THE SOUTH SLAV QUESTION PART I:
THE DOUBLE EAGLE ARRIVES IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
“We´re on our own ground here, and anyone else who comes is a stranger and won´t be able to hold out for long. Many people have come here intending to stay, but so far we´ve seen the back of all of them. ”
Hamid Bey, in: Ivo Andrić, “Bosnian Chronicle”
The Congress of Berlin and Austria’s Way to Sarajevo
“The Congress for the peaceful settlement of the Eastern turmoil has begun today in a solemn manner; it is the third major Congress in this century, which met today in Berlin, and as the Congress of Vienna of 1815, the one of Paris of 1856, the Congress of 1878 will as well significantly reshape the map of our part of the world.”i
Berlin 1878. The leading statesmen of European Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire hold a conference in purpose to reorganize the Balkans after the Russo-Turkish War. The congress chaired by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck aims to revise the Treaty of San Stefano to satisfy the interests of Great Britain and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. As a result of the four-week convention the states of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania gain independence, while Bulgaria is established as an independent principality inside the Ottoman Empire, though without the territories of Macedonia and Thrace, which remain under Ottoman rule. Moreover, Great Britain takes over Cyprus, whereas the Austro-Hungarian Empire obtains the right to occupy the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina. With the signing of the final agreement the so called Eastern Question seems to be solved, at least for those, who could enforce their interests on the Balkans, such as Austria-Hungary, while the public opinion hereof doesn´t share any reason for an optimistic attitude. One of the leading daily newspapers of the Habsburg-Monarchy wrote on 14 July 1878:
“Unfortunately, it would be a foolish hope to consider the Treaty of Berlin as the gate, through which Europe enters the valley of eternal peace. The whole work of the Congress is a piecemeal, calculated only for the immediate future, without duration and stability.”ii
The outcomes of the Congress not only significantly changed the geopolitical situation on the Balkan Peninsula, but thus once again worsened the relationship between the Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire since the Crimean War and Austrian´s politics of neutrality. Followed by the Conference the Austro-Hungarian and German Empire contracted a defensive alliance in 1879 obligating the two powers to support each other in case of an attack by the Russian Empire and furthermore neutrality in case of an engagement with any other power. The alliance was joined by Italy in 1882. In 1892 the Russian Empire formed an alliance with France, which was to be remained in force as long as the Triple Alliance between Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy was in force. In addition, France signed a series of agreements with the United Kingdom in 1904. This alliance policy is one stone of the complex mosaic that led towards the outbreak of the First World War.
The territorial integration of Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Monarchy takes place in two steps. Two weeks after the Treaty of Berlin, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire starts with the first step: the occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novi Pazar with an imperial army of 72 000 soldiers. Contrary to expectation, they faced fierce resistance especially in the Muslim population. After a three week campaign the imperial troops occupied Sarajevo, whereas it took further three months and an expanded force of 268 000 soldiers to bear down the rising in the rest of the country. The occupation of predominantly Catholic Austria-Hungary caused a mass exodus among the Muslim population, for instance to avoid conscription. Referring to official reports of Austria-Hungary some 32 625 Muslims fled to Istanbul between 1883 and 1905 with 4 042 returning, whereas an estimated number of 24 000 bolted in the period of 1907 and 1918. The British historian Noel Malcolm adds that these numbers just indicate the migration after 1883 (five years after the occupation), when Austro-Hungarian officials startled by the immense number, so that John Lampe suggests a number of 200000 Muslims fleeing during the time of occupation.iii
Even in the Monarchy the act of occupation was not without controversy. Especially the Hungarian politicians feared that an increase in Slavic population could tip the demographic balance of the Monarchy with political consequences for the Hungarians. What is more, the mandate of the Congress of Berlin imposed a “civilizing mission” on Austria- Hungary, which meant a great financial burden. Therefore the occupation had primarily strategic reasons. Already in 1856 General Radetzky presented the view to protect the desirable coastline of Dalmatia by taking possession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially after the war with France the loss of territory was supposed to be compensated with an expansion in the south.iv In addition, it was hoped that the expansion of power in the Balkans could minimize Russian influence and could enable a better control of the smaller neighboring countries, as for instance the aggressive territorial nationalism and Pan-Slavism of Serbia posed a direct threat to the Monarchy.
