. 153 Theimportant most organisations included 148 In their efforts, they were supported by (Innsbruck, Diplomarbeit, Schicksal der 150 In other In 154 CEU eTD Collection 159 158 156 in for is survival down safeguardingCroats the the Austrian a of the prerequisite constitution laid rights minority the of implementation the Gieler, Zlatka Mag. president, long-term their administration. the of levels in all and government of levels in all integrated istotally minority theCroat because welcome, nor necessary isneither engagement political ethnocentric an them, to According parliament. national and provincial the in representation minority setting upof bilingual signsstreet in villages47 as was celebrated a public festival. of bilingual provincial the all government, parties agreedtosigns.political In2001,the street 157 2004), 79. Chance?, Burgenland. multicultural HKDC isa goal the the of focus, Croatian have aclear that organisations in toother Croat However,languagecontrast culture. and theCroat fostering preserving and followdoes not but an integrationist anassimilation-position,is Theaims one. HKDC the of overcome, they still stood for different strategies with regards to minority rights. this issue. on stance acommon forge to difficult itwas particularly value, symbolic astrong have signs bilingual street thefactthat Due to Council. Advisory the within minority the organisations bilingual signsstreet wasnotonly of stance the thebutalso majority, divergent of opinions Baumgartner, Ivancsics. Martin with Interview Zlatka Gieler, “Zweisprachige Topographie im Burgenland,” in Baumgartner, As opposed to the era of Fritz Robak, the successors of the Robak Group, HKDC, oftheRobakthe Group, successors the eraof Robak, Fritz to the As opposed It is important to note, however, that the reason it took almost ten years to set up the By contrast, the HKD wanted to strengthen the national self-esteem. According to According self-esteem. national the strengthen to wanted HKD the contrast, By ed. Martin Pandel, Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Vospernik. (Wien: Braumüller, 157 158 Even though political polarisation between Even had between though polarisation minority the political groups been 6xÖsterreich, 6xÖsterreich, The HKDC does not support the demands of some minority organisations for 159 76. 76. 47 Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten – Krise oder 156 CEU eTD Collection 161 160 the majority haditstowards elite acommon strategy leadershiptheir ask whether and and of focusnature onstatus isit of necessary resources mobilization to a minority, internal determine the to mobilization. Inorder influctuations minority for account minority,can the case. explain the Croat fails to which explain to mobilizationtries thedynamicminority by process of using static models any theory Therefore, repeatedly. have alternated languagefor rights and demobilization mobilization in case, case.As Carinthian Slovene as intensethe asin was not Carinthian the itbecause samelevel attention, the of acquired never case in their Mobilization minority”. “silent the called be can minority Croat the minority Slovene Carinthian the to comparison In 3.7 Conclusion support ideathe toestablish aminority representative in provincialthe parliament. organizations these Therefore, social respective the group. butminority represent the not do and members minority of votes the on dependent not are government the in representatives inprovided to KUGA Incontrast HDKC,the Vienna. all and HAK, HKD arguethat Croatian administrationand be yearsfifty betakeninto bilingualstate also should account should Vienna inthelast minority movedhave of to largethe fact parts that the Moreover, servants. should by beimplemented provisionsthe of documents in Croatian and bilingual civil of Vienna on the status of Croatian as an minority. the officialinside and outside from both tendencies, assimilation of languageopponents of administrationin Burgenland. in Burgenland Stabel, Interview with Mag. Zlatka Gieler. By contrast, resource theory, which focuses on the external and internal resources of resources internal external and onthe focuses which resource theory, By contrast, The demands of HKD, HAK and KUGA were that the provisions of the State Treaty Burgenländischen Kroaten, 160 The Croatian Academic Club/HAK and KUGA were also pronounced werealso KUGA and Club/HAK Academic The Croatian 70. 