Historians have struggled to interpret the colonial status of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because the Habsburg Empire itself officially denied the idea of any colonization. This paper argues that MPs in the Hungarian sub-empire unanimously thought of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a colony between 1878 and 1918.

The conceptual boundaries in the late nineteenth century between "colonial" empires and the Russian, Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires was not clear cut. The Ottomans had their colonizing ventures in Yemen and what is now Libya, the Russians in Central Asia; Austria-Hungary took over the Ottoman province of Bosnia and treated it as something of a colony. These empires had their historic ways of dealing with local elites and adapted across their domains in flexible ways that complicated colonial-type relationships.

Cooper, Frederick: Epilogue. Beyond Empire?, in: Fibiger Bang et al (eds.): The Oxford World History of Empire. Volume 2: The Imperial Experience. Oxford, 2021. p. 1256.
Introduction
Text
If one takes a closer look at the colonial past of the European states at the turn of the century, only one empire’s place remains blank on the map. This white patch on the continent is none other than 
Austria-Hungary
deu. Österreich-Ungarn, deu. Donaumonarchie, deu. Doppelmonarchie, deu. Habsburgerreich, deu. Habsburgisches Reich, deu. Habsburgermonarchie, hun. Osztrák-Magyar Birodalom, eng. Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy, eng. Austrian-Hungarian Empire

Austria-Hungary (Hungarian: Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia), also known as Imperial and Royal Hungary Monarchy, was a historical state in Central and Southeastern Europe that existed from 1867 to 1918.

.1 The lack of relevant research on this issue can partly be traced back to the fact that the idea of being a colonial power did not fit into the former self-image of the 
Habsburg Empire
deu. Habsburgerreich, deu. Habsburgermonarchie, deu. Donaumonarchie, eng. Habsburg Realm, eng. Habsburg monarchy

The Habsburg Empire (also known as the Habsburg Monarchy or Danube Monarchy) refers to the territories and countries that were ruled by the rulers of the House of Habsburg or Habsburg-Lorraine in personal union from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 20th century - but did not form a unified state in the strict sense for a long time. It was not until 1804 that the Austrian Empire was founded as such, from which Austria-Hungary and the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy emerged in 1867.

The Habsburg Empire included a large number of smaller and larger countries and territories, most of which were summarized in several larger groups. In addition to the Archduchy of Austria and its subsidiary lands (including the duchies of Carinthia, Carniola, Salzburg and others), these included above all the so-called “Lands of the Bohemian Crown” and the “Lands of the Hungarian Crown”. In addition, there were numerous other territories and parts of the country, not least in the Balkans (including Bosnia and Herzegovina) due to the expansionist policies of the 19th century. In view of the numerous border shifts, territorial reorganizations and temporary territorial gains and losses, the Habsburg Empire was practically constantly subject to border and territorial changes.

From the late 18th century, most of the constituent states of the Habsburg Empire formed the so-called crown lands, which later received their own provincial orders. With the transformation of the empire into a dual Austro-Hungarian state (dual monarchy), the Kingdom of Hungary and the other lands of the Hungarian crown also ceased to be Austrian crown lands. Subsequently, they were also referred to as Transleithania in official parlance, all others (excluding Bosnia and Herzegovina) as Cisleithania.

. And after its collapse in 1918, the national historiographies and political elites of the successor states of the Danube Empire denied the possibility of a colonial past even more vehemently than the previous imperial propaganda had.2
 
Another reason for the lack of relevant research is that it is difficult to apply theories and perspectives related to colonialism to the former Danube Monarchy. On the one hand, the current theories were basically formulated through investigations of the colonial past of transatlantic and not East-European countries. On the other hand, the terminology of international diplomacy and law was far from being as uniform prior to 1914 as it has been suggested by international historiography. The Habsburg Empire, for instance, had its own imperial terminology and its own concepts, among other things, in connection with empire building and colonization.
That is why until now there have been so few publications that systematically scrutinize the colonial past of Austria-Hungary. However, there are some case studies, mostly related to the history of the Austro-Hungarian 
Bosnia and Herzegovina
srp. Босна и Херцеговина, srp. Bosna i Hercegovina, bos. Bosna i Hercegovina, hrv. Bosna i Hercegovina, eng. Bosnia–Herzegovina, deu. Bosnien und Herzegowina

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a federal state in south-eastern Europe. The country is inhabited by around 3 million people (2022: 3.23 million) and is divided into the political sub-regions of Republika Srpska, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brčko district. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s capital is Sarajevo. The country is part of the Balkan Peninsula and borders the Adriatic Sea. The Bosnians are the largest population group alongside the Serbs and Croats.

Geographically, the country is comprised of the historical regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose eventful political history is closely linked to the various historical neighboring states and their location in the Balkans. As early as the 15th century, southern Herzegovina and large parts of Bosnia belonged to the Ottoman Empire, which bordered the Christian Habsburg Empire to the north. At the end of the 19th century, both regions initially came under Austro-Hungarian financial administration, followed by the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908, which led to a political crisis. In 1914, regional freedom movements such as „Mlada Bosna“ („Young Bosnia“) were involved in the assassination of heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand (1863–1914), which ultimately led to the outbreak of the First World War (1914–1918) and the collapse of Austria-Hungary.

