Elisabeth Haid
The clash between “two worlds”: support of the war in Austrian and in Russian
newspapers in the First World War
In August 1914, a wave of enthusiasm for war swept over Europe and inspired especially the
middle classes. In this process newspapers played an important role. This enthusiasm, on the
one hand, was reflected in media coverage. On the other hand, media coverage stoked the
enthusiasm for war. Press reporting ranged between an enthusiasm of the moment and selective
propaganda campaigns, which supported the interest of the state and motivated the people for
war. Comments against the war were suppressed by censorships. The aim of this paper is to
trace such pro-war press campaigns in Austrian and in Russian newspapers of different political
orientation.
In general, Austrian and Russian press reporting resembled each other in many respects. In
some cases differences between newspapers of different political orientation seem to be more
significant than differences between Austrian and Russian press reporting. On the one hand
newspapers slightly differed in their attitudes towards the war. In both countries several
newspapers, for example the Austrian conservative newspaper Reichspost, advocated a military
intervention already during the July Crisis. Others, like the Russian liberal newspaper Reč’,
initially argued for avoiding an armed conflict. For this reason Reč’ was temporary suppressed
after the outbreak of war. However, two days later it reappeared after an appeal by the editors
to the Commander in Chief promising “to contribute to the unification of Russian society”.
Notwithstanding its previous pacifistic attitudes, Reč’ now joined in the patriotic rhetoric
supporting the war. Socialist newspapers, which disapproved the war, were not permitted to
appear in Russia until the February Revolution of 1917. The Viennese socialist newspaper
Arbeiterzeitung expressed a moderate enthusiasm for war in August 1914.
On the other hand the political orientation influenced the line of reasoning. Based on the press
coverage in the capitals of the two Empires, I will compare different political, cultural and
religious conceptions, supporting the war. I will illustrate the different argumentative strategies
on the basis of the reporting on Galicia as scene of the clash between the Russian and Austrian
Empires.
Although Galicia clearly ranked below the Balkans in public attention before the war, from a
political point of view this multicultural border province was a key issue in the relations
between Austria and Russia already in the pre-war period. The tensions relating to Galicia
originated from its strategic importance as well as from nationality issues concerning the so
called Polish and Ukrainian “questions”. With the outbreak of war, however, press reporting
started to pay a great deal of attention to this region, where one of the first major battles of
World War I evolved. Galicia was affected by multiple boundary changes. Large parts of Eastern
Galicia were conquered by the Russian army twice, in autumn 1914 and in summer 1916 and
remained under Russian occupation for several months. In press reporting, Galicia on the one
hand became an important war aim, which especially was in the focus of Russian nationalist
newspapers. On the other hand it was seen as an important theater of war, i.e. as the scene of the
clash of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empire.
In the first days after the declaration of war both Austrian and Russian newspapers
predominantly emphasized the defensive character of the war, laying blame for the cause of the
war on the enemy. Russian press reporting underlined that it was Austria-Hungary who
declared the war on Russia. Citing the manifesto of the tsar, they blamed Austria-Hungary for
being “the initiator of the global disturbances”. In contrast Austrian newspapers presented
Russia as the aggressor suspecting it of being the initiator of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination.
They supposed that Russia’s main goal in the war was to annihilate the Habsburg Monarchy.
Both Russian and Austrian press reporting appealed to patriotic feelings for the defense of the
home country.
However, pretty soon press campaigns supporting the war referred on defensive as well as on
offensive war aims. They mentioned specific territorial claims as well as intensions to weaken
the enemy and to consolidate one’s own position in Europe. In doing so they frequently idealized
these aims as moral goals and hyperbolized the war as a clash between two opposite worlds. In
this respect the Austrian and the Russian press attached a particular importance to the struggle
between the two Empires. They emphasized the absolute imperative to defend one’s own
“world” and justified the conquest of territory as a moral commitment in terms of a civilizing
mission or a struggle for liberation from a foreign “yoke”. Conceptions about a deep antagonism
between the warring parties can be found in newspapers of different political orientation.
However, they highlighted different aspects of this “dichotomy”.
In the conservative press religion played an important role in order to motivate the people for
war. Both Austrian and Russian newspapers expressed their confidence in the divine succor for
the war and referred to the divine right of their Emperor. Furthermore religion was an
important criterion to define the boundary of “one’s own world” and was thought to strengthen
the unity of the state. In this respect conservative press reporting presented the clash between
the Austrian and the Russian Empires in terms of an antagonism between Catholicism and
Orthodoxy. According to this view the war was also a struggle of faith. Concerning this matter
Austrian and Russian newspapers often referred to the religious situation in Galicia, accusing the
enemy of corruptive religious propaganda or proselytism in this multi-denominational border
region. Russian nationalists based their justification for the requested conquest of Eastern
Galicia and its incorporation into the Russian Empire largely on the Greek-Catholics in Galicia
whom they considered to be in fact orthodox. They appealed for the “liberation” of the “orthodox
brothers”, which were suppressed by Catholic Poles and Austrians. However, this antagonism
between Catholicism and Orthodoxy often was closely connected to cultural or national
conceptions.