An important question was as well how to benefit economically from the new territories. The Viennese newspaper “Neue Freie Presse” examined in an article from 13 July 1878 the qualities of the inhabitants, which represent “the value of a country”: “Moreover, the population of Bosnia as well as of Herzegovina is of a strong, beautiful race; in particular the Herzegovinians resembles the Dalmatian, a notoriously efficient human race in all its habitus. The only question is whether it will succeed easily to take advantage for Austria of the, in the national character slumbering efficiency, or if we rather must be concerned that pretty much all of the energy and character down there, will be used against the new Lord, against us.”v
The occupation enabled indeed the development of a new market. Therefore the modernization of infrastructure was the most important prerequisite for the cultural and economic development, especially the construction of the railroad played an important role, particularly regarding the military importance of it. To put it in a nutshell: “civilization means transport”. vi
Within the first decade, the Habsburg-Monarchy financed thousand miles of new roads and railway tracks, which led to a tremendous growth in commercial and industrial sectors. That is to say that a number of factories were constructed to process the area’s resources, such as the very productive steel mills of Zenica, which were built in 1892 and still exist today.vii
In 1908 the second step of the integration of Bosnia into the Monarchy took place: the act of annexation. After the huge investments in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the fact that for instance private investors hesitated in investing in the new territories as long as the international status of Bosnia was unclear, the official annexation by the Habsburg-Monarchy was indeed a logical and predictable step. Nevertheless, the act of annexation was followed by protestation from all the Great Powers and in particular from Montenegro and Serbia. Russia felt humiliated by the strategy of Austria-Hungary´s foreign minister Count Aehrenthal, who without an arrangement with the Russian Empire went ahead with the annexation, while Serbia´s dream of a Greater Serbia receded into the distance, so that Serbia´s prime minster Nikola Pašić even demanded a declaration of war against the Monarchy.viii The Bosnian Crisis represents another small step towards the First World War, since it once again impaired the relationship with Belgrade and St. Petersburg and besides changed the political and ethnic conditions within the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
The administration in Bosnia and the future structure of the Monarchy
After the occupation and later on the annexation, Bosnia and Herzegovina became neither part of Austria (“Cisleithania”) nor of Hungary (“Transleithania”), but “imperial land” (“Reichsland”) and therefore administrated by the Joint Ministry of Finance and the subordinated provincial government “Landesregierung”. One of the most important and challenging task since the very beginning of the administration had been to somehow develop a strategy to stabilize the political and social situation. So the question was, how to proceed to obtain a semblance of ethnic cohesion and hence stability. The most formative policy hereof was made under the authority of Béni Kállay, who held the office of Minister of Finance for a period of 21 years (1882-1903). His approach was to isolate the Bosnian people from the strong nationalist influence of Serbia and Croatia through banning all kind of national organizations and cultural institutions, while supporting the development of a Bosniak identity (“bošnjaštvo”). This concept aimed to create a unified Bosnian identity beyond religious creed. With his concept Kállay relied first of all on the Muslim population, as this certain group had the most prominent position in the Bosnian society due to their large land ownership. Aside from that, the Austrian-Hungarian administration in Bosnia underlay as well the principle of dualism and therefore had to consider the interests of both halves of the Empire. As a consequence the administration couldn´t actively support neither the Croats nor the Serbs, but the Muslim population. This concept couldn´t gain a broad support in the Bosnian society and eventually failed due to various reasons, such as the fact that especially the Serb nationalist ideology was already too advanced to effectively suppress it. Kállay´s administration has also been criticized for a lack of understanding of ethnic dynamics particularly in the rural sector.ix Although foreign minister Count Andrássy explained during the Congress of Berlin, that an important social problem of the Bosnian society was the feudal agrarian systemx, the Austrian-Hungarian administration decided not to remove it. As already mentioned, the majority of arable land was in the hands of Muslim landowners (2% of the population), whereas the largest demographic group of Bosnia were Christian tenants, so-called “kmetovi”, (50 %) followed by free peasants (29,75%). These tenants were not only obligated for payment to their landlords, but also had to pay taxes to the Austrian-Hungarian administration, so that this era was connected with increased burden on them.xi A broad land reform could have smoothed the way to defuse ethnic tension and to overcome ethnic differences. But why did the Austrian-Hungarian administration then decide to keep the feudal system?
