Die ungarische Revolution von 1848-49. Vergleichende Aspekte der Revolutionen in Ungarn und Deutschland by Holger s> Fischer (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 535 Fischer,Holger (ed.).Die ungarische Revolution voni848-49. Vergleichende Aspekte derRevolutionen in UngarnundDeutschland. Beitrage zur deutschen und europaischen Geschichte,27. VerlagKramer,Hamburg,I999. I98 pp. Notes. DM 58.oo. FOURTEENpapers read at a conference of the Finno-Ugrian Seminar, University of Hamburg, in May I998 are published here. In his preface the editor argues that the Hungarian revolution in I848 was an integral part of the European political transformation, and, further, that the German and Hungarianrevolutionsareworthcomparingbecause theyhad many common as well as some diversefeatures.They both aimed to democratize the political order, reform the social system and create the nation-state. While, however, the bourgeoisie was the leading force in Germany, in Hungary it was the nobility. Nor did the industrial workers play any role in Hungary. The chaptersdo not followup thesecomparativepoints:theyaremostlyconcerned with topics discussed exclusively either in relation to Germany or Hungary. Gunter WA'ollstein (Cologne), looking at German nationalism,rejectsthe view that it xvasleft wing, emancipationist and largely defensive before Bismarck and then became right wing, anti-liberal and chauvinistic. Hegemonic aspirationsto turn Germany into a Weltmacht alreadyplayed a central role in the politicsof Paulskirchein I848. Agnes Deak (Szeged) argues that although the principle of nationalitywas the driving force behind social transformationin the Habsburg Monarchy neither the nationalitiesin Hungary nor the Hungarianswanted to destroyit. The latter aimed to shift the centre of the Monarchy to Hungary while the Germanprovinceswould be partsof Grossdeutschlland a plan which Austrian Liberals like Victor Andrian-WNerburg (earlier a supporter of Hungarian reformers)strongly opposed. Magyarismus was isolated because of the Hungarian claim to a 'single political nation' although in I849 the government recogniizedthe languagerightsof non-Hungarians.BarbaraVogel (Hamburg) points out thathistorians(notwithstandingrecentresearch)stillunderestimate the importance of associations and clubs which were instrumental in mobilizing the population against the authorities in the towns and the counitrysidethroughout Germany. Elena Mannova (Bratislava)looks at the associations in Hungary, particularlyin the region which is today Slovakia. Elke Kleinan (Hamburg) writes about the participation of women in the Germani revolution (it was significant particularly in the Free Churches movements). Zsuzsa Kalla (Budapest)reviews the politics of the poet Sandor Pet6fi: the leader of the 'March Youth' was no friend of Kossuth. Gabor Erdody (Budapest)analyses the foreign policy of the Batthyany government whose plan to makeBuda the centre of the HabsburgMonarchy depended on Frankfurtbecoming the centreof a united Germany(andvice versa).The new orderin CentralEuropewas to be based on German-Hungarian alliance. Wolfgang Schwentker (The Hague) reviews European conservatism in I848, Zoltan Fonagy (Budapest) looks at the role the nobility played in Hungary, M\anfredHettling (Bielefeld)analysesBurgertum and civil society in Germany,AmbrusMiskolczy(Budapest)reviewstheissueofJewish emancipation in Hungary, Christof Dipper (Darmstadt) the peasant question in 536 SEER, 79, 3, 200I Germany, Vilmos Heiszler (Budapest)the same topic in Hungary, and in the last chapter Peter Borowsky(Hamburg) describes the revolution in his own town. All in all, only three chapters, Agnes Deak, Gunter Wollstein and Gabor Erd6dy'sdeal with comparativesubjects.The volume exhibitsa rathertypical weakness of conference papers thrown together after the event: the parts do not reallycohere.As the editorobservedin hispreface,the comparativepoints were well explored at the conference. A summary of what emerged in these discussions might have been included in the volume or a comprehensive introductioncould have broughtthe chapterstogether.In itspresentformthe contribution of this compendium rests on fourteen short individual items. Even so theyoffersome insightsinto the currentscholarlyconcernsin the ever green subjectof the I848 revolutions. London LASZL6 PETER Kagan, FrederickW. TheMilitagy Reforms ofJNicholas 1. TheOrigins oftheModern RussianArmy.Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, I999. xii+337 pp. Notes. Bibliography.Index. ?40.??. THE 'iron tsar' a reformer?The term need not mean liberal or progressive, explains FrederickW. Kagan of the US Military Academy, and so even conservative measures designed to buttress autocracy may legitimately be accounted reforms. Judged in this light, Nicholas I deserves credit for centralizing the military administration (I832-36) and placing it on a firm legal basis by promulgating a systematicdigest of army regulations in I838. Though certainlyimportant, these achievements were scarcelyon a par with those of D. A. Miliutin in the next reign, and to claim that 'Russia'smilitary administration was [... .] revolutionized by Nicholas's policies' (p. 6) goes much too far...