48 161 CEU eTD Collection Council of As Council to theperiod Groups. of intense opposed Ethnic of in mobilization the 1980s, makecould not full use of institutional the presented by structure opportunity Advisory the institutional todemandstructure opportunity least the same at concessions Slovenes. asthe used this The Croats languageimplement rights. lawsto several hadpassed government the mobilization, Slovene the to Due minority. Slovene the of mobilization earlier the of context the in be seen to has mobilization of period This rights. language for time first the for between theHKD andthe Robak group. more forcefully for minority rights. This period was especially marked by confrontations relatively the liberal increased theiractivitiespressed HKD duringgovernment, the 1970sand with a confronted negotiations. Furthermore, treaty during state the of time government the of support the Yugoslav the HKDsought the in AsSlovene case, the Carinthian of HKD. the by were activities the recognizedandreflected structures changes opportunity inthepolitical that showed analysis this mobilization of intensity low the Despite group”. “Robak the Croats, of the representatives theSocialist of influence in the and cohesion elite lackof the opportunity structures, the minority could notutilize them. The reason for this lay primarily in didelite Croat the unify its internal and from demandresources concessions government. the and alack of elite cohesion. Only after the retirement of Robak in thebeginning of the 1980s, relatively long period of time, the Croat community was paralysed by an internal elite conflict Croats, part of the Croat elite pursued an assimilationist strategy. Consequently, for a Robak remainedCroatshowelites that pursuedminority opposing with strategies regard to Aslongrights. as influentialgovernmentor whetherit was strategies.The intheirpolitical of divided results analysis the in the Social Democratic Party and claimed to represent the After Robak’s retirement, the Croats experienced an ethnic renaissance and mobilized and renaissance ethnic an experienced Croats the retirement, Robak’s After Croatorganisations recognizedtheexistingEven thoughtheHKDand other political In the 1990s, their internal divisions still dominated they agendaandinternal the therefore still In the1990s,theirdominated divisions 49 CEU eTD Collection actions in actions public. concessions from governmentthe by theconstitutional of decisions by or court provocative claim place making took in aninstitutionalised manner. Minority organisations notforcedid 50 CEU eTD Collection model that utilizes a 2X2 matrix of joint comparative and longitudinal analysis. longitudinal and comparative joint of matrix a2X2 utilizes that model and a Carinthian Slovene casesIadopt BurgenlandCroat In the comparativethe analysis of the cross-case comparison is represented, indicating whether the minorities behave similarly minorities the indicating whether is represented, comparison cross-case the of minority formobilization language claims haschanged over On time. horizontal the axis power. for their explanatory relative minority mobilization of theories alternative against hypothesis resource selectedcases testin inthe section the methodology to a subsequent 162 Jenne, Over Time Chapter – 4 The vertical axis represents the comparison over time, indicating whether the intensity the indicating whether time, theover comparison represents The vertical axis Ethnic Bargaining Different Same A , 52. NALYSIS OF Static Similarities E Cultural Features Cultural B Mobilizational THNIC Similarities URGENLAND Changing Resources External Same 51 3 1 Between Groups M OBILIZATION IN Majority Relationship Majority History of Minority- of History Static Differences Static Mobilizational Differences Changing Resources Different Internal C 4 2 ARINTHIA AND ARINTHIA 162 I use I this CEU eTD Collection Any static variables, as cultural differences of history of minority-majority cannot minority-majority history relations, of of ascultural differences Any static variables, time. over non-synchronically place take mobilization minority of fluctuations the “3“, field cases. two the in common political causeopportunity identicalstructures shifts minority in of mobilization explain itchanges wouldbe arguesthat to this bya However, possible outcome which theory language for why nor mobilization claims, minorities actsimultaneously. these would explain in shifts cannot majority-minority relations and history of cultural the differences Thus, majority. and minority the between differences static on based theories any disconfirm not relations in whetheror and Burgenlanddetermines minority the Carinthia mobilize. will majority-minority of history the that hypothesis the represents field this fact In disconfirmed. –are predominantly reason speakingforbe state the German languageconflictswould in languagelinguistic a aSlavic differences – speaking or cultural explanation that Again, hypothesis the outcome resource prove this wouldprimordialistthe Equally, wrong. minority. the and majority the between differences cultural and aslinguistic such variables static of function a is mobilization minority that theory primordialist the represents field this fact, In time. opportunity structures, nor is it the outcome of changes in internal mobilization resources