Most probably they feared that the resistance of the powerful landowners could have caused political unrests in Bosnia and an emigration wave among the Muslims, which could have tipped the confessional balance in favor of the Serbs and thus weakened the position of the Habsburg Monarchy in Bosnia.xii Furthermore, the chance of such a reform evoked opposition from Hungarian landowners fearing a possible uprising of their Romanian and Serbian tenants.xiii One could this anticipated reform see as an exposure of Austrian-Hungarian´s “civilizing mission”. According to Francine Friedman “it was in the interest of Austria Hungary to perpetuate feudalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina so the area could be more easily exploited.”xiv
The failure to carry out a land reform and the increase of unrests among the tenants created a breeding ground for Serb and Croat nationalist ideology. On that point, the American historian Robert J. Donia reckons the following:
“Peasants rebelled against these antiquated and inequitable agrarian relations in several uprisings in the early 20th century, and their plight became the cause célèbre of youthful Serb and Croat nationalists who turned so bitterly against the empire in the decade before the First World War.”xv
After the era of Kállay, the Hungarian politician István Burián von Rajecz became joint minister of finance and thus responsible for the administration in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He terminated the politics à la Kállay and allowed the existence of political, cultural and religious organizations for the Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims. He assumed that it could come to violent confrontations if the administration continues to withhold autonomy from the different ethnic groups. During his administration Bosnia-Herzegovina received a constitution in 1910 and with that a provincial parliament (“Sabor”). The Parliament was only equipped with a few competences, so it could not for instance independently propose or enact laws, whereas it had the important responsibility to determine the amount of the annual budget for the Austrian-Hungarian administration in Bosnia. Although the class system of franchise was abandoned in Austria in 1907, the Bosnian Parliament was based on this certain system and furthermore on a confessional principle. The Parliament consisted among others of 72 electoral delegates, 31 of whom for Orthodox Christians, 24 for Muslims, 16 for Catholics and one for Jews. xvi Initially István Burián expected that the formation of modern political parties and a parliament could undermine the nationalist influence of certain organizationsxvii, but it rather came to an opposite development. After the first election in 1910 all mandates were gained by predominantly nationalist parties. These parties organized the various nationalist ideologies, strengthened and disseminated them and used the Parliament as a political platform to do so. The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 can be considered as a further catalyzer of the various nationalist ideologies. With this step, the Austrian-Hungarian administration not only severely damaged the relationship and support of the Muslims, but disappointed the Croats, who hoped for an annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in favor of the Croatian state. xviii As a result, the Yugoslav idea of a unified state for all South Slav people and thus the Croat-Serb coalition were strengthened. The South Slav Youth was a crucial vehicle of this ideology, while an important center of this certain ideology was the city of Prague, as many South Slav students, especially from Croatia, have chosen to study there. Influenced by the Czech politician Tomáš G. Masaryk the Progressive Youth initially wanted a step by step change of the conditions in the Monarchy to enable a unification of the South Slav people, but especially after the annexation it came to a radicalization of this attitude to the credit of a revolutionary one. xix This radicalization strongly influenced by the Serbian colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević “Apis”, leader of the nationalist movement “Ujedinjenje ili smrt!” (“Unification or Death!”) was reflected in the attempts from 1910 on to assassinate the Croatian pro-Austrian politician Slavko Cuvaj and the governor of Bosnia Marijan Varešanin.xx
The Monarchy was in danger of losing control in Bosnia, as uprisings of tenants and of students demanding unification with Serbia became quite frequent. In 1911 the Austrian-Hungarian administration appointed Oskar Potiorek as the new military governor of Bosnia, who then declared a state of emergency. That means he dissolved the parliament, abandoned Serb cultural organizations and established a security force to trace out disloyal agitators.