From 1918, Bosnia and Herzegovina belonged to the newly established “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” (1918–1929), which was known as the “Kingdom of Yugoslavia” from 1929, but fell as a result of German conquest in the Second World War in 1941. From 1945, the socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was part of the re-established, now communist Yugoslavia. In the context of the increasingly belligerent disintegration of the country during the Yugoslav Wars (1991–2001), Bosnia-Herzegovina was only able to gain its 1992 declared independence as a result of the three-year Bosnian War (1992–1995).

, based on which some historians refer to the Danube Monarchy as a colonial empire. Moreover, a comparative study of occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina and British India and British East Africa has begun.3
Austria-Hungary, as a colonial empire – an analytical approach
Text
The following investigation is based on empirical experience and facts dating from around the turn of the century. Firstly, while conducting research in the Austrian National Archive, one can often come across unpublished documents according to which the diplomats of the British Foreign Office and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarded the Habsburg Empire as a colonial power. And it is without doubt that the British and French diplomatic corps in the 19th century did know more about colonialism than the historians of 20th-21st century Central Europe, most of whom even today refuse to consider that the Danube Monarchy may have had a colonial past. Secondly, in the Institute Colonial International, founded in 1894 in Brussels, each country was assigned a number of seats that was in accordance with its supposed “colonial importance”. One of the member states was Austria-Hungary.4 Researchers of the Habsburg Empire even today tend to pass over the investigation of facts like this.
According to the above, one has reason to suppose that if Austria-Hungary was indeed a colonizing empire, then the evidence for this statement might also be proven by investigating the history of the Hungarian sub-empire. This paper scrutinizes the debates in the Hungarian House of Representatives in which the terms colony (gyarmat) and colonialization (gyarmatosítás) were used.
Occurrences of the term “colony” in the debates of the Hungarian House of Representatives
Text
When analyzing the ideas and vocabulary of the debates in the House of Representatives, three important observations can be made. On the one hand, it turned out that the word colony had many meanings in Hungarian political discourse and that the political concept of colonialism in Hungary was not of Western European origin, but had Central European roots. On the other hand, it has become clear that Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was occupied with the authorization of the Congress of the Great Powers in Berlin (1878), was considered an Austro-Hungarian colony in the Hungarian House of Representatives between 1878 and 1918. Thirdly, the question of how the Hungarian political and economic elite approached the issue of empire-building and colonialism after 1867 can be answered.
Between 1878 and 1914, the term colony or colonization was used in a total of 522 interpellations or speeches in the Hungarian House of Representatives. More than two-thirds of the interpellations were presented by politicians of the opposition parties, basically members of the Party of Independence and ’48th, which rejected the system of dualism.
Text
The various meanings of the word colony fall into eight categories. If one analyzes the relevant interpellations based on categories, then the first group is definitely made up of those that proved to be practically useless from the point of view of our investigation. Such categories were when the term colony was used as a synonym for settlement / site / establishment or diaspora; or when referring to the African and Asian colonies of other colonial powers; or perhaps when the speakers argued that the Danube Monarchy had no colonies. The reason is simple: based on the above statements, it only seems that the representatives viewed the world basically through the bipolar dichotomy of colonizer-colonized and saw no legal, political or economic difference between the British, French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch or Danish colonies or overseas dependencies. The term colony was a collective concept within which no different categories emerged. 
Political interpretation of the term “colony”
Text
The situation is quite different when we analyze the interpellations in which the 
Kingdom of Hungary
hun. Magyar Királyság, deu. Königreich Ungarn

The Kingdom of Hungary (Magyar Királyság) existed in changing borders since the year 1000. Already in the early modern period it fell to the Habsburg Monarchy, in which it later became the most important of the so-called Lands of the Hungarian Crown (also Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown of St. Stephen or, after 1867, also called the Hungarian half of the Empire). Unlike other Habsburg territories - such as the lands of the Bohemian Crown or the Archduchy of Austria itself - the Kingdom of Hungary never belonged to the Holy Roman Empire.