over discursive and institutional changing to a reaction neither is mobilization minority the case, time, even if their economic and political environmentway,it is possible todiscern different driving forces for minority mobilization. does changeschematic in a comparison complex this representing By over in time. point any at time.differently or If this is the In field “4”, the two minorities mobilize independently minorities in to In field “4”,each other, independently of contrast two mobilize the would outcome This simultaneously. mobilize minorities two the “3”, field In In field fixed. minorities“2”,and these two are behave differently the differences In field “1”, the two groups behave the same, their behaviour does not change over 52 CEU eTD Collection external political opportunity eliteexternal butthedivided whichmade opportunity Croat structure, political effective Socialist group to adopt a pro-German, assimilationist stance. Therefore, it was not the lack of was only butcausedthe Croats, conservatives Yugoslavthe support welcomed bythe possible. By contrast,to minority maderights appropriation of externalinstitutionalthe opportunity structure as a consequence of the division in the rights. minority any need not internal did they elite structureYugoslav of government.the The Socialist minority by alienated was totally stateand their kin itself publicly from distanced the Croats reacted even more Croat the exchange apeople’s Yugoslav claims afterregarding the as well. However, strongly and proclaimed that governmentand perceived Yugoslavia astheir stateand kin supporter in these claims. ideological divisions,its all representatives of Despite the minority were eager to obtain Vienna. of protection from the Austrian Treaty State the in rights minority of inclusion the for then and Yugoslavia by annexation the for first mobilised minority Slovene The minorities. both was appropriated by not structure opportunity goals. This achieve their political minorities to for two the structure apolitical opportunity constituted certainly government, the Yugoslav common state, from the kin Treaty support State DuringNegotiations, the 1945 – 1955: State Treaty 4.1 Negotiations internal resources. their mobilization different times. This supports hypothesisthe outcome mobilization theirthat isfunction a of cannotexplain and opportunity why Croats structures mobilize Slovenes the would at such external resources, as political fluctuations Furthermore, explain inmobilization. these In this period, the fact that the Slovenes had a unified political leadership with regard with leadership had political aunified fact Slovenes the that the In thisperiod, In the Croat case, the HKD tried to mobilise for the safeguarding of the minority rights 53 CEU eTD Collection 163 had if Slovenes the Even phenomenon. explain this to able are resources mobilizational German-nationalist organisations against bilingual primary in schools late1950s.The the of campaigns littlethe very against the mobilized minority Slovene the most threatened, Slovenes showed a very developmentinpositive this field, Croatsweredisadvantaged. the increase in for factthe size very hadimplications elite the of – the minority the whereas school endangered. This primary even if was inbilingual Secondary the Klagenfurt, School of a least establishment achieve the at Slovenes could thiscontrast, issue.By around thethat Croatelites minority divided were hindered ontheissue of rights anymobilization Again, fact the schooling. adequate andthelack of modernization economic of consequence Austrian government was notinclined to implement the provisions laid down in Art.the 7. showed, Raab chancellor federal with Slovenes the of negotiations the as Furthermore, its astheYugoslav disappeared influence lost government decision-making. Austrian over of minorities. structure both occupation the period The externalpolitical opportunity for The perioda between of 1955 and 1960was period integration political and assimilation 1955 – late 1960s: Period of Integration 4.2 and Assimilation a politically forgedintothat the Slovene active group. factor mobilizing important extremely an certainly was regime Nazi the against movement organized resistance an had theSlovenes factthat established note the that to important explains mobilization theresources differencebetween of 1945 and itthis 1955.In is context, mobilization internal in the difference This impossible. rights minority for mobilization Sturm, „Emanzipation und Folklore,“ 347. Folklore,“ und „Emanzipation Sturm, Against the expectations of theories that minorities mobilize in periods when they are they when periods in mobilize minorities that theories of expectations the Against asa strong, minorities were on pressures assimilationist the period, In this 54 163 CEU eTD Collection tried to utilize these opportunity structures. However, there