On 28 June 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie visited Sarajevo and were shot by Gavrilo Princip, who later said that “as future Sovereign he would have prevented our union by carrying through certain reforms.”xxi
Archduke Franz Ferdinand´s plans for the future structure of the monarchy would most probably granted more autonomy for the different territories and/or ethnic groups, such as the South Slavs. He was rumored to have been in favor of a “trialistic” solution. That is to say, he wanted to establish a third part of the Empire beside the Austrian and Hungarian ones under South Slav control with perhaps Zagreb as capital. However, it was clear that the Habsburg-Monarchy couldn´t survive without a change of the Empire´s inner structure. During the First World War in 1918 the then-governor of Bosnia-Herzegovina Stjepan Sarkotić Lovćenski submitted the idea of a “double sub-dualism” in purpose to solve the South Slav question in the Monarchy. The plan was to organize the Empire into an Austrian-Croatian part and a Hungarian-Serbian part, while the territories of Bosnia-Herzegovina would have been divided between these two halves.xxii These efforts were made too late, as the armistice was signed some month afterwards. Finally the Paris Peace talks in 1919 sealed the end of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The Yugoslav-ideology was put into practice by pronouncing the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which lasted until the Second World War. After 1945 it was reestablished as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, when it broke up under a bloody war in the 90s of the last century.
THE LEGACY OF THE HABSBURG-ERA
“Can the Subaltern Speak?” Gayatri Spivak
The consideration of the Habsburg era is marked by two poles. On the one hand, the romantic Habsburg myth drawing a picture of the peaceful coexistence of different peoples in the heart of Europe, on the other hand the Monarchy is considered as an oppressive hegemonic power. Bosnia-Herzegovina is today a "battle arena" of these different views of history. While for some Bosnians, particularly for Serbs the Austrian-Hungarian occupation represents a dark time of national suppression, others see the Habsburg-era as a period of a broad modernization campaign and a sort of “Europeanization”. The Bosnian historian Ivan Lovrenović briefly describes the Austrian-Hungarian policy as follows:
“The inherited burden and oppositions (heavy enough in themselves, but even more pronounced as a refined means of the Austro-Hungarian colonial politics) came to light as never before, but at the same time, positive historical processes, as the inevitable consequence of the modernization and Europeanization of society, which the new regime stimulated as much as it needed it itself, accelerated.” xxiii
Lovrenović is touching three interesting points. First of all he mentions the merits of the Austrian- Hungarian period in Bosnia, such as a broad modernization campaign, including an upgrade of among others the transporting system, the industry, the administrative system as well as the establishment of several cultural institutions, the provincial parliament and the construction of new schools. At the same time, he notes that all these measures have only taken place to that extent in which it was necessary and needed. The construction of the railroad system had primarily strategic and military reasons, the industry had the purpose to profit as much as possible from the new territories and the school system was quite moderately advanced, so that after the Austrian-Hungarian administration 88% of the people in Bosnia-Herzegovina were still illiterate.
The second thing concerns the Austrian-Hungarian policy regarding the national issue in Bosnia- Herzegovina. The period under the Double Eagle stands for the national awakening of the different ethnic groups in Bosnia, especially of the Bosniaks and Serbs. There is no doubt that the policy of the Imperial and Royal administration influenced the national development of the ethnic groups like a catalyzer. There is for instance the feudal system, where unfree Christian tenants were economically tied to Muslim landowners. Instead of changing this system as part of the modernization campaign to stabilize the social situation and to relieve ethnic tension, the Monarchy decided to modify this system for the Empire´s political goals. It is questionable if the Monarchy, also due to the dualistic system and the interests of both parts of the Empire, which always had to be taken into consideration, had an actual strategy how to deal with the complex situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina to prevent losing control. According to the American historian Ian Sethre the Monarchy even tried a “strategy of playing these divergent national groups off of one another to prevent the establishment of a cogent multiethnic challenge to Austrian hegemony.”xxiv Although the Austrian-Hungarian impact on the national issue should not be underestimated, the Ottoman Empire left a very specific inheritance. The society of the Ottoman Empire was based on the so-called “millet system”. That is to say, religious freedom was guaranteed because every religion was organized as millet with administrative and legal self-determination. This society was organized for centuries in religious communities, so that the membership to a community was defined through the religious confession. The millet concept shaped through many hundred years a certain “millet-mentality” (Todorova). This certain mentality in conjunction with the Western concept of “nation” most probably determined as one important fact for instance the today's society in the former Yugoslavia and has proven its political destructive force in the 90ies of the 20th century. The third point is about the question, if Bosnia-Herzegovina could be described as a colony of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Since this question would need a longer discourse as it is possible in this article, there is just one thing to add: Bosnia did have a provincial parliament, established in 1910, but never was represented in the parliament in Vienna (“Reichsrat”) or in Budapest due to the neutrality of the Bosnian territory. The people of Bosnia-Herzegovina never had the chance to shape politics equally together with the other people of the Monarchy.