Secular models of this dichotomy were common in newspapers of virtually all political
orientations. Austrian newspapers based their cultural demarcations mainly on the opposition
of “civilization” and “barbarism”. They contrasted “European”, “western civilization” with
“barbarian”, “Asian” Russia, arguing with religion and history as well as with literacy rate,
democracy and national consciousness as attributes of “the West”. Accordingly they motivated
the people for the war against Russia in means of the idea of a defensive war against the “threat
from the east”. They warned about the “expansionist ideology” of Panslavism or a new “Mongol
invasion” and presented the Central Powers as a Bulwark of Europe and its culture. Although the
idea of a defensive war played a crucial role in press reporting, Austrian newspapers justified
also offensive war aims in means of a struggle between “civilization” and “barbarism”. They
appealed for the liberation of “European peoples” like the Poles from the dominance of the
Russian “barbarians”, for their reunification with Europe and for the promotion of “western
values” and democracy. Some articles aimed for the liberation even of the Russian people from
autocracy. Liberal newspapers and the socialist Arbeiterzeitung especially highlighted the goal of
the struggle against despotism.
Likewise Russian newspapers used cultural conceptions in order to support defensive as well as
offensive war aims. They predominantly argued with an antagonism between an aggressive
“Germanic world” and a harmonious “Slavic world”. They warned about the German „thrust
toward the East” and promoted a union of all Slavs and their liberation from the “AustrianGerman yoke”. Concrete conceptions of the unity of the Slavs, however, differed depending on
political orientation. While the right-wing press favoured the idea of a Russian hegemony and
suspected the Polish and the Ukrainian national movements of pursuing a policy of separatism,
liberals advocated Slavic solidarity on the basis of nationality rights. Whereas some liberal
newspapers recognized the rights of nationalities in Habsburg Monarchy to a certain degree and
predominantly criticized the Germanisation policies of the German Empire, some right-wing
papers mainly opposed the multicultural Austrian Empire. They accused the Austrian authorities
of initiating “separatist” national movements among the Slavs in order to divide the Slavic
people to weaken it and to protect the dominance of Germans and Jews, according to the maxim
divide et impera (divide and rule).
Also from a German point of view the war frequently was described as a struggle for existence
between the „Germanic World“ and the „Slavic World“. This idea was popular among German
nationalists in Austria as well. However, Austrian authorities rejected this concept, because of
the high percentage of Slavs within the Habsburg Monarchy. Therefore, in Austrian press
reporting the antagonism between Germans and Slavs hardly played any role.
Besides these comprehensive concepts of two opposite worlds, both multinational Empires
concretely appealed to national feelings of different nationalities within their own and the
enemy’s state. Indeed appeals to the Poles, Ukrainians or “Galician Russians” often tied in with
these dichotomous concepts inasmuch as they conveyed a sense of belonging to the “western
civilization” or the “Slavic world”. On the other hand, Austria and Russia tried to motivate ethnic
minorities for the war by promising to fulfill their national desires. An example is the Manifesto
to the Polish Nation by Grand Duke Nicholas who promised the re-unification of the Polish lands
under the patronage of the Russian Tsar and autonomy to the Poles. Other examples are the
creation of the Polish Legions as an independent formation of the Austro-Hungarian Army and
the Act of 5th November of 1916 (the declaration of Emperors Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz
Joseph of Austria promising the creation of the Kingdom of Poland out of territory of Russian
Poland). Furthermore Austrian newspapers pointed to the anti-Ukrainian policies of the Russian
Empire in order to win the Ruthenians/Ukrainians over for the cause of the Central Powers.
Russian newspapers, on the other hand, were divided about the “Ukrainian question”. Russian
nationalists campaigned for the “re-unification of the Rus’” including Eastern Galicia and for the
“liberation” of the “Galician Russians”. In doing so they counted on a Russian national identity of
the Galician Ruthenians as well as on the compassion of the Russians for their “suppressed
Galician brothers”. The liberal Reč’, in contrast, criticized Russia’s nationality politics, which
suppressed the Ukrainian national movement in Russia as well as in occupied Galicia. Although
the liberal newspaper rejected the pretensions of Russian nationalists, it supported the war
against the Central powers, raising hopes that Russian nationality politics would change under
the influence of the Western Allies and that Russia would become a real protector of the
nationality rights of all Slavs.
To conclude: Austrian and Russian newspapers of different political orientation supported the
war to varying degrees. They referred on defensive as well as on offensive war aims, on the
interests of the state or of a certain civilization as well as on the interests of certain nationalities.
They frequently idealized these aims as moral goals in terms of a civilizing mission or a struggle
for national liberation. Press reporting relied on different political, cultural, religious and
national conceptions. The various arguments sometimes conflicted, but often complemented and
supported one another.