were two factors that hampered factors that However,weretwo there structures. utilize theseopportunity tried to also minority Croat The decisions. its change to government federal the on pressure enough exercise could they that impression the had still They continued. population majority the by Ortstafelsturm,the mobilize. Slovenes the for continued to this Thereason support wasthat after implementation firstgovernmental in the signs,bilingual support street which of resulted in drop the Despite organizations. German-nationalist the by rights minority of extension locus for mobilization. Another important mobilizing factor was the opposition to the animportant for constituted do Carinthian Slovenes school able secondary this to becausethe provisions laiddownin 7. Art. The Slovenes utilized these opportunity They structures. were the implement to inclined was and Austria liberalise to began in Austria government Kreisky opportunity was structure accompanied by institutional an as structure, opportunity the new generation minorityof rights activists tomobilize around minority rights. This discursive minorityfor a on mobilization. The up new empowered civil rights discourse opportunities opened in Europe movement 1968s related the as well as US in the movements rights human societal major The late1960sand –thecivil and of 1970swereaperiod changes rights Late 1960s – 1980: Minority Rights Movement vs. 4.3 Cleavages within the perceive this as a political opportunity empoweringstructure them demandto language rights. though they were very in integrated well politicalthe system Burgenland,of they not did unifiednot in their lacked claims, they internal for mobilization.resources Therefore, even were elites their Since assimilation. against mobilize not did Croats the why explain also can Resource theory modest. remainedrather education bilingualprimary attacks on against the mobilize.mobilization their to Therefore structure lackedissues,opportunity apolitical they greater internal resources than the Croats, in the form of a strong elite cohesion on minority Minority 55 CEU eTD Collection Consequently, Slovene organizations begantopursuediffering the political strategies. longer majority disappeared. wasno mobilizing –thus important there factor government an isimportant from opposition the Another the aspect that the Croats. Slovene to compared the to concessions give further to reluctant more were parties political the Carinthia, in signs street bilingual in implementing difficulties the to Due issues. minority on compromise to opened by in government Socialist 1970shadthe the –thepolitical tried disappeared parties hadalready obtained. Slovene the concessions the refer to always they could minority, as Croat the empowered further minority rights, various for successfully pushed Slovenes the that fact The assimilation. for fought actively that minority in the group language Even rights. though divisions remained,they as strongwere not and there wasno 1945, the minority unifiedwas inits toachieve efforts their constitutionally guaranteed since time first the For stance. assimilationist their changed party Socialist the in politicians Croat the Fritz Robak, of retirement the After renaissance. ethnic of era the this was Croats, minorities divergentIn the two 1980s and1990s, the strategies. adopted Inthecase of the 1980s – 1990s: Demobilization vs. Ethnic 4.4 Renaissance political structures. opportunity community lacked the unified political elite which would havebeen able toutilize the existing Croat the Consequently, rights. minority implement to HKD the of tendencies the against Croatian school. apolitically Second, influential groupCroat of Socialist politicians fought this First, process. they lacked intelligentsiaan whichhad been inpoliticised a common, In the case of In because happened demobilization caseof the opportunity structure Slovenes the 56 CEU eTD Collection 164 “lacks” the unifyingfactor majorityof opposition. According long-term the to community Mag.Zlatka of Gieler,president HKD, the Croat the again. out broke minority within the internal divisions Furthermore, aswell.disappeared asin never Slovene case, the asstrong support, extra-parliamentary Their institutionalised. are Advisory theirCouncil for Ethnic the Groups.Since relations federalgovernment then, with divisions. in, set overcomedemobilization will dependson capability of the its internal minority the to of new whetherperiod a or besuccessful will mobilization the Whether weakened. inHowever, new divisions minority theSlovene within emerged,2003, and its position was be seemed to internal lessanddifferences important werelaunched. various initiatives to unify minority In the organisations. face the opposition by of majority the government their provincial government was so fierce against the decision of the constitutional court functioned opportunity was recognizedstructure andused. Initially, veryfact the thatopposition by the constitutional A new institutional structure general openedopportunity with the of tendency the court to makeminority-mobilizationin 2003, directions. opposite In of evolved mid-1990sto the period the minority-friendly Mid-1990s – decisions.to 4.5 2003 In the case of the Slovenes, this Interview with Zlatka Gieler. In the Croat case, a trend towards demobilization started when they joined the 57 164 CEU eTD Collection 168 167 Burgenländischen Kroaten 166 “Sociolinguistics,” 7. 