If we look at present-day Bosnia-Herzegovina one might find some parallels with the Austrian- Hungarian period. The one thing maintains since more than hundred years is the national question. Similar to the “Sabor” in 1910, the various parliaments are organized after the ethnic principle. This principle not only affects the parliament but all spheres of the society. Divided into two halves the Bosnian state is totally paralyzed in politics as well as in economics. 100 years after the First World War the time has come to learn from history in order to strengthen the European Idea. In this sense it is worthwhile to consider the Austrian-Hungarian Empire as the most European pre-War Empire with a supranational legacy: What can we learn? One of the most important and challenging tasks of the Habsburg Monarchy was certainly the South Slav Question – it even turned out to be most crucial one for its future. Today the European Union has to realize the importance of the post-conflict Balkans for a secure European future. Integration is the key word. The European process of integration must include the core of the “South Slav Question”: Bosnia-Herzegovina. For this purpose it is of most urgency to change the ethnic system in Bosnia, as it would have been then back in the 1900is to carry out a land reform.
In 2014 the EU should use the opportunity of the anniversary to start a broad campaign to change Bosnia-Herzegovina and to integrate it into the European community. What Bosnia-Herzegovina needs is active politics of “Europeanization”, that means real and honest efforts of modernization, smoothing the way to defuse ethnic tension. The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy answered in an interview with the German newspaper “FAZ”: “Bosnia was Europe in miniature. Maybe Europe, as it turned away and left the little Bosnia to die, admitted that his own ideal image, his own ego ideal was murdered.”xxv
Time to set priorities.
i „Der Kongreß zur friedlichen Schlichtung der orientalischen Wirren hat heute in feierlicher Weise begonnen; es ist der dritte große Kongreß in diesem Jahrhundert, welcher heute in Berlin zusammentrat, und wie der Wiener Kongreß von 1815, der Pariser von 1856, so wird auch der Kongreß von 1878 die Landkarte unseres Welttheils wesentlich umgestalten.“, Neue Freie Presse, Vienna, June 14, 1878, p. 1. ii „Leider wäre es aber törichtes Hoffen, den Berliner Vertrag als die Pforte zu betrachten, durch die Europa in das Thal des ewigen Friedens eingeht. Die ganze Arbeit des Kongresses ist Stückwerk, nur für die allernächste Zeit berechnet, ohne Dauer und Festigkeit.“, Neue Freie Presse, Vienna, July 14, 1878, p. 1. iii Sethre, Ian: THE EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN THE ERA OF MODERNIZATION: Nation-Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ISethre1/. iv Fournier, August: Wie wir zu Bosnien kamen. (Vienna: Verlag von Christoph Reisser´s Söhne, 1909), p. 4-5. v „Im Übrigen ist die Bevölkerung Bosniens sowohl als der Herzegowina ein kräftiger, schöner Volksschlag; insbesondere der Herzegowiner gleicht in seinem ganzen Habitus dem Dalmatiner, einer notorisch tüchtigen Menschenrasse. Es fragt sich nur, ob es leicht gelingen wird, diese im Volkscharakter schlummernde Tüchtigkeit für Österreich auszunützen, ob nicht vielmehr besorgt werden muss, daß so ziemlich alles, was an Energie und Charakter da unten auszutreiben ist, sich gegen den neuen Herrn, gegen uns wenden wird.