 was referred to as a colony of Austria (50.9%), in which occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina was considered an Austro-Hungarian colony (4.2%), or in which Austria-Hungary appears as an empire that aspired to acquire colonies at global level (7.4%). In these debates, the evolution of the Hungarian concept of colony and its semantic field can be very well investigated. The interpretation of the term colony used in the House of Representatives at the turn of the century, regardless of whether it referred to the word as a political, economic, philosophical or cultural concept, was rooted in the self-image of the Hungarians, or better said in a real or assumed historical situation. It was based on the assumption that the Kingdom of Hungary was in a colonial position within the Habsburg Empire prior to 1867. The political memory of this assumed or real historical situation was shared by both the governing and the opposition parties. The political interpretation of the term colony in regard to Hungary became theoretical in the speeches of one of the leaders of the national opposition, Ferenc Kossuth (son of Lajos Kossuth) between 1898 and 1901. During these years, Joint Foreign Minister Agenor Gołuchowski made an open attempt to develop Austria-Hungary into a great power with overseas colonies (Rio de Oro, Tianjin).5 Some elements of Kossuth’s interpretation had already existed before, but they came together for the first time in his speeches. According to the politician, a colony is an agrarian country producing agricultural and raw products that is economically dominated and controlled by a more industrialized state. Economic control is exercised by the more industrialized state as the sole proprietor of the customs and trade policy, which also enables it to create a safe market for its own manufactured goods in the colonized agrarian country.6 This interpretation of Kossuth remained basically unchanged in the debates in the Hungarian Parliament until 1914. (On the one hand, this definition described the relationship between Austria-Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and on the other hand, it can also be useful for the theorists dealing with the colonialism of our time.)
Scrutinizing the speeches in which the interpellators reflected on Austria-Hungary as an empire capable of launching global colonial actions (7.4%), and in which the term colony is used in connection with Bosnia-Herzegovina (4.2%), it can be clearly proven that between 1878 and 1918 the Hungarian political public (and the political and economic press as well) regarded Bosnia-Herzegovina as an Austro-Hungarian colony. The contributors, both opposition and government representatives, did not disagree on the question of whether or not the occupied provinces were colonies, but rather whether the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (compared to various British, French, German and Russian analogies) was a good colonizer and whether it was pursuing an appropriate colonial policy. Moreover, they reflected on the extent and manner to and in which the Kingdom of Hungary should participate in the tasks of the joint empire to be carried out in Bosnia, i.e. which goals the Hungarian political elite should pursue in their effort to participate in the governance of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Hungary takes on a colonial mission
Text
One of the unexpected consequences of the relevant debates (1898-1903) was that a major political campaign was launched in the 
Budapest

Budapest is the capital of Hungary and the largest city in the country with about 1.7 million inhabitants. It is located in central Hungary on the Danube River. Budapest was created in 1873 by the merger of the cities of Buda and Pest.

 parliament against the “despotic” governing practices of Benjámin Kállay, joint minister for finance, and the governor of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The opposition parties formally attacked the governor, but the relevant debate was actually about the direction in which the joint empire should develop in the future, and how the civilizing mission of the Hungarians should fit into the foreign political aspirations. The features and consequences of this debate in Hungary strongly resemble the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings (1788-1794) impeachment trial of Warren Hastings (1788-1794) Warren Hastings was the first governor-general of the East India Company in Bengal. In 1788 he was accused with corruption, abuse of power and use of violent political means in the British House of Commons. The prosecution was represented by Edmund Burke, who held the entire East India Company responsible for Hastings’ despotic policies. The parliamentary trial and the political, philosophical and social debate that ensued soon broadened, and in time became a two-issue debate: whether the British nation has the right to rule other nations, and if so, whether that power should be despotic or democratic. The speeches at the trial examined the relationship between liberal principles and human rights and the imperialism and colonialism of the state (whether the state can abuse its power over its subjects in conquered territories).  in Great Britain.
Text
Kállay’s policy was considered despotic by the opposition because it was not restricted by any legislation. According to Hungarian liberal thought, all states and empires without a constitution were despotic. 1867 marked a turning point in the life of Habsburg Central Europe because the Hungarian political elite succeeded in forcing the two states that made up the newly reorganized empire (Austria-Hungary), the Austrian Kaiserstaat and the Kingdom of Hungary, to continue to function on a constitutional basis. With this act, the Habsburg dynasty also broke with the practice of exercising unlimited power over the peoples of the empire it ruled. As Hungary civilized Austria by forcing it to establish a constitution in 1867, the main goal of the Hungarian civilizing mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina was to give the occupied provinces their own constitution. For the Hungarian opposition, constitutionality and the rule of law were the conditions for participating in the colonial governance of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Coming to the third point, it is important to state that, based on the parliamentary debates on colonialism, the claim of international historiography that the political and economic elites of the Hungarian sub-empire impeded or hindered the colonialization efforts of the joint Ministry of Foreign Affairs, can be clearly refuted.7 The social elite groups of the Hungarian sub-empire were, under three conditions, ready to support the imperialist and colonial policy of the joint empire. (1) The target area of this policy should not be Africa or Asia, but the Balkan Peninsula. (2) The foundations of the dualist system should not have to be renegotiated because of this policy, i.e. colonization should not become another joint issue, and should not receive a fourth joint ministry. (3) Finally, the term colonialism should never be used to refer to these ambitions.
Colonial mission and Hungarian national tradition
Text
Finally, the national opposition of the House of Representatives reconciled with the colonial aspirations, and came to actively support them, even after 1908. The reason is simple: they were able to connect colonial politics with the nationalist traditions of Hungarian liberalism. In the possibility of extending the Hungarian constitutional principles to Bosnia-Herzegovina, they no longer saw a rights-depriving expansion in line with the Habsburg absolutist traditions, but a rights-enhancing integration in line with the Hungarian liberal traditions. They believed they would modernize and civilize the inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina through colonization, and thus, in addition to expanding the European legal order, they would also fulfil their civilizing duties towards humanity.
Text
English translation: William Connor

Siehe auch