165 language formobilized rights. neither wasgreatest, minorities Slovene and Croat the on pressures when assimilation weaker than in the Slovene case. Also, in the period from mid-1990s to the present, the present, tothe from mid-1990s in theperiod Also, case. in Slovene weaker than the bilingual schools, administration and media. Despite this, minority mobilization was much lack of the pressures dueto toassimilationist more exposed andwastherefore Slovenes the and viceversa. demobilization accountfor mobilization sudden notfrom can Laponce’s theories to changes minority mobilization over time. Primordial theories such as Rustow’s, Deutsch’s or slowly over between the majority andtime, the minority. Cultural differences are qualities which tend tochange differences cultural and theylinguistic as such variables of function a is mobilization minority do not shift quickly enoughup in already modernization caught process. the to account had minorities the when a time intense at most was mobilization cases selected the In claims. for rapid explainnotthey minority do whyperiodically mobilizedthe demobilized and for these fluctuationsplace. first in the made are claims language why explain members minority for in material developed Fishman by Economic theories and Laitinbenefits arguethat Sniderman, short. fall theories other the where mobilization minority in fluctuations for account can minority, of the resources internal and ontheexternal focuses which theory, Resource Schöpflin, Rustow, “Transitions,” 337-363; Laponce, Albert F. Reiterer, Sniderman et.al, “Double Standards,” 537-544. Laitin, “Language Policy,”415-36. Fishman, Similarly, Schöpflin’s theory Similarly,is Schöpflin’s theory refuted by fact very the that in 1950s and1960s, the The results of this analysis also proves primordialist theories wrong that claim that wrong theories primordialist proves also analysis this of results The Nations, 167 Zwischen Wohlstand und Identität. Ethnische Minderheiten und Modernisierung: die 72. . Wien: 1990. 168 For years the Croat minority had fewer minority rights than Langue etterritoire C ONCLUSION 58 166 .; Deutsch, “Space and Freedom,” 125-138. 165 However, CEU eTD Collection policies. By contrast, the Croats weredivided the Croats in and policies. By contrast, perceived thosewho opportunities these assimilationistachieve pursued that byan their minority rights provincial to government goal the pro-minority decisions of the constitutional court. humanin negotiations late 1960s thecivil and movementrights and (1945-55), –1970s, the treaty by duringstate of period the the Yugoslav the government support were:the minorities mobilization not happendid simultaneously. opportunity The forstructures openedthat the mobilization. are driversof selectedcases In the structures institutional opportunity discursiveor such as mobilization external resources, that thatargues by atheory explained ideological differences. considerable despite Slovene organisation Carinthian the unifiedAustrian Freedom Party, certainly the of politics inthe ideology their of integration the and Abwehrkämpferbund” “Kärntner the Heimatbund”, “Kärntner as the such organisations anti-Slovene of Theexistence mobilized. introops formed1920 a rallyingaround point which an inanti-Slovene movement Carinthia andfor theminority. factor unifying history the Thus, of againstSouthern resistance Slavic mobilizing a constitute can claims minority against majority the by opposition that is true It aspect. interesting an contains theory this However, time. over behaviour minority in changes explain hypothesis cannot Thus, this mobilization. the between andalternated demobilization minorities both cases, strategy. In same pursuethe consistently not minorities do the that fact the for account cannot mobilizes minority the not or whether determines Burgenland comparably weak. minority fifty years are pressures greater andassimilation courseof last the in protections the Slovene minority again mobilizedlanguage for claims, even though minoritythe obtained As inmyanalysis,outlined in all periods, the minority these Slovene in was unified be cases can Croats mobilization inthe and the Slovenes minority shifts of Identical and Carinthia in relations majority-minority of history the that hypothesis The 59 CEU eTD Collection