“, Neue Freie Presse, July 13, 1878, p. 2. vi Kipling, Rudyard, qtd. in: Berdan, Helga: Die Machtpolitik Österreich-Ungarns und der Eisenbahnbau in Bosnien-Herzegowina 1872-1914, accessed April 02, 2014, http://othes.univie.ac.at/417/, p. 34. vii Sethre, Ian: THE EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN THE ERA OF MODERNIZATION: Nation-Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ISethre1/, p. 4. viii Suppan, Arnold: Zur Frage eines österreichisch-ungarischen Imperialismus in Südosteuropa: Regierungspolitik und öffentliche Meinung um die Annexion Bosniens und der Herzegowina, in Die Donaumonarchie und die südslawische Frage von 1848 bis 1918, ed. Adam Wandruszka et al. (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978), p. 124. ix Sethre, Ian: THE EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN THE ERA OF MODERNIZATION: Nation-Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ISethre1/, p. 4. x cf. Fournier, August: Wie wir zu Bosnien kamen. (Vienna: Verlag von Christoph Reisser´s Söhne, 1909), p.66. xi Sethre, Ian: THE EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN THE ERA OF MODERNIZATION: Nation-Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ISethre1/, p. 5. xii Muharemović, Rijad: Ursachen der verspäteten Nationalisierung der bosnischen Muslime, accessed April 02, 2014, http://othes.univie.ac.at/25904/, p. 40. xiii Donia, Robert J.: The Proximate Colony, accessed April 06, 2014, www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/rdonia1.pdf , p. 2. xiv Friedman, Francine, qtd. in: Sethre, Ian: THE EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN THE ERA OF MODERNIZATION: Nation-Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ISethre1/, p. 5. xv Donia, Robert J.: The Proximate Colony, accessed April 06, 2014, www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/rdonia1.pdf , p. 2. xvi Radušić, Edin: Istorija parlamentarizma u BiH, accessed 23 March, 2014, https://www.parlament.ba/istorija/default.aspx?id=27873&langTag=bs-BA&pril=b xvii Sethre, Ian: THE EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN THE ERA OF MODERNIZATION: Nation-Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ISethre1/, p. 7. xviii Suppan, Arnold: Zur Frage eines österreichisch-ungarischen Imperialismus in Südosteuropa: Regierungspolitik und öffentliche Meinung um die Annexion Bosniens und der Herzegowina, in Die Donaumonarchie und die südslawische Frage von 1848 bis 1918, ed. Adam Wandruszka et al. (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978), p. 134. xix Zwitter, Fran in: Diskussion zum Vortrag Suppan, in Die Donaumonarchie und die südslawische Frage von 1848 bis 1918, ed. Adam Wandruszka et al. (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978), p. 133. xx Suppan, Arnold: Zur Frage eines österreichisch-ungarischen Imperialismus in Südosteuropa: Regierungspolitik und öffentliche Meinung um die Annexion Bosniens und der Herzegowina, in Die Donaumonarchie und die südslawische Frage von 1848 bis 1918, ed. Adam Wandruszka et al. (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978), p. 136. xxi Princip, Gavrilo, qtd. in: Clark, Christopher: The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. (London: Penguin Books, 2013), p. 49. xxii Peters, Marc Stefan: Koncepcije Rješavanja Južnoslavenskog pitanja Stjepana Baruna Sarkotića, in: Međunarodna konferencija: Bosna i Hercegovina u okviru Austro-Ugarske 1878.-1918. (Zbornik radova); Sarajevo 2011, p. 142. xxiii Lovrenović, Ivan, qtd. in: Vervaet, Stijn: SOME HISTORIANS FROM FORMER YUGOSLAVIA ON THE AUSTROHUNGARIAN PERIOD IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (1878-1918). A Reality of Imperialism versus the the Golden Years of the Double Eagle?, accessed 26 March, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/SVervaet1/, p. 2. xxiv Sethre, Ian: THE EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN THE ERA OF MODERNIZATION: Nation-Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/fallstudie/ISethre1/, p. 1. xxv Lévy, Bernard-Henri: Bernard-Henri Lévy im Gespräch Reformen reichen nicht aus, um Europa zu retten, accessed 30 december 2012, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/bernard-henri-levy-im- gespraech-reformen-reichen-nicht-aus-um-europa-zu-retten-11965397.html