Search

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The study examines the early incorporation of reinforced concrete in the architecture of Historicism in Austria–Hungary. Spanning the late 19th to early 20th centuries, the research illuminates the period's stylistic pluralism and the transformative impact of reinforced concrete. The paper examines the integration of reinforced concrete into traditional forms, providing detailed case studies and architectural examples. It navigates through various aspects, including the evolution of reinforced concrete during the historicist period, its adoption in notable structures, and its documentation in contemporary literature. Case studies, such as the Lutheran Church in Battyánd (now Puconci, Slovenia), the Roman Catholic Church in Topolya (now Bačka Topola, Serbia), and the former Synagogue in Český Krumlov, Czechia, showcase the innovative ways reinforced concrete addressed structural challenges while adhering to historicist aesthetics. The research concludes by reflecting on the transformative role of reinforced concrete in challenging the conventions of Historicism, paving the way for modern architectural expressions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the foreign policy views of Prince Vladimir P. Meshchersky (1839–1914), a famous Russian conservative political writer. Three articles by Meshchersky are introduced into scientific circulation. They were published on the eve of the First World War in the Vienna newspaper Neue Freie Presse and aimed at changing public opinion in Austria-Hungary regarding the foreign policy of the Russian emperor. Wishing to prevent the impending military conflict with Germany and Austria-Hungary, the prince sought to convince readers of the influential Vienna newspaper of the indifference of a significant part of Russian society to the Balkan issue, the absence of Germanophobia among most representatives of the Russian elite, and peacefulness of the tsar and the Russian Foreign Ministry. Laying the main blame for the aggravation of Russo-German relations on the nationalist-minded press, which formed the public opinion of European countries, as well as on the adventurism of Balkan politicians, Meshchersky called on Vienna and Berlin to be reasonable, convincing them that an alliance between Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey should be the guarantor of European peace and the pacification of the Balkans. It is shown that the series of articles by Meshchersky, published in German a few months before the outbreak of World War I, largely coincided with the theses of the famous P. Durnovo Memorandum as well as with the views of a significant part of the Russian right-wingers of the early 20th century who opposed the aggravation of relations with Germany and Austria-Hungary over the Balkan issue and preferred good-neighborly relations with these countries. Meshchersky’s articles are also of undoubted interest as one of the latest attempts by the Russian conservative camp to change the foreign policy course taken by St Petersburg, Berlin, and Vienna. Meshchersky’s publications in the Austrian press are interesting for many valuable observations and are a vivid illustration of the pre-war sentiments of the part of Russian society that made desperate attempts to prevent Russia from being drawn into conflict with continental European monarchies on the eve of the war.

Copyright of Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The second half of the nineteenth century was an era of mass labour migration in Europe, when the Atlantic route became of paramount importance alongside intra-continental mobility. From the last third of the century Italy and Hungary were among the most important emigrating countries. By this time changes in the regulation of migration had begun to take place with the development of stronger state control, which affected mobility and the relationship between emigrants and transporters. The question also arose as to whether and how the large emigrating states could ensure the loyalty of their emigrant citizens and control them en route and in the destination states. The regulatory process which began in the 1880s gradually moved from an administrative approach to the development of more comprehensive legal sources covering more and more aspects of emigration with the Hungarian government making use of foreign solutions, particularly the Italian Emigration Act of 1901. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Electronic Turkish Studies is the property of Electronic Turkish Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Vladimir Putin's legitimation of Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine raises questions about traditional understandings of nation and empire. Should we contrast the two in terms of values and practices? In this case, Putin uses both nationalist and Imperialist rhetoric to justify his actions. My essay questions how we understand nation and empire using the example of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. How did this empire develop laws, institutions and administrative practices to manage conflicts and claims around language use and nationalism? How did Austria's governments rule a multi-lingual, multi-confessional society effectively, without resorting to brutal policies of nationalization? When nationalist conflicts arose in different settings, how and why did they originate? I conclude that in European terms, Imperial Austria and even nationalist Hungary apparently managed daily-life issues around diverse language use and religious practice far more humanely and effectively than did the successor nation states after 1918. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Historia Contemporanea is the property of Historia Contemporania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, it brought many social and cultural changes. One of them was suppressing the widespread culture of holding and carrying arms that existed in Ottoman Bosnia. Holding arms was still possible but under strict control. Firearm holders were, therefore, a very tiny, privileged group inside society. In this paper, we analyze the ethnic/religious and social structure of this group in the case of the Tuzla Circle in 1904. How large was this group? Were there differences along ethnic and social lines in terms of firearm holding rates? These are the key questions we are seeking answers to in this paper, with an aim to get the first insight into the broader picture of firearm holding in the entire province under the Monarchy’s control.

What happens when nation-builders in an independent state imagine themselves to have fallen behind kinfolk living under imperial oppression, and how does this affect their vision of a future of national unity? This paper explores the shapes that critical self-comparison could take among Romanians in the Kingdom of Romania around the turn of the twentieth century by considering three interconnected vignettes. First, it outlines the context in which politicized notions of mutual interdependence between the Kingdom and Transylvania allowed for comparison as self-criticism to take root and gain salience in the public sphere. It explores the implications that comparison as self-criticism had on ascribing agency and apportioning blame for causes of the disparity between state and kinfolk. Second, it examines two Transylvanian travelogues produced by major political and cultural figures on the fringes of the Romanian establishment, and, in a reflexive move, contrasts their politics of comparison. Third, it offers a grassroots perspective on how the travelogues of teachers and priests, as rank-and-file nation-builders, expressed these topoi. The article contributes to the nascent trend of considering historical comparisons in actors' own terms, and as historical processes unto themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Proceedings of Matica Srpska for History / Zbornik Matice Srpske za Istoriju is the property of Matica srpska and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of German as a Foreign Language is the property of German as a Foreign Language and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Social Sciences & Humanities Studies / Društvene i Humanističke Studije (DHS) is the property of Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Tuzla and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The submitted study analyses the legislative and organisational-political framework in building up a health system in Czechoslovakia, specifically in the historical lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia) in the first decade of its existence using unpublished and published sources and academic publications. Not only did the Czechoslovak health system build on its predecessor in the Habsburg Monarchy, but in addition almost immediately following the establishment of the new state in 1918, adopted legislation began the construction of a modern and respected healthcare system in terms of both organisation and funding.

The late Habsburg period (1867-1918) created a constitutional dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. This paper discusses the role of psychiatry in Cisleithania, both as a developing profession and as a distinct 'policy field'. Tension between psychiatry's academic professionalisation and the creation of public institutions as signature projects by individual crownlands created complex relationships between psychiatry and politics. In federalist Cisleithania, psychiatrists became very 'political': whether employed by the state or a crownland influenced their position on policy, despite claiming that their expert knowledge was 'scientific' and 'objective'. The conflicts between asylum-based and academic psychiatrists mirrored those between the central state and the crownlands. This led to intractable delays in mental health law reform, eventually resolved by Imperial decree in 1916., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.