when they enjoy more rights than ever before. ever than rights more enjoy they when languageminorities for rights mobilize even might attimes situation that arise paradoxical the Therefore interests. to defend them whichempower their resources, mobilizational external and internal existing the of a function but place, first in the policies assimilationist mobilize and theintensity of mobilization Minority changes. ismobilization not afunction of minority to of change, capacity a the to arealways subject factors these Since has. minority structure are strongly institutional tothenot existence of related a discursive opportunity or political in mobilization over time. The reason why certain minorities are mobilized whereas others are 169 predict is itto possible Therefore a theory dynamic theories, model resources explainconstitutes mobilization. minority to happens. opportunity structures political are there where cases inthose Only mobilization. in minority role important outcome supports the hypothesis that andfully explain whytheCroats the Slovenes wouldmobilize atdifferenttimes. This cannot such structures, opportunity as political betweenthem.differences resources, External the explains and cases selected in the making claim minority of account satisfactory cleavages elitesits among Resource theory and their organisations. themostprovides utilized deep the because of not was structure opportunity political case, the existing political opportunity itbestructure; also has perceived to asan opportunity. opportunity of importance the of qualification al.’s et McAdam who assimilation. Here, worked for those structures comes into play. They assert that it is not enough that there McAdam, Tarrow, Tilly, The advantage of this approach is that in contrast to the economic or primordialist or economic the to in contrast isthat approach this of The advantage and theinternal aselitemobilizing– the cohesion,– such structures resources Dynamics of Contention and internal mobilization resources to mobilization resources internal when mobilization mobilization happens anditfor account the shifts can internal , 43. 60 mobilization play resources an equally utilize them, mobilization them, 169 In the Croat is a CEU eTD Collection All interviews were conducted in wereconducted All interviews April and May2007. President of the Hravtsko kulturno društvo Mag. [Croatian Zlatka Cultural Gieler Head of the Hrvatski Kulturni i Dokumentarni Centar [CroatianMartin Ivancsics Cultural Representative of the Narodni Svet KoroškihDr. Rudolf Slovencev Vouk [Council of the Smrtnik Mag. Vladimir President of the Zveza Dr. Slovenskih Marjan Organizacij Sturm [Central Association of List of Interview Partners HAK KUGA HKDC HKD KEL SKS NSKS ZSO AcronymsList of Hrvatski Akademski Klub [Croatian Academic Club] Academic [Croatian Klub Akademski Hrvatski Kulturna Zadruga [Cultural Association] Documentation and Centre] Cultural [Croatian Centar Dokumentarni i Kulturni Hrvatski kulturnoHravtsko društvo [Croatian Cultural Association] List] Unity [Carinthian lista enotna Koroška Slovenes] Carinthian of [Community in Slovenk Slovencev koroških Skupnost Slovenes] Carinthian the of [Council Slovencev Koroških Svet Narodni Zveza Slovenskih Organizacij [Central Association of Slovene Organizations] Association]from 1988 to2006 Croats and Documentation Centre] and chairman of the Advisory Council for Slovenes] Carinthian List] Unity [Carinthian lista enotna Koroška the of President Slovene Organizations] G LOSSARY 61 CEU eTD Collection London, Sydney and Toronto: John Wiley &Sons, Inc. 1968. Inc. &Sons, Wiley John Toronto: and Sydney London, Fishman, Fergusan (eds.), and Gupta Fishman, Joshua. “Sociolinguistics and the Language Problems of Developing Countries.” In Political ScienceReview Eisinger, Peter. “The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities.” In In Incompatible Groups.” of for theTemporary Separation Conditions “SpaceW. Freedom: Karl and Deutsch, et droit De Witte, Bruno. “Droits fondamentaux et protection de la diversitélinguistique.” In Drava,1995. Klagenfurt: Baumgartner, Gerhard. Baumgartner, Karin Wien: 309-327. Pinter, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1988. Minderheiten inder Politik, Baumgartner, Gerhard. „Minderheiten als politische Kraft.“ In du! EthnischeMinderheiteninderPolitik. Karin Pinter. Perchinig; Bernhard Rainer; Gerhard Baumgartner; Bauböck, Review, Adamson, Fiona B. “Global Liberalism versus Political Islam.” In Secondary Sources Documents on theCarinthian Question, 128-131. priests of Carinthia Council the to Celovec/Klagenfurt, 3.2.1947Foreign of Ministers), – Memorandum von 51 Priestern an die Außenministerkonferenz (Memorandum of 51 Slovene Austria), 1955. 11.10. (Memorandum of the Carinthian Slovenes to the Federal Government of the Republic of Memorandum derKärntnerRepublik Slowenen Bundesregierung an die Österreich Carinthian Question, ed. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the FPRY (Beograd 1948) 81 ff. Carinthian Slovenes to the British military government), 27.6.1945 – Documents on the of (Memorandum britische Militärregierung andie Slowenen derKärntner Memorandum Primary Sources , Paul Pupier and José Woehrling. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1989. (No. 7, 2005): 547-569. (No. 6xÖsterreich. Geschichte undaktuelle Situation der Volksgruppen 67 (March 1973): 11-12. International Political Science Review ed. Bernhard Perchinig; Bauböck,Rainer; Gerhard Baumgartner; Language ProblemsDeveloping of Nations B IBLIOGRAPHY Wien: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1988. 62 ...und rausbist du!Ethnische ...und (5): 125-138. (5): International Studies ...und raus bist American . New York, Langue . CEU eTD Collection Laponce, Jean. Laponce, Kassl, Klagenfurt: Verlag 81-108. Land Kärnten, 2006. kritische Beleuchtung aus Eine Expertensicht. Ortstafelfrage Karner, Stefan.„Bemühungen zur Lösung desKärntner Minderheitenproblems 2005.“ In Braumüller, 2004. ed. Martin Pandel, Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Vospernik. Wien: Namen auf Ortstafeln und in Karten.“ In Jordan, Peter.„Ortsnamen als Kulturgut. Die symbolische Wirkung von geographischen London: Cornell University Press, 2007. Jenne, Erin K. Verlag, 1988. Berücksichtigung dergesamtslowenischen Geschichte Valentin. Inzko, Minderheit.“ Masterthesis, University of Vienna, 2002. Kroaten, sowie das Wirken politischer Akteureim Zusammenhang mitder ethnischen Situation dersozioökonomischen der burgenländischen Jahrtausendwende. Darstellung Illedits, Stefan. „Die Situation der kroatischen im Volksgruppe Burgenland zur Hobsbawm, Eric J. Karpf and Kassl, Thomas Klagenfurt: Verlag 66-80. LandKärnten, 2006. Vergleich.” In Vergleich.” Hipold, Peter and Nora Winkler. “Die Ortstafelfrage in Kärnten und Südtirol – ein 1977. Karl Haas, Hans; Stuhlpfarrer. Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Wien: Vospernik, 247-271. Braumüller, 2004. Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten – Krise oder Chance? , Gstettner, Peter. „Der Ortstafelsturm- eine Bewegung gegen Gesetz und Ordnung.“ In VerlagKlagenfurt: LandKärnten, 2006. kritischeBeleuchtung aus Expertensicht.Eine Glantschnig, Gerold. “Die Ortstafelfrage-eine Sachverhaltsdarstellung.” In Köln, Weimar: 1998. Böhlau, Bundesländer seit 1945. Kärnten Glantschnig, Gerold. „Das Minderheitenschulrecht.“ In Vospernik, Wien: 76-79. Braumüller, 2004. – Krise oderChance?, Gieler, “Zweisprachige Zlatka. Topographie im Burgenland.” In 1986. Stefan. Geosits, Ethnic Bargaining.The Paradox of EmpowermentEthnic Minority Die Ortstafelfrage aus Die Ortstafelfrage Expertensicht. Einekritische Beleuchtung Langue etterritoire Die burgenländischen Kroaten imWandel der Zeiten. Geschichte der SlowenenKärntner von1918bis zur Gegenwart unter The AgeofRevolution: Europe 1789-1848 ed. Martin Pandel, Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Österreich undseineSlowenen , ed.HelmutRumpler andWien, Ulfried Burz,520-547. . Quebec: Les presses de l’Université Laval, 1984. Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten – Ortstafelkonflikt Krise oder Chance?, 63 , ed. Peter Karpf and Thomas Kassl, 30-55. ed. Martin Pandel, Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, . Wien, Klagenfurt: Hermagoras Geschichte derösterreichischen , ed. Peter Karpf and Thomas . Wien: Löcker&Wögenstein, Wien: . . London: 1962. Ortstafelkonflikt inKärnten Wien: Edition Tusch, Edition Wien: . Ithaca and . Ithaca Die Ortstafelfrage , ed.Peter Die CEU eTD Collection Europaverlag, 1985. In Reiterer, Albert F. „Ethnisches Konfliktmanagement in Österreich: Burgenland und Kärnten.“ Holzer, Wien: 191-206. Passagen Verlag, 1993. Robak, Fritz. Robak, ethnischen Arbeitsteilung F. Albert Reiterer, München:1995. Oldenbourg, In Burgenlandkroaten.“ den bei Politik und Religion Himmelreich. zum Schlüssel „Die Albert, Reiterer (Jun91, Vol. 85Issue 2):495-513. Pool Europe encyclopaedia of Polzer Srienz, Mirjam. “The Slovene Community in Austria.” In Europe encyclopaedia of Polzer Srienz, Mirjam. “The Croat Community in Austria.” In Europe Polzer Srienz, Mirjam.“Austria an Overview.” In and WillKymlicka. Oxford: Oxford University 2003. Press, Context, Issues, and Approaches,“ In Patten, Alan and Will Kymlicka. „Introduction: Language Rights and Political Theory: 1993. Hermagoras/Mohorjeva: Österreichisches Volksgruppenzentrum, Österreichisches Andreas Moritsch, 9-29. Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva, 2000. In Kärnten.“ in Ideologien „Nationale Andreas. Moritsch, Cambridge University 2001. Press, McAdam, Doug; Sidney Tarrow; Charles Tilly. Theory May, Stephen. „Misconceivign minority language rights,“ In UlfriedWien, Burz,494-520. Köln, Weimar: 1998. Böhlau, 1945. Kärnten BundesländerseitGeschichte der österreichischen Malle, Augustin. „Die Position der Kärntner Slowenen im Nationalitätenkonflikt.“ In 36. Laitin, David. “Language Policy and Political Strategy in India.” In Minderheiten als Konfliktpotential in Ostmittel und Südosteuropa , Jonathan. “The Official Language Problem”. In Problem”. “The Language Official Jonathan. , eds.Alan andPatten Will Kymlicka. Oxford: Oxford University 2003. Press, , ed. Karl Cordell, 30-41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Kroaten imBurgenland.EineDokumentation. Kärntner oder Elite?NeuereTendenzenSlowenen: der Minderheit Trendwende? Sprache und Ethnizität im Trendwende? SpracheundEthnizität Burgenland , ed. Karl , ed.Karl PalgraveCordell, Basingstoke: 35-41. Macmillan,2004. , ed.Karl PalgraveCordell, Basingstoke: 41-44. Macmillan,2004. . Klagenfurt, Celovec:. Klagenfurt, Drava Verlag, 1996. Language Rights and PoliticalTheory Burgenländische Kroaten 64 Dynamics of Contention.Dynamics of The ethnopolitical encyclopaediaof The ethnopolitical American Political Science Review Kärntner Slovenen.Kärntner 1900-2000 Wien, München, Zürich: München, Wien, Language Rightsand Political The ethnopolitical The ethnopolitical , ed. Helmut Rumpler and . Klagenfurt: Policy Sciences , ed. Gerhard Seewann. Cambridge: , eds. Alan Patten , ed. Werner, ed. (22): 415- (22): , ed. CEU eTD Collection 128-199. Wien:128-199. Braumüller, 2004. Chance?, Suppan, Arnold. „Zur GeschichteSüdkärntens.“ In 9-70.Janez Klagenfurt, Laibach, Stergar, Wien, 2005. Hermagoras: im 20. Jahrhundert.“ In einer DieSuppan, Arnold.und schwierigen „Kärnten Nachbarschaft Geschichte Slowenien: Bernhard Karin Perchinig; 344-353. Wien:Pinter, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, 1988. du! EthnischeMinderheiteninderPolitik. Sturm, Marian. „Kärntner Slowenen zwischen Emanzipation und Folklore.“ In Graz, Wien, Köln: Böhlau, 1980. Gerald. Stourzh, Köln, Weimar: 1998. Böhlau, Bundesländer seit 1945.Kärnten Stieber, Gabriela. „Die Briten als Besatzungsmacht.“ In zur Gegenwart. Gehler. Michael Rolf; Steininger, Volksgruppe Österreichs Analyse Renaissance. Eine der der territorialengrößten autochthonen Veränderung Die Birgit. Stabel, No.2(Vol. 22, Sep.1989): 259-284. In and Freedoms.” of Rights Charter Canadian the and Language Problem the toward Double in Rights Mass and Attitudes of Elite Standards: Sniderman, Paul M., Joseph f. Fletcher; Peter H. Russel; Philip E. Tetlock, “Political Culture 2000. Hermagoras/Mohorjeva, Kärntner Slovenen. 1900-2000 Smolle, Karel.„Die Kärntner Slowenen und die österreichischen politischen Parteien.“ In Andreas Moritsch, 263-280. Klagenfurt: Hermagoras/Mohorjeva, 2000. Sima, Valentin. „GewaltundWiderstand 1941-1945,“In Wien.Neugebauer, 744-766. inÖsterreichHerrschaft 1938-1945 In Herrschaft.“ nationalsozialistischer unter Slowenen Kärntner „Die Sima, Valentin. Wograndl, 1983. Gradiš Bela. Schreiner, Schöpflin, George. Schöpflin, 337-363. Rustow, Dankwart A. “Transitions to Democracy.” In ü ankskih Hrvatov 450ljet kroz ankskih ed. Martin Pandel, Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Vospernik, Wien: Böhlau, 1997. Das Schicksal derBurgenländischen Kroatendurch 450Jahre. Sudbina Geschichte des ÖsterreichsStaatsvertrages 1945-55. Weg zurNeutralität. Burgenländischen Kroaten zwischen Assimilationundethnischer Nations, Identity, Power. Kärnten undSlowenien –„DickichtundPfade . Master thesis, . Master University 2001. Innsbruck, of , ed.Andreas Moritsch, 213-235.Klagenfurt: , ed.HelmutRumpler andWien, Ulfried Burz,107-137. Österreich im20.Jahrhundert. VomZweiten Weltkrieg bis , ed. Emmerich Talos, Ernst Hanisch,Wolfgang . Mattersburg,Austria: BuchundOffsetdruck Bernd ed. Bauböck, Rainer; Gerhard Baumgartner; New York: New York University Press, 2000. 65 Canadian Journal ofPoliticalScience Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten –Krise oder Comparative Politics Geschichte derösterreichischen Kärntner Slovenen.Kärntner 1900-2000 , ed. Stefan Karner, (April 1970): ...und rausbist ...und NS- , ed. , CEU eTD Collection Braumüller, 2004. Martin Pandel, Mirjam Polzer-Srienz, Miroslav Polzer, Reginald Vospernik, 79-128. Wien: Tarrow, Sidney G. burgenländischen KroatenimWandelder Zeiten. Szucsich, Franz. „Das Vereineswesen der burgenländischen Kroaten.“ In Stefan Geosits Vouk, Vouk, Rudolf.„Der Anlassfall.“ In Druck –und Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001. 2001 in Volksgruppenfrage Kärnten – historisch betrachtet.“ In Valentin, Hellwig. „Von der Konfrontation zum Dialog. Die Entwicklung der Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998. , ed.Karl Anderwald, PeterKarpf, Hellwig Klagenfurt: Valentin, Kärntner 277-290. Power inmovement:social movements andcontentious politics Ortstafelkonflikt inKärnten –Krise oder Chance?, 66 Wien: 1986. Tusch, Edition Kärntner Jahrbuch Politil